Like it or not, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment also covers the right to protest speakers. While you might be right on some of your points, at the same time, the reason protesters should be not only welcome but encouraged is because they constitute the most important safeguard against tyranny. The reason a controversial speaker is controversial is because he or she has very strong opponents as a result of his or her divisive views. If the right to publicly disagree is given only to those who have the resources to invite high profile speakers on campus, pretty soon Stanford will be transformed into an endorser of oligarchy instead of democracy. From there, things would only get worse. Even if the invitation of a speaker upsets a single person, this person should be given the opportunity to raise his opposition in public.
The provisions of the First Amendment should not be taken as lightly as you do.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=DA3B894C-E2FB-4857-B8DA-229F59D6D7E9

article about Esposito and how he abused his podium to disrespect members of the audience

A sensible, appropriate and well-argued editorial in The Stanford Daily? After the many pathetic editorials published last quarter, this article comes as a pleasant surprise. Keep it up!

I don't particularly disagree with the point made in the editorial...but Rumsfeld was not invited as a speaker, he was given a temporary position at Hoover, and in fact has not spoken publicly here (unless I missed something). How can you call the editorial "Silencing speakers" and use him as an example?

The ASSU Senate extended an invitation to Rumsfeld to come and speak at Stanford a few days ago.

What is so "un-nuanced" about stating that Islam and Islamic countries have for the most part treated gays terribly for the last 1400 years up until today? Just deal with facts instead of what you wish were true (that Islam is a peaceful benevolent religion just like all the others).

...As others have said, Lucas is not a suitable example for this issue. He's an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about. He is given platforms because of his "celebrity" status to promote something he DOES know something about; condom use in porn movies. THAT is his area of speciality, not the muslim world. It is a ridiculously complicated web of interactions between religion, culture, and tradition that define what goes on in each individual muslim state: there are 1billion muslims in the world spread across half the earth...to miss the nuances is to miss the entire picture.
Chris, you are obviously speaking illogically: "islam and islamic countries have for the most part treated gays terribly for the last 1400 years up to today"
Ignoring the obvious redundancy, you yourself highlight the weakest points of an uninformed individuals' convictions against islam:
1. "islam AND islamic countries" - those two are very different things. the state is typically not democratic, but authoritarian, and like all authoritarian regimes uses force and cruelty. it's got nothing to do with religion.
2. "for the most part" - ...are you serious?
3. "islam is a peaceful benevolent religion JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS" - hahaha I hope you see the irony in this statement.
Religion doesn't make people bad people, PEOPLE make people bad people. Christians prosecuted worse than the Muslims ever have, the atheist chinese stamped out the entire Tibetan race. Correlation doesnt imply causation, especially since the "bad" countries all have similar geo-political history, socio-economic status, and traditions as well as the same religion. To make blanket statements is to expose ignorance.

R, instead of rhetorical fencing , lets consider the actual merits of Lucas' and Chris point of view.
A) It is a fact that both Islamic countries and Islam in general have been actively hostile towards homosexuals. In Islamic countries, as you have pointed out it is a matter of regime. hence we have 19 year olds getting hung in Iran, beheadings in Saudi Arabia and Stoning in Nigeria. The British group OUTRAGE and Amnesty International have the most easily accessible stats on that one.
Islam as a religion is hostile to gays, and is an agent of murder of gays worldwide. Does the name Theo Van Gough mean anything? ( His crime was daring to expose the hypocrisy of Islam on top of being gay)Gay Muslims like Irshad Manji live under the threat of death every day
B) "For the most part" is applicable because there ARE exceptions to the rule, thank god.
C) Go read the Sword Verses and then try to argue that it is the people that make Islam what it is. In fact it is those who buck the Quiran who deliver Islam's redeeming qualities, the Sufis for example. Unfortunately, they have this tendency of dying involuntarily, usually with the help of the 'faithful'.
Please, research at least a little bit before making blanket statements of your own. Lucas has a point, and speaks from experience. Moreover, he is a lawyer by education and as such is trained in proving causation, unlike undergrads with heads full of propaganda.

Well, I am writing from the Basque Country; it has been 9 years now that I can´t leave my home without two body guards. My son, when he was 11 years old used to come to my bedroom at 2, 3 o´clock in the morning, to awaken me so I could assure him I was not going to be assasinated. My crime? To be a basque that is no nationalist and to have been elected democratically by my fellowcitizens to represent them. The nationalist Ibarretxe, who is the President of the Government of this region, who has a police under his command, has he spoken to you about me or about the other 42.000 basques -out of a 2.100.000 population- whose life is threatened like mine for not being nationalist?

The "key" word in your editorial is DIALOGUE. I am all for dialogue. Who of the threatened, of the prosecuted, of the relatives of those who have been murdered, all just for not being nationalist, for not being like Ibarrtxe, have you invited to your University to explain how is the Basque Country we live in? Or to contradict with objective data the ethnicist nightmare that backs Ibarretxe's delirums. You will tell me that 30% of the voters have voted for him; and you will be right; and all those nacionalist Ibarretxe candidates can move freely through out the territory, and no terrorist band threatens their lifes for wanting to represent people. No-nationalists find it very hard to find candidates (although more than 51% of the population declares themselves no-nationalists on the last inquest -november 2007- made by the University of the Basque Country).

To end this message; I am DEEPLY offended by the comparision with the so called "Lucas". For what Ibarretxe is saying to you, neither the nationalists, nor the students of the Stanford University will ever be attacked by any terrorist; all to the contrary, the ETA terrorists will be very happy that nationalists ideas have reached Stanford University with no one to contradict them. For what I am saying here, my life is threatened, and I have escaped death twice.

I am not anonimous; my name is Juana de Bengoechea and my e-mail is bengoestra@yahoo.es. I gave up hiding 10 years ago so my fellowcitizens could have someone to represent them.

Another nationalist trap! Where in my post I have said that Ibarretxe is the same as ETA? I say that they both are nationalists, true? And I say that both want the independence of Euskadi, true? And I say that judges, professors, journalists, politicians... who are not nationalists are threatened by ETA, true? I say that those who are no nationalists have much less opportunities (they have to risk their lifes) to express their views, or to represent their fellow citizens, true?

And you have insulted me; you have called me "bastard". Have I insulted you? Of course Ibarretxe and his party ARE NOT VIOLENT; they simply insult you, while they can go all around freely; there are other nationalists who, later, if your body guards fail, murder you.

I hope that thanks to your post the Stanford people will start to understand the situation.

Well, and I would like that Stanford people to know what some basques no nationalists that went to the conference have told me. To start with, you must know that the introducer (or whatever the term is) of the conference was Joan Ramon Resina, a Catalonian nationalist. Okay; well, Resina treated those who had gone to the conference and were opponents to Ibarretxe as potential criminals, although their presence there fulfilled all the requirements of the University. Not only they were warned that no protest or outward signs of protest would be allowed; not only they were registered at the entrance; Resina also warned them by an e-mail that they would not be able to address Ibarretxe personally, and that all questions had to be handed to him who would “select” those to be read. Of course, those that were uncomfortable for Ibarretxe were eliminated, and even some of those that were read, were done so partially: Resina would say something like this: “…and there are other things but finally the question is:…”

The exquisitely impartial Resina said things like that the referendum announced by Ibarretxe was “democratic”, when legally and constitutionally is illegal, for Ibarretxe has no capacity in the laws to promote it; Resina also protested for the illegalization of Batasuna, the political party who approves, helps, and is part of the terrorist group ETA (Batasuna is in the lists of terrorists organizations of the USA and the UE); and Resina ended up asking Ibarretxe if one day the institutions of the Spanish State would respect the “nations” of Euskadi and Catalonnia. And that is a lie! Neither Euskadi nor Catalonnia are nations; they are –and always have been so in History- regions of Spain. It is legal in Spain to act politically to get Euskadi and Catalonnia become nations. But it is immoral to act as if they actually were nations. And it is a lie to say that they are. It is simply the disregard of nationalisms of laws and reality; they IMPOSE their reality; and if you don’t accept the imposition, you are murdered by other nationalists for whose illegalization Resina cries.

Sorry, University of Stanford. In the Ibarretxe conference there was no impartiality, no debate, no dialogue, no freedom of speech (except for Resina and Ibarretxe), no liberty. You have been, in the best of cases, fooled by ethnic nationalisms, who have used you to project a sugared and false image of the situation in which they are the victims (they have been governing the region during 30 years!!!), and those who are murdered for not being nationalists are the aggressors. Congratulations!

What about your very first comment: "Ibarretxe sucks". You are not serious at all!
Go to hell!!!

I noticed one consistant thing about people who seem displeased with Lucas... they're very invested in personal attacks but almost silent when it comes to actually addressing what he said.

Though "R" did his best to offer the usual ignorant platitudes regarding Islam in his weak rebuttal to Chris...

"1. "islam AND islamic countries" - those two are very different things. the state is typically not democratic, but authoritarian, and like all authoritarian regimes uses force and cruelty. it's got nothing to do with religion."

Islam actually demands a state governed by a Caliph , with its law being Sharia. Islam forbids the laws of State to come from any other source than the Sunnah.. man-made law is considered idolitry and Islam's long-term goal is the elimination of any government that does not conform to Sharia. It's true that Muslims are to obey the laws of the countries they live in, but that's only for as long as it takes for Muslims to get enough power to change the laws so that they are Islamic (a project that's obvious to anyone paying attention to what's going on in Europe).


All the Islamic terrorist and other groups are working toward this goal. So just because current Muslim countries aren't dictatorial enough right now , many many Muslims are hard at work to ensure that a superstate caliphate rises up from the existing hellholes that compromises the islamic world.



2. "for the most part" - ...are you serious?

"Are you serious"? Wow.. you've persuaded us!


3. "islam is a peaceful benevolent religion JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS" - hahaha I hope you see the irony in this statement.

"hahahaha".. Coming from someone who objected to Lucas, saying:

"As others have said, Lucas is not a suitable example for this issue. He's an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about"

I think it's safe to say that you know just about nothing about Islam. You have no understanding about what makes Islam unique from other religions.

It's pretty sad for you that the porn star you called ignorant actually is not ignorant, and the ignorance you say he suffers from would actually be an improvement for you since your ignorance is far greater and coupled with the typical leftist arrogance so common in universites and other places of unreality.

Islamic apologists seem to think the people they oppose are as stupid as they (the apoligists) are.

Ask Ernst Zundel about Free Speech. Even in th US, censorship is becoming our favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21 year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for colleges).

The threat of a protest is a very good control mechanism which shouldn't be taken as lightly as the Editorial Board does. We are all for democracy and free speech. However, there is a threshold, and extenuating circumstances, beyond which some speakers provoke more rejection and repugnance than others. While in the context of the US most people understand that inviting David Duke will create controversy, or even any of the Darfur people responsible for genocide, other invitations are far from clear for people unfamiliar with the matter.
Take the two examples suggested by the Editorial Board. I hadn't heard of Mr Lucas before you referred to him in this Editorial and you published his Op-Ed. I am also sure that weren't it for the online campaign, most people at Stanford wouldn't know that Mr Ibarretxe (and his political plan inspired by Basque Nationalism) provokes so much divisiveness among Basques since despite his being democratically elected, the Basque society is almost evenly split between those who support Basque Nationalism and those who wholeheartedly reject each one of its totalitarian propositions.
In both cases, we know about the controversy thanks to the different petitions. As far as I am concerned, those who protested both speaking engagements did a great favor to the Stanford community by raising red flags which prevented those speakers from taking advantage of our university's prestige.

WR,
The ways of protesting this Editorial is criticizing are part of the free speech process. Calling them "counterproductive" doesn't make any good to our society. They might be annoying, specially for the sponsors of the engagements being protested, but they are never "counterproductive". Even if a petition calls, probably unrealistically, to shut down the speaker, it serves the purpose of raising awareness about a controversial person which otherwise would go unnoticed for those unfamiliar with the matter the speaker is about. Back and forth negotiations are always a matter of starting from a high demand (like shutting down the speaker) and settling for something less (like the awareness which results from the media impact if the petition is made widely known for instance). Take the case of Mr Lucas. Hadn't it been for the protest, I would never have heard about him. Thanks to the protesters, I know why he causes so much controversy: his porn gay actor status (which is not unique to him) and, the issue which makes him unique, his somehow controversial views about which communities of humans (cultures, religions, etc) are more "gay friendly".

Oh, and Ernst Zundel was jailed under CANADA law. And detained in the US, not for his views but for his illegal entry to the country.
If only the US would practice detention and deportation more consistently!