Spring Break
OP-ED: Ahmadinejad: Supporting free speech or giving a free stage?
by Emily Watkins
Op-Ed | 10/2/07
Posted online at 9:49 PM EST on 10/1/07
/ Last updated at 2:40 AM EST on 10/1/07
And at the end of the match, it's Ahmadinejad 10, Columbia 0. That's right; Columbia University, and all the Western liberal values it champions, has lost. It has been "schooled," by the infamous President of Iran.
I say defeated for several reasons. Firstly, though Columbia's President Lee Bollinger professed to be hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of free speech, this was in actuality an empty claim. I'm speaking not of the traditional "hate speech is not free speech" rhetoric, but of the very concept and privileges guaranteed by the right of free speech. The First Amendment, as I'm sure Constitutional Law Professor Bollinger knows, states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Note: Under the "right of free speech," the Constitution doesn't include a right to have a stage before a live audience of 600 and a broadcast audience of tens of thousands more. It does not include a right to have a university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars hosting the speaker.
If I were to ask to speak in Columbia's largest auditorium, would I be granted the stage? Of course not. But would Columbia be denying me my "right of free speech"? Again, no. Free speech is a guarantee that one's ideas are not censored. The individual is guaranteed the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. The individual is not guaranteed any right to a broadcast on national television or an audience at a university.
Ahmadinejad had been granted the right to free speech long before last week's visit to Columbia. His beliefs and ideas are well-known. He has spoken countless times before.
By inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, the university was not guaranteeing him a right to free speech; they were giving him a free stage. Ahmadinejad did not ask to speak at Columbia; the university invited him. They voluntarily handed him the microphone and amplified his voice. They drew the attention of millions of people across the country to exactly what the Holocaust-denying, human rights-violating, racist-president would have wanted.
I say defeated for several reasons. Firstly, though Columbia's President Lee Bollinger professed to be hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of free speech, this was in actuality an empty claim. I'm speaking not of the traditional "hate speech is not free speech" rhetoric, but of the very concept and privileges guaranteed by the right of free speech. The First Amendment, as I'm sure Constitutional Law Professor Bollinger knows, states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Note: Under the "right of free speech," the Constitution doesn't include a right to have a stage before a live audience of 600 and a broadcast audience of tens of thousands more. It does not include a right to have a university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars hosting the speaker.
If I were to ask to speak in Columbia's largest auditorium, would I be granted the stage? Of course not. But would Columbia be denying me my "right of free speech"? Again, no. Free speech is a guarantee that one's ideas are not censored. The individual is guaranteed the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. The individual is not guaranteed any right to a broadcast on national television or an audience at a university.
Ahmadinejad had been granted the right to free speech long before last week's visit to Columbia. His beliefs and ideas are well-known. He has spoken countless times before.
By inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, the university was not guaranteeing him a right to free speech; they were giving him a free stage. Ahmadinejad did not ask to speak at Columbia; the university invited him. They voluntarily handed him the microphone and amplified his voice. They drew the attention of millions of people across the country to exactly what the Holocaust-denying, human rights-violating, racist-president would have wanted.
Be the first to comment on this story