A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S.
A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S.
by Douglas Murray, Gatestone Institute, February 14, 2017
Sometimes the whole tenor of an age can be discerned by comparing two events, one commanding fury and the other, silence.
To this extent, February has already been most enlightening. On the first day of the month, the conservative activist and writer Milo Yiannopoulos was due to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. To the surprise of absolutely no one, some of the new anti-free speech brigade attempted to prevent the event from happening. But to the surprise of almost everyone, the groups who wish to prevent everyone but themselves from speaking went farther even than they have tended to of late. Before the event could even start, Yiannopoulos was evacuated by security for his own safety. A mob of 150 people proceeded to riot, smash and set fire to the campus, causing more than $100,000 of damage and otherwise asserting their revised version of Voltaire's maxim: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to your death my right to shut you up."
When conservative activist and writer Milo Yiannopoulos was due to speak at the University of California, Berkeley on February 1, a mob of 150 people proceeded to riot, smash and set fire to the campus, causing more than $100,000 of damage. (Image source: RT video screenshot)
The riots at Berkeley caused national and international headlines. Mainstream media, including Newsweek, also attempted to do their bit for an event they would ordinarily deride as "fake news." Following a segment on CNN, Newsweek ran a piece by Robert Reich, the chancellor's professor of public policy at Berkeley and a former Clinton administration official, arguing that "Yiannopoulos and Brietbart [sic] were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding." This conspiracy theory would involve Yiannopoulos arranging for 150 masked fanatics not merely to trash a campus on his orders, but to continue to remain silent about it in the days and weeks after the event.
In Newsweek, Reich wrote, "I don't want to add to the conspiratorial musings of so many about this very conspiratorial administration, but it strikes me there may be something worrying going on here. I wouldn't bet against it." And so, a tenured academic made an implausible as well as un-evidenced argument that his political opponents not merely bring violence on themselves but actually arrange violence against themselves.
All of the violence and all of these claims were made in February in the aftermath of a speech that never happened. But consider how little has been said and how little done about a speech that certainly did go ahead just one week later at another American university -- not by a visiting speaker but by a resident academic and teacher.
On February 7, at the University of Georgetown, Jonathan A.C. Brown, the director of the entirely impartial Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, gave a 90-minute talk entitled "Islam and the Problem of Slavery". Except that the white convert to Islam, Jonathan Brown, apparently did not think that there is a particular problem with slavery -- at least not when it comes wrapped in Islam. During the talk (which Brown himself subsequently uploaded onto YouTube) the lecturer condemned slavery when it took place historically in America, Britain and other Western countries, but praised the practice of slavery in Muslim societies. Brown explained how Muslim slaves lived "a pretty good life", claimed that they were protected by "sharia" and claimed that it is "not immoral for one human to own another human." Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown said that "consent isn't necessary for lawful sex" and that marital rape is not a legitimate concept within Islam. Concepts such as "autonomy" and "consent", in the view of the Director of the Alwaleed Center at Georgetown, turned out to be Western "obsessions".
Of course, Jonathan Brown's views on Islam are by no means uncommon. One could easily demonstrate that they are all too common among experts in Islamic jurisprudence. Among such people, debates over where and when you can own a slave and what you can or cannot do with them are quite up to the minute, rather than Middle Ages, discussions to have. But until this moment, there have been no protests at Georgetown University. Under a certain amount of online pressure, from the few websites to have reported Brown's talk, Brown has attempted to clarify or even reverse some of his views. But no mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.
Here is a stranger thing. Nothing that Yiannopoulos ever said as a visitor speaking to a room full of people has ever come near the level of what Brown said to his ordinary class of credit-seeking students. Yiannopoulos has never argued that the Western system of slavery was benevolent and worthwhile, and that slaves in America had "a pretty good life". He has certainly spoken out vociferously against the claim that there is a "rape culture" on American universities. But he has never argued against consent being an important principal in sexual relations. If he had, then the riots at Berkeley would doubtless have been far worse than they were, and even more media companies and professors would have tried to argue that Yiannopoulos had "brought the violence upon himself" or even organized it himself.
The proximity of these two events, the difference in the arguments and the vast chasm of difference between the outrage and violence against one, and the great silence and complicity with the other, tells us much about what we need to know about the state of free speech -- and academia -- in America today.
Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
If I were an American, I would not boast to others about the superiority of free speech in America. I had thought that there was respect in America for Benjamin Franklin, and for his beliefs, such as this one:
Free expression is under siege in the US.
Buzz,
The Gallstone institute is over exaggerating the situation. Yes, the riot was over the top, and it does look like there were agitators, either paid or volunteered, to create that caos. It was wrong and they should be arrests.
And yes, there are professors who are making excuses for some of Islam's more backward practices and teach some form of moral equivalency.
But there are plenty of other professors who are anti muslim.
And David Horowitz makes regular appearances talking about the problem of Islam in American society.
So free speech is not dead.
This left/right hysteria is hyperbole.
I find this article particularly hypocritical coming from a British writer, where in England, there is no guarantee of free speech, where Geert Wilder was prohibited from even entering the country for fear of what he might say, and where they make time for Burqa swim times.
How easy to judge.
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are also barred from England. I'm sure that if Arafat were still alive he'd be given a royal welcome.
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are also barred from England. I'm sure that if Arafat were still alive he'd be given a royal welcome.
You are probably right, Buzz.
And?
???
150 people "rioted" in Berkeley. Listening to the right whine about this for this entire month , you would have thought 150,000 had burned the Bay Area to the ground.
They want to distract from the truly dismal performance so far by the Trump administration.
-
The Gatestone Institute is an Islamophobic organization.
No one but you ever said that, John. 150 rioters burned and destroyed over $100K worth of property (while the Berkley Polices watched and took no action).
But go ahead and derail instead of speaking to the facts.
The Gatestone Institute is an Islamophobic organization.
I'm going to argue that point.
The organization describes itself as a "non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report." [11] [12] The organization believes that traditional news outlets conduct insufficient and, as a result, misleading reporting on critical issues, and thus it distributes its own information about events in the Middle East and Muslim populations in other parts of the world. [11] [13] [14] [15] [16]
Funding [ edit ]
Gatestone Institute says it is funded by private donors and foundations. [17]
Personnel [ edit ]
Board of Governors [ edit ]
Criticism [ edit ]
The Council on American–Islamic Relations has criticized Nina Rosenwald for donating to “groups that exist to make people fear and hate Islam.” [22] In a 2012 article in the progressive weekly The Nation , Max Blumenthal criticized The Gatestone Institute’s founding president Nina Rosenwald for raising money for politician Geert Wilders , think tank Center for Security Policy , and writer Daniel Pipes . In this article he quoted Center for American Progress ' report which claims that Rosenwald and her family have donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to “organisations that fan the flames of Islamophobia”. [10]
Response by Gatestone Institute [ edit ]
Muslim members of Gatestone Institute defended Nina Rosenwald, from criticism by CAIR that she donated to “groups that exist to make people fear and hate Islam”. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser , founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy , said, "It goes without saying, but to those who may not know Nina, and having known her now for many years, it is clear to me that she has the highest respect for Muslims who love their faith, love God, and take seriously our Islamic responsibility to defeat the global jihad and its Islamist inspiration." In response to anti-Muslim allegations made by the Council on American–Islamic Relations toward Rosenwald, writer and film maker Raheel Raza said, "If Muslims guided by CAIR could take the time to read and reflect on efforts of people like Nina, they would broaden their horizons and gain a lot of insights into the betterment of Muslims." [22]
If you consider Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, and David Horowitz to be islamophobic, then you would likely think the Gatestone Institute is , if you think Wilders , Spencer and Horowitz are objective about Islam, then you probably think Gatestone is objective too.
John,
That is alt nets opinion. They are a left media outlet judging a conservative think tank. If it was the other way around, I am sure the outcome would look opposite.
If you bothered to look at their website, you would see that none of those people are anywhere present on their boards.
John Bolton was the ambassador to the UN and is a conservative, but during his tenor, was never considered anti islamic.
You and Buzz are on polar opposites on this topic, and I find it very hard to have a moderate discussion. There is middle ground to the truth here. I am just trying to find it.
John Bolton was the ambassador to the UN and is a conservative, but during his tenor, was never considered anti islamic.
Do you consider Pamela Geller to be islamophobic? Robert Spencer? David Horwitz? Geert Wilders ? If you don't, then you probably won't consider Bolton or Gatestone islamophobic either.
But many people do, including those not on the far left.
Spencer and Geller wrote a book that implied that President Obama was a secret Muslim who was not acting in America's interest.
"Obama went to extraordinary measures to obfuscate his Muslim background. The more proof that bloggers like me produced, the more we were marginalized. So secretive was Obama that he refused to release his long-form birth certificate, his school records, his thesis, his school records, his passport on which he traveled as a teen… the list itself was a looming red flag."
The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
Bolton wrote the foreword for that book.
He has been on Geller's internet interview programs many times.
I consider him to be anti-Muslim is a broad sense.
‘Islamisation’ was also, of course, the major preoccupation of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik. In July 2011 he killed 77 people in an attack he called ‘gruesome but necessary’ and saw as a precursor to the civil war he believed was inevitable - that he hoped would drive Islam and Muslims out of Europe.
Eurabia conspiracy theorists and the Abstraction Fund
Breivik detailed his views – typical of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant counterjihad movement - on the ‘threat’ posed to Europe by Islam in a 1,518 page ‘manifesto’. Given that virtually every article that Gatestone publishes is suffused with the same assumptions (for instance ‘ How Islam Conquers Europe ’, ‘ UK Islamic takeover plot ’) it is no surprise to learn that the institute’s authors include many of the writers cited by Breivik in his notorious tract. Gatestone author Robert Spencer and his Jihad Watch website were mentioned 116 times, while Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum (MEF) got 18 citations. Other Gatestone authors mentioned in Breivik's lengthy screed include David Horowitz and the aforementioned Steven Emerson.
I would put my life in the hands of Dr. Jasser. I'm sure John considers that devout Muslim to be an Islamophobe. I believe John even once posted an article that he took from The Gatestone Institute - so hypocrisy rules the day.
This left/right hysteria is hyperbole.
And that's all this place has left. Worse than DU and Newsvine together.
Not worth trying to have a discussion, in fact you can't have a discussion here all you do is get shouted down anymore.
Rant filled diatribes.....
They are actively advocating overthrowing the duly elected president simply cause they do not like him....
What's the point of even trying to have an intelligent discussion, none is wanted anymore.
NWM,
Oh please, the right has plenty to say here, and I invite it. As for having discussions, maybe the name calling should go first.
I don't agree with overthrowing the President. It is not the American way. But on the other hand, I have only seen a handful of those kinds of comments here.
I have seen some really good discussions lately. No or minimal name calling. Try to find the authors that actually moderate their discussions. You'll run into less of that.
Your absolutely right girl, absolutely.
Welcome to Flynngazi, snowflakes.
What about it? Some guy made a mistake and was forced to resign. Good job by the administration.
Some guy is the National Security Advisor to the President of the U.S. Flynn Lied about his conversations, and the President was aware that of it because the DOJ advised him of it. Yet Trump continued to have Flynn attend meetings and the Vice President of the U.S. was left swinging in the wind thinking that Flynn was telling the truth and voiced his support for Flynn. All the while the administration (other than Pence) knew the truth and Pence looked like an idiot.
That guy???
I don't think this article had ANYTHING to do with Flynn, or even TRUMP, so I would appreciate it if the comments were at least somewhat in the direction of a discussion about free speech. Of course I expected at least one member to take a shot at the Gatestone Institute, but that is because of HIS prejudices. Many of the Gatestone authors are Muslims yet he would attack even THEIR essays as being Islamophobic.
I read somewhere a little while ago an article that pointed out that the word "Islamophobic" when used in a discussion was a door closer, causes an end of all discussion (so much for freedom of speech and expression, huh?), and I will try to find it.
Sorry, Buzz.
My comment wasn't aimed at you specifically Pat, so no need to apologize. It was aimed at the general trend of going off topic by a number of members.
I want to know how many people were arrested. If it wasn't nearly everyone of those who did the damage then we are living in a lawless country and something needs to be done about it.
I have only come across Gatestone one other time. A conservative friend of mine posted and article on Facebook from the Daily Mail which gave Gatestone is it's source for the article. I went to the Gatestone website, and really found nothing useful. They give almost no information about themselves, which leads me to wonder if they really have anything useful to say. If the Daily Mail is the best coverage they can get, I have no problem saying they have little credibility.
Got that out of the way.
So let's deal with the free speech part.
There is still free speech in this land, but it is getting harder to speak your piece in peace. One must have some fortitude and a willingness to be derided. There are groups from both sides who will attempt to use any means to keep from hearing and, in turn keep others from hearing, what you have to say.
I personally have no problem with people speaking their minds. My problem comes when I challenge those people to define their terms and defend their position, and then want to call me (place any of your favorite expletives here) without actually making a defense of any kind.
I am not entirely bereft of hope, but it does seem that people are no longer willing to think on their own, and simply get all of their ideas from the talking heads.
It does seem to be the SOP of the day doesn't it?
Indeed it does.
I personally have no problem with people speaking their minds.
The problem I have now is people that speak their minds are attacked (here) verbally and assaulted in public by the opposite side of the fence or not allowed to speak because the message is not in lockstep with theirs.