So this guy is coming to speak on my campus

But, he might not be able to because he’s said some bad things…
Then he said this a week ago to clarify
This week our chancellor is reviewing the issue and will make a statement tomorrow, (the 9th), deciding once and for all if the guy will be allowed to speak. Since I go to a state school (yes fling the jokes right now) I really doubt they would legally be able to bar him from speaking here. They could say it’s due to safety concerns, but clear and present danger is a pretty hard thing to prove.
As for my personal feelings on the matter, I see his point to a certain degree, but to call every single person who was killed that day akin to some Nazi is just a stupid blanket statement.

Well, let’s put it this way: Were you really planning on going to see him, and are you really disappointed that he’s not coming?

Truthfully, the second link you posted isn’t all that nasty… I think people did take his comments out of context and he used a very unfortunate and easily quoted analogy which wasn’t exactly what he meant. Still, it’s not a very popular point of view, especially for people whose friends or family died in 9/11.

Freedom of speech is a difficult thing. There’s no such thing as true freedom of speech, or people would be perfectly fine going around claiming that particular people should be murdered because of who they are - and yes, people should be smart enough not to listen, but they’re not. Germany was a bastion of civilization in 1938, and look what words did to them. So yes, there do have to be limits on free speech. The question, as always, is what those limits should be and how far we should go with them.

Personally, I’ve heard much worse than this plastered on York University walls. I don’t see all the huge fuss - at least when it’s taken into context and not just used as sound bites.

The court will mostly look at if the speech will cause problems. I’m actually taking a class on this and I’m not sure if his speech is protected, but I do see why it has been banned. Also AP, you are applying the clear and present danger test inaccurately. Also, proving clear and present danger depends on what scrutiny the courts use. It depends on how likely a speech is to cause a reaction. The ironic thing about speech, is that the more likely it is to cause of certain reaction, the more likely it is to be banned. Since there are so many people that are still alive that were affected by 9/11, it is more likely to cause a unwanted reaction. It is hard to tell if this speech falls under hate speech (which isn’t protected) or political speech (which is). One of the aspects of speech is the dgree and proximity. Such as Cid says he’s seen worse plastered on walls at school, that doesn’t have the right proximity. Such as I could get on a soap box on the corner of the street and sya many worse things than this guy will and my speech will be fine since it doesn’t have the right proximity and no one will take me seriously. However, if I was to go to a school and give the same speech, it coudl eb banned since it would have the right degree and proximity. This speech will have the right proximity, but maybe not the right degree. This is a very tough call. The court also has to look at the motive, which will pass since the guy doesn’t want to cause any panic, he just wants to get his message across, which it will pass. He isn’t trying to cause any commotion. It’ll all come down to the level of scutiny used, which I’m, not sure if it’ll be strict or intermediate (I think intermediate). I have more to say, but this is enough for now.

EDIT: As for AP’s edit comment. In one case I heard, I can’t remember what it was called, but it dealt with Skokie, Illinois (a town that had many Holocaust survivors) and American Nazis trying to march their for Hitler’s birthday. The Nazi lawyer was Jewish (he was from the ACLU and was the only one who would take the case) and said something like, “in order tt protect free speech, you ahve to protect the speech you hate most.”

In any case it’s going to go on. Someone here said they will host his speech off campus instead if he gets barred. You’re actually right about the clear and present danger thing. I guess I did misapply that.
The thing is his message isn’t even about the September 11th issue. It’s about racism against Native Americans. They might just say that it’s not possible to insure his safety. However, that’s my two cents and nothing more.

I’d go just to hear how he goes about stating his opinion.

I’ve been reading about Ward Churchill every day for the past two weeks now. The Rocky Mountain News has made a huge deal about his speech.

OK so he indirectly compares the people killed in the WTC to nazis and then some idiots go ahead and make a far stronger statement about themselves by threatening him for what he said.

Illinois Nazis.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Essentially, the Post/Rocky Mountain News is taking things he said out of context. As is most other news organizations.

And CU isn’t too happy with Churchill, either. But that doesn’t mean they should try to take his right to speak freely from him in other public forums. CU has other shit to worry about, as they have acquired an extremely bad reputation in the last year.

Well, he either hates those people who were too busy “braying into their cell phones” to notice their newfound status as “little Eichmanns,” or he thinks nothing is wrong with being a Nazi so long as you only make the trains run on time.

Either way not a really savory individual. Yep, a real jewel.

By the way Nick, nice avatar.

[EDIT] I should add that Churchill implies in his clarification that the WTC and Pentagon should be considerd to be mititary targets, without mentioning that said targets were not attacked by anything resembling a military (that is, as the Geneva Conventions define one).[/EDIT]

The “little Eichmanns” comment could be political since he was someone who didn’t directly do bad things, but aided those who did. With that saying, he is just saying that people of 9/11 are he just aiding some of the bad things America is doing, which is a point of view. I think that he is bit extreme, but it is a point of view. This guy has a little bit more freedom ince we aren’t in an official war, but we do have the Patriot Act. His statements border on hate speech if anything; I’m just not sure.

Thanks for the comment about the avatar.

…I see nothing in either of those links that I’d accuse of being hate speech. The analogy to Eichman is a good one, as far as I can tell. It’s using the ultimate example of something (in this case impassionate beaurocracy that harms many, many people) to illustrate shared features in a current group. Sans the knee-jerk reactions that happen whenever people mention anything Nazi-related, that interfere with any meaningful study of the subject, I don’t see the problem with the metaphor…and the misenterpretation of it is more the fault of the ones who did so than the one who said it.

Edit: Changed “crimes” to “speech”, which is what it was meant to be in the first place.

I said hate speech, not hate crimes. There is a pretty big and significant difference between the two.

Booo, hiss. Ahem, go Bruins!

I really wonder how much of a safety concern there is. You’d have to be a pretty offensive speaker to warrant that kind of measure. Just today on campus we had our infamous self-hating Jew preaching to a huge circle of people on one of the major routes through campus. This guy says shit like “the Jews deserved the Holocaust”, and I’m pretty sure he just says it to get people riled up and get attention. And even this guy doesn’t cause riots or anything.

Unless you consider controversial statements to be unsafe, and I know plenty of people do, I see no reason to stop the speaker in question from giving his shpiel.

That guy’s speech is protected since it doesn’t have the right proximity. He is just doing it himself and it isn’t sanctioned by the school. No one takes him seriously, which is why it is fine. The guy in the article would be making an actual organized speech with a greater chance of having an affect. However, I was thinking and his speech might be protected (partly because of his clarification) since it shows his motive (which is one of the thigns the courts look at).