Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[M.Dancer]

If he was so for free speech, he wouldn't have cared.

Newspapers are champions of free speech. You don't see too many giving neo nazis soapboxes.

Your argument is weak, partisan and pathetic.

[nicky10013]

Newspapers are champions of free speech. You don't see too many giving neo nazis soapboxes.

Your argument is weak, partisan and pathetic.

I wonder how many right wingers would claim that the Toronto Star is a champion of Free Speech. I wonder how many left wingers, hell, even right wingers would claim that the National Post is a bastion of free speech. One column wondering what Harper is up to is met by crazy far right idiots claiming Don Martin is a leftist idiot.

So really, whose argument here is weak? You come back with newspapers? That's downright hilarious.

[Wild Bill]

Some folks in this thread are coming from a rather strange position.

We have a truly private organization hosting a session where they feel it is appropriate to have Mark Steyn as a speaker. They wanted Steyn because he was already known as an author and speaker of sufficient fame as to be interesting to their target audience. They must have felt he was a worthwhile commodity. We shoudn't forget that Mr. Steyn was likely PAID to attend! No matter how rich, most people simply can't afford to travel all over the world speaking at such engagements without being compensated.

Then someone springs up from the woodwork and DEMANDS the right to speak at the same session! No matter that the organizers likely never heard of him let alone would have wanted him! Certainly, they would never have envisioned PAYING him! They look at him as a party buster and try to ignore him.

So he starts yelling about free speech!

Now, I can't speak for everyone else but there is also such a thing as free choice and common courtesy. If I've at a table in a bar with my friends arguing politics or the evilness of ABBA tunes and some twerp we don't even know expects to just flop down and take over the conversation, we're going to ask him to leave! We might even get a bit ambitious about it!

If we were running a more formal affair and had rented the entire bar for the evening, there's no way we would expect that we should be legally forced not only to allow the jerk entry but also to give him free time in all our discussions!

Yet that is essentially what this yahoo is doing about the Steyn session. He's a freeloader! He can't draw an audience or a speaking gig like Steyn can but he expects to ride on Steyn's coattails and get an audience for free!

The audience will be at the Steyn session FOR speakers like Steyn and NOT for twerps like him! Allowing him to talk would be unfair to everyone who had bought a ticket. Freedom also means that no one has the right to FORCE you to listen to someone! What this little parasite is trying to do is to use your interest in a talk from Steyn as a lever to get you to listen to him!

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone with hair in their ears is entitled to a free audience, even if the audience has to be coerced to put up with you.

[nicky10013]

Some folks in this thread are coming from a rather strange position.

We have a truly private organization hosting a session where they feel it is appropriate to have Mark Steyn as a speaker. They wanted Steyn because he was already known as an author and speaker of sufficient fame as to be interesting to their target audience. They must have felt he was a worthwhile commodity. We shoudn't forget that Mr. Steyn was likely PAID to attend! No matter how rich, most people simply can't afford to travel all over the world speaking at such engagements without being compensated.

Then someone springs up from the woodwork and DEMANDS the right to speak at the same session! No matter that the organizers likely never heard of him let alone would have wanted him! Certainly, they would never have envisioned PAYING him! They look at him as a party buster and try to ignore him.

So he starts yelling about free speech!

Now, I can't speak for everyone else but there is also such a thing as free choice and common courtesy. If I've at a table in a bar with my friends arguing politics or the evilness of ABBA tunes and some twerp we don't even know expects to just flop down and take over the conversation, we're going to ask him to leave! We might even get a bit ambitious about it!

If we were running a more formal affair and had rented the entire bar for the evening, there's no way we would expect that we should be legally forced not only to allow the jerk entry but also to give him free time in all our discussions!

Yet that is essentially what this yahoo is doing about the Steyn session. He's a freeloader! He can't draw an audience or a speaking gig like Steyn can but he expects to ride on Steyn's coattails and get an audience for free!

The audience will be at the Steyn session FOR speakers like Steyn and NOT for twerps like him! Allowing him to talk would be unfair to everyone who had bought a ticket. Freedom also means that no one has the right to FORCE you to listen to someone! What this little parasite is trying to do is to use your interest in a talk from Steyn as a lever to get you to listen to him!

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone with hair in their ears is entitled to a free audience, even if the audience has to be coerced to put up with you.

The whole premise of this post is that he demanded to speak. He didn't. He only sent an email to the organizers requesting to buy a ticket. He wanted to attend. That's all. He wasn't allowed in based on his views.

[M.Dancer]

One column wondering what Harper is up to is met by crazy far right idiots claiming Don Martin is a leftist idiot.

So really, whose argument here is weak? You come back with newspapers? That's downright hilarious.

That in itself is an example of free speech on both sides. I don't think you are really up on what free speech is...

[nicky10013]

That in itself is an example of free speech on both sides. I don't think you are really up on what free speech is...

Considering how moderated the comments are and the fact that papers routinely self-censor, I don't believe I'm the one who doesn't understand.

[Wild Bill]

The whole premise of this post is that he demanded to speak. He didn't. He only sent an email to the organizers requesting to buy a ticket. He wanted to attend. That's all. He wasn't allowed in based on his views.

I'm libertarian enough not to have a problem with that! Likely he must have had a reputation that led them to believe he would have been a disrupting influence but even if they had never heard of him before, so what?

If its a private function then they have the right to refuse anyone they want, for whatever reason! If we at the beer table don't like the looks of you then find yourself a table of your own!

However, the fact that they had spent time considering the decision is a strong indicator that he would have been apt to be "bad news". Sort of like hosting a Jewish Comedy Night at a local club and having Ernst Zundel show up. "I only want to buy a ticket!" says Ernst, "but if you won't let me in you must be trampling on my right of free speech!"

Why would Ernst be concerned with free speech unless he intended to speak? The same applies to this parasite.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1304331

Just goes to prove that we all have limits on what we deem acceptable. I think we need to get past the righteousness and the comments about authoritarianism, agree that we all have an idea where free speech must end and try to find common ground as to where that is.

If I understand this right, the racist guy didn't want to watch, he wanted to participate. It seems to me that you get to choose who is going to participate in an event of that nature, and that excluding someone who would not only tarnish you by association but who has nothing to do with the subject at and is not terribly problematic.

[Argus]

Are you so stupid that you didn't even read what I said even 2 lines before? The subsidies they recieve is to make tuition cheaper for students that don't change the way the university is run. Grants are applied for seperately by individual researchers and are awarded based on merit.

And the government grants them money to expand and build new facilities. Who, in your world, owns universities anyway?

[Argus]

Not quite. I sat on my university's board of directors. I have their financial statements for the past few years.

Am I the only one here amazed that Nicky even drove through a university?

[M.Dancer]

The more you read, the more entertaining it is...

Mark Steyn, Kosherservative!!

http://strictlyright.com/2010/10/neo-nazis-can-stay-home/

[Shady]

The more you read, the more entertaining it is...

Mark Steyn, Kosherservative!!

http://strictlyright.com/2010/10/neo-nazis-can-stay-home/

That was a good read! People of nicky's ilk probably are disappointed the white supremacist wasn't allowed to be part of the event last night. Because it takes away their ability to tie people like this individual to people like Mark Steyn. I think we all know that if this white supremacist was allowed to attend and be part of the event, people like nicky would be highlighting his attendance as proof Steyn and others like him are indeed racists. They want to have it both ways.

[Wild Bill]

That was a good read! People of nicky's ilk probably are disappointed the white supremacist wasn't allowed to be part of the event last night. Because it takes away their ability to tie people like this individual to people like Mark Steyn. I think we all know that if this white supremacist was allowed to attend and be part of the event, people like nicky would be highlighting his attendance as proof Steyn and others like him are indeed racists. They want to have it both ways.

Good point, Shady! I had forgotten how some critics like to play that game. Like when Harper was forced by the Opposition to shovel out buckets of "stimulus money" for fear of being branded an evil "Mr. Burns" and then promptly attacked for running a deficit!

Back in the Reform days we used to joke that if Manning had discovered a cure for cancer the Star would have reported it as "Manning attacks doctors' jobs!"

[nicky10013]

That was a good read! People of nicky's ilk probably are disappointed the white supremacist wasn't allowed to be part of the event last night. Because it takes away their ability to tie people like this individual to people like Mark Steyn. I think we all know that if this white supremacist was allowed to attend and be part of the event, people like nicky would be highlighting his attendance as proof Steyn and others like him are indeed racists. They want to have it both ways.

Not at all. If he were anyone else, I would've applauded the fact that he wouldn't allow such idiots to become part of the discussion. However, like I've said, I'm not the polemic who rants about freedom of speech.

The only people who want it both ways are the people here and Steyn who argue for free speech in one area and try to deny it in the next.

My point still obviously stands. We all have our limits to where we think freedom of speech ends. You have a limit, dancer has a limit, wild bill has a limit. The difference is that I know it and admit it while you guys pretend to be the protectors of everything sacred regarding freedom of speech. Yet, in times like these, the rhetoric doesn't match the actions.

[scribblet]

That was a good read! People of nicky's ilk probably are disappointed the white supremacist wasn't allowed to be part of the event last night. Because it takes away their ability to tie people like this individual to people like Mark Steyn. I think we all know that if this white supremacist was allowed to attend and be part of the event, people like nicky would be highlighting his attendance as proof Steyn and others like him are indeed racists. They want to have it both ways.

Which is what I said but little Nicky says now I have limits of free speech LOL

[nicky10013]

Which is what I said but little Nicky says now I have limits of free speech LOL

Exactly...what you said is, well, it's hypocritical, but I understand because the right is afraid of being labelled as white supremacists.

So, you're fine that they were banned (a restriction on the freedom of speech) but because you would be embarrassed with the association of a neo-nazi. You're still limiting speech, but you give different reasons for it. It's still a limitation none-the-less.

[g_bambino]

A University isn't a private organization.

Most, if not all, are. They may receive funding from the Queen-in-Council, but aren't owned by her. Kind of like hospitals, I think.

[Wild Bill]

My point still obviously stands. We all have our limits to where we think freedom of speech ends. You have a limit, dancer has a limit, wild bill has a limit. The difference is that I know it and admit it while you guys pretend to be the protectors of everything sacred regarding freedom of speech. Yet, in times like these, the rhetoric doesn't match the actions.

I would disagree, Nick. It seems to me that your difference is all about the values of the speaker and whether or not you agree with them.

I couldn't care less about that! My difference is summed up simply by the old adage "He who pays the piper calls the tune!"

Unlike you, I don't believe that this guy has a "freedom of speech" right to a free audience when someone else is paying for the hall.

The guy is a freeloading bum, no matter what his values!

[nicky10013]

And the government grants them money to expand and build new facilities. Who, in your world, owns universities anyway?

They take out mortgages on new buildings. I helped get approved a 20 million dollar mortgage for a new student centre.

Universities aren't "owned" per se. Private individuals from professors to alumni from the business community and university administrators oversee the assets which the university accrues over time. The professors and administrators (presidents, chancellors, guidance) take a salary but the other members of their boards donate their time and expertise to help administer things like investments and real estate holdings which generally aren't in anyone's name, but in the name of the university. Like I said, they're privately run organizations. Just because they don't have a physical owner (some may, mine didn't) doesn't mean they're an arm of the government. Then again, why should I explain it to someone who probably hasn't been there, and who probably wouldn't believe me in the first place.

[nicky10013]

I would disagree, Nick. It seems to me that your difference is all about the values of the speaker and whether or not you agree with them.

I couldn't care less about that! My difference is summed up simply by the old adage "He who pays the piper calls the tune!"

Unlike you, I don't believe that this guy has a "freedom of speech" right to a free audience when someone else is paying for the hall.

The guy is a freeloading bum, no matter what his values!

You're still going on about how he was trying to speak at the event? He wasn't.

[nicky10013]

Most, if not all, are. They may receive funding from the Queen-in-Council, but aren't owned by her. Kind of like hospitals, I think.

Yup. If we were to say that private organizations that recieve absolutely no public money are the only ones that are allowed to limit people's freedom of speech, then most companies would have to abide by the constitution.

This is one of the most blatant cases of do as I say, not as I do.

[ToadBrother]

Yup. If we were to say that private organizations that recieve absolutely no public money are the only ones that are allowed to limit people's freedom of speech, then most companies would have to abide by the constitution.

This is one of the most blatant cases of do as I say, not as I do.

Where is it that you get the idea that private organizations are not allowed to limit free speech? You don't have free speech here, for instance.

[g_bambino]

Yup. If we were to say that private organizations that recieve absolutely no public money are the only ones that are allowed to limit people's freedom of speech, then most companies would have to abide by the constitution.

I merely said universities are not Crown owned. I said nothing about their ability to limit free speech. I suppose that, technically, a university's board of governors has the right to bar anyone from campus; however, to do so because that person's views are contrary to the majority of the board's seems to run against the very idea of a university.

[Wilber]

The whole premise of this post is that he demanded to speak. He didn't. He only sent an email to the organizers requesting to buy a ticket. He wanted to attend. That's all. He wasn't allowed in based on his views.

Then why are you babbling about free speech? It was a private function, no shirt, no shoes, bad attitude, piss off.

[M.Dancer]

My point still obviously stands. We all have our limits to where we think freedom of speech ends. You have a limit, dancer has a limit, wild bill has a limit. The difference is that I know it and admit it while you guys pretend to be the protectors of everything sacred regarding freedom of speech. Yet, in times like these, the rhetoric doesn't match the actions.

If that is your point, (I doubt that)then you would have to find examples of Steyn defending hate speech. The cat in question is a convicted felon, a convicted hate mongerer...I find it simple minded to posit that not allowing this person to attend a private function an example of hypocrasy.

Anyway, there's your task...find steyn defending hate speech....