Freedom of Speech 

I have a really fun issue to deal with now. Thanks to this post at Tongue Tied, we have yet another example of unconstitutional free speech violation on campus. The story in question is a couple weeks old, but I covers it when I finds it.

According to an article from the Georgetown Hoya entitled Anti-Gay Protester Removed From Red Square for 'Offensive Speech', certain types of speech aren't protected. According to the article:

The Department of Public Safety removed an individual from Red Square who was distributing offensive material against homosexuality on Nov. 20...They also solicited signatures on a petition that requested an overturn of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

Sounds good so far, doesn't it? A group presents a view that doesn't match the views of the university, so they're kicked out. Actually, these people weren't even associated with the school, according to the article, so why exactly did Public frickin' Safety have to get involved? Do they consider them a threat to someone? Here's more:

Red Square is a free speech zone for the campus community,” [Todd Olson, interim vice president of student affairs] said. “Even given that, the messages this group was espousing were, in our view, grossly offensive and inflammatory and thus not protected in any case.

Do you hear that? It's the sound of contradiction! "This is a free speech zone, but this particular kind of free speech makes some people uncomfortable. We can't have that. What? Yes, I know we're always saying that students should move out of their 'comfort zone' and embrace diversity, but you're not listening! It was OFFENSIVE!"

This is wrong. If you designate an area as a "free speech zone" (which, I might add, is unconstitutional in the first place because it suggests that America itself isn't one), you can't suddenly decide that some types of speech aren't protected. Want more? I'll give you more:

Olson’s e-mail emphasized that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community enjoys “the right to study, work, and live in a campus environment of respect and protection,” he wrote. “Intolerance and invective have no place at Georgetown. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, we live our commitment to respect, tolerance, inclusion, and care for the whole person.”

"...Unless they disagree with us, in which case, they're bigots and must be removed before they endanger our valuable LGBTQ community." This gets even better, if you can believe that. Check out a few quotes from people they interviewed:

Elena Stewart (SFS ’07), who identified herself as bisexual, confronted the protesters after they asked her to sign their petition. “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students felt particularly isolated that day...I don’t give a damn about the wackos who came here,” she said. “But I do give a damn about the people who live here.”

Here we go again. You can't suggest that homosexuality is wrong without being accused of inciting hatred, but you can be called a wacko, and that's apparently fine. Let's all sing the Double Standard Song (or, if that hasn't been written yet, my song entitled "Tolerate") as we move on to another quote from this enlightened and tolerant individual:

Recognizing that opposing viewpoints exist, she said, “Argue with us using an intellectual argument, but don’t lose sight that you are talking to people, not ideas or representations.”

Uh, excuse me, Ms. Bisexual, but isn't that EXACTLY WHAT THE SCHOOL DID?! How is it an intellectual argument when you forcibly remove people from the campus because they disagree with you? Also, if their views were "offensive," then I guess the school did decide to deal with "ideas and representations." I love how they don't extend their tolerance to people they disagree with...of course, that's the only kind of tolerance there is, in case you didn't know. Otherwise, it's acceptance. Here's even more hilarity:

“They were here to incite hatred and there is a major difference between free speech and inciting hatred,” [one student] said, speaking of the TFP.

And that would be...what? Didn't someone else just call them "wackos?" Couldn't you consider that to be "inciting hatred?" Where do you mindless PC drones draw the frickin' line, anyway? I guess this quote is partially true. It's free speech if it doesn't offend anyone, and it's "inciting hatred" if the Thought Police™ don't like the sound of it. I'm glad we could clear that up.

I was going to cover more, but I think you get the point. Read the entire article to get the full picture. One last thing about it that interests me is the fact that, near the end, they suddenly decide that the protestors were removed because they weren't associated with the university. Yet again, we see the PC Police changing their reasoning to make sure they can't be accused of double standards. I'm sure that if students had done the same thing, they would've also been removed.

"Red Square" indeed.

Posted by CD on December 17, 2003 06:05 PM
Category: