Apr 18 2006
More Liberal Intolerance and Hypocrisy
Item one:
Abortion display destroyed-- 400 crosses removed; NKU prof investigated
A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.
Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.
As Teexas Rainmaker says: Liberals: Free Speech is Only Reserved for Us
What is so scary about this is that it was sanctioned by the progessor, who is now thankfully retiring.
But it brings to mind a similar incident where a display of crosses was set up by protestors and destroyed by a counter protestor. In that case however the protestor was Jane Fonda's new idol, Cindy Sheehan at her Crawford Texas protest. There a right wing protestor drove his truck through her field of crosses, to fairly universal condemnation. Even those who thought the crosses were tacly diodn't want to see them descecrated further by some jerk and his truck.
Funny, but I don't her much on the left this time, because the issue was abortion. Imagine that, a double standard.
Another interesting diplay is the rash of hate mail Michelle Malkin is getting.
After the UC Santa Cruz Students Againt War group helped drive off military recruiters from a recent job fair, she posted the SAW contact info from their own website.
Now she is an open target of their hate speech.
It seems these level headed peace loving students can do no better then to call her racial epitaths and threaten her family.
Typical.
What is it with these people?
22 Responses to “More Liberal Intolerance and Hypocrisy”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Hey Karl, maybe someone should publish YOUR contact info, so people can contact you and harass you just to show you what it’s like.Here’s a comment I made about Michelle Malkin on the Daily Kos site.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/18/23145/0407
The point is that their info was already known by their own actions, as it was on their flyers and web site. she just repuyblished what they had.
And as she notes, none of them have bothered to ask her to take it down.
If conseervatives have used it to harass them, then that is wrong. But you have seperate the issue.
And none of that justifies her being called a chink and other names. That is juvenile.
Why should Karl have to publish his information? So hate-filled people can go about and threaten his life and call him all sorts of disgusting names behind fake emails? Why would he want to put his information out there for that? There is no need for it, and not called for. The hate screed the extreme lefties scream and rant about, the information that was posted, was posted already by the group and others. Indymedia still has it up Link Wake the hell up, it was a PRESS RELEASE, put out by Students Against War (SAW). THEY put out the press release, not Malkin, and not others, THEY did. All bloggers did was report on it. So, all the hate-filled, screaming, moonbats out there need to calm the hell down because it was not bloggers that issues the information, IT WAS STUDENTS AGAINST WAR THEMESELVES IN A PRESS RELEASE! By the way, I do hope anyone who gets death threats immediately turns that over to both the Service Providers and the FBI. It is uncalled for, pathetic, and I place it right up there with Terrorists and how they react to the Cartoons……death to anyone who does not agree with them (terrorists). (edited to fix html errors- LSU)
I, again, cannot stress enough how much I deplore people who would take infomration such as SAW’s contact info and use it for threats and harassment. To write them and express you disagreement is one thing, but to go after them personally is another.
I don’t approve of their actions or tactics, but I would not stoop to their level.
I have to point out again that any information you post to the public which these guys did, is just that: public. You take a chance on immature people using it to play games.
The same applies to Michelle. She has her contact info available and knows she will get some hate mail. She writes strongly and that invokes passions. But none of that has to do with her race, so using her being oriental as an ad hominem attack is pointless.
Any sympathy to them vanished at the first mention of slanty eyes.
I will continue to maintain that discussion is good, but when it goes accross that line, its pointless and dangerous.
Karl, I wish you would be a little more consistent in criticizing intolerance and hypocrisy on all side of the political spectrum. What goes around comes around, and it is doing none of us any good.
Have you forgotten already the undeserved invective that the UW students got on the Boyington memorial issue? Several of them deserved criticism, but actually its was clear from the start that the memorial was a done deal - and was rejected initially only because people who wanted the memorial to cover other MOH recipients voted against it. Where is your praise for these students?
As for Malkin, why don’t your criticize her for deliberately encouraging her readers to send hate mail? See Tacitus today: http://www.tacitus.org/story/2006/4/18/05121/9332
As for the news about the abortion wars at NKU, a little more measured thinking is needed. If those wishing to protest the horrors of abortion have a free speech right to put up crosses on the lawn of a public university, as symbolic speech, why don’t students who oppose restriction on abortion also have a free speech right to remove the cross, as symbolic speech? Is the only difference that one was officially sanctioned by the school, and not the other?
In any case, it’s hard to believe that the school made the correct decision to authorize the cross in the first place. Would it make the same decision if the crosses were swasticas by a white power group? Does one side of the debate have a free speech right that will always be in the face of the other side?
Regards,
Tom
Karl, you did a good job pointing out the fallacy of liberal tolerance. Liberal tolerance and political correctness appear to be laying the groundwork for the failure of our western culture. Seens that the very people who scream and yell about their rhetoric cannot stand to hear opposing points of view. Their lable of liberal tolerance is neither liberal nor tolerant.
As far as Michelle publishing names, the libbies did do it themselves with thier own press release.
I do not condone those who are making threats against the misguided libbies. That should not be. If there is any investigation and if those who are threatening are caught, I hope they will be prosecuted.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Freedom is important, regardless of opposing points of view.
Now we have to take into account that maybe some of the libbies are doing some of it to make a point, once it started. There was some car keying of Kerry - Edward cars that was attributed to those who wanted to make a point of the unruley republicans (they did it to themselves and blamed conservatives.)
If Michelle had to hunt for the students names and telephone numbers from third parties and then published them she would have been wrong. But, she did not.
Karl, I wish you would be a little more consistent in criticizing intolerance and hypocrisy on all side of the political spectrum. What goes around comes around, and it is doing none of us any good.
I am completely consistent. I have always decried and condemned anyone using hate speech, insult and invective in correspondence. It ruins debate. I looked over Malkin’s site carefully and she made no effort to encourage hate mail or harassment, and even posted an update condemning it.
Have you forgotten already the undeserved invective that the UW students got on the Boyington memorial issue?
How could I forget.
Several of them deserved criticism…
Yep.
…., but actually its was clear from the start that the memorial was a done deal - and was rejected initially only because people who wanted the memorial to cover other MOH recipients voted against it.
I disagree, that is hardly clear. Reading through the minutes and accounts it is never actually mentioned. They discuss why he wanted Pappy specifically recognized, and asked why not all alumni in wars (not just MOH winners). So your assertion that it was a done deal is patently unsupported by any evidence.
I suggest you peruse the minutes: http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/minutes/senate/12/02-07-2006.pdf
Where is your praise for these students?
I gave the scorn I thought was appropriate to ignorant remarks, and expressed my overall disappointment in the politically correct and anti war tone of the debate.
As for Malkin, why don’t your criticize her for deliberately encouraging her readers to send hate mail? See Tacitus today: http://www.tacitus.org/story/2006/4/18/05121/9332
As soon as you show me where she did so, I will.
As for the news about the abortion wars at NKU, a little more measured thinking is needed. If those wishing to protest the horrors of abortion have a free speech right to put up crosses on the lawn of a public university, as symbolic speech, why don’t students who oppose restriction on abortion also have a free speech right to remove the cross, as symbolic speech? Is the only difference that one was officially sanctioned by the school, and not the other?
Why does one party’s speech have to trump the other in the form of vandalism? The pro abortion people have a right to make any display or statement they want, but to vandalize someone else’s display is intolerant and a violation of their speech. The conservatives had their rights trampled on. Their display did not prevent anyone elses display or speech, yet the leftists removed the right’s display in making their own demonstration. Which is more intolerant? Which is more oppressive?
Which one violated the rights of the other?
In any case, it’s hard to believe that the school made the correct decision to authorize the cross in the first place.
That is open to debate, but it is irrelevant. They did ask permission and it was granted.
Would it make the same decision if the crosses were swastikas by a white power group? Does one side of the debate have a free speech right that will always be in the face of the other side?
Tom do you not see how hypocritical that statement is? Which group here was the aggressor?
And since when do liberals complain about getting in people’s faces, particularly in a discussion about the driving of military recruiters off campus? The not only got in their faces, they assualted them.
How tolerant.
The display of crosses may have been offensive to some people, and may even have been an overboard display by some standards, but it was not hate speech so equating it to Nazi’s and swastikas is invalid and disingenuous. And consider that tearing down one group’s display is the more a fascist and Nazi like action, a suppression of speech that is not approved. I submit that the teacher and her pupils were the Nazi’s here, if you feel it necessary to make that comparison.
Finally, free speech is logically going to offend someone, perhaps not everytime, but often. It cannot be helped, particularly in areas where emotions and passions are high. But consider that no where in the constitution is there a provision against being offended, and frankly the left is more prone to using offensive tactics then the right. To fall back now and make the claim that the right is being offensive is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Maybe the answer is that there is no sense of respect any longer in our society. Could be. I submit that liberals have done more to get us there then conservatives.
And still I condemn and deplore anyone who uses contact information to harass, and I will continue to consistently do so.
Karl, on the UW memorial of MOH winners, NO ONE has praised the students. Don’t you think that’s odd? As a vet yourself, I would think that you might consider it yourself.
You contest my position that the memorial was a done deal from the beginning. Of course I’ve looked at the minutes to the inital vote - I think it is clear that some of the no votes were from people who thought the memorial should be for more than just Boyington. This is even clearer if you go back and read the forum postings of JonoHanks before and after the vote and of Karl. Yes, Edwards and Miller deserve criticism, but it was clear that despite general support for a memorial, this failed because certain senators thought that it was too limited, and that the other MOH winners deserved recognition too.
You rightly expressed scorn at what some said and disappointed with the PC and anti-war tone. But man, what about the fact that this was student sponsored, and half of the students voted yes on even the first memorial? And why no expression acknowledging that a good deed was done, and despite all of the ugly invective?
It seems to me you just like to bash and never build up, and your vet background makes you susceptible to finding student an easy target. You’d be more credible if’d you’d acknolwedge that many have their heads screwed on right.
Tom
Karl, on the issue of the anti-abortion crosses, there is no simple answer here. I think the University was wrong to approve the placing of crosses on lawns, unless it’s only for a time as long as a public speech or demonstration. Those who want to tlak have their right to talk, while others do not have to listen if they wish. In any case, the speech is for a brief time. Here, the so-called "speech" is continuing and can only be avoided if one is blind. I question the wisdom of the U in approving this type of speech, and am curious how much longer it is intended to go on (as the crosses were appreantly not damaged and have been restored).
While I do not at all equate either pro- or anti-abortion speech with Naziism, I do want to point out that it is hard to see any meaningful legal difference between installing fows of crosses or installing rows of swasticas.
I do see the crosses as being a rather in-your-face and persistent type of speech, and I think the sanctioning of it violates the principle that we do not have to listen to speech with which we disagree.
I am curious as to what you think would be acceptable counter-speech by those who wish to defend arbortion rights, but that is not strictly relevant.
As a legal matter, if those who installed the crosses were engaging in symbolic speech on public property, I think it is also obvious that those who removed the crosses were also engaging in symbolic speech. It doesn’t seem to me that either side’s rights to speech were violated (only government can violate the 1st amendment). Clearly an argument can be made that those removing crosses violated U policy/permitting rules or perhaps even laws concerning vandalism, but then the question becomes whether such U policy/rules or vandalism rules violate the first amendment rights of those who removed the crosses.
Regards,
Tom
Karl, on the UW memorial of MOH winners, NO ONE has praised the students. Don’t you think that’s odd? As a vet yourself, I would think that you might consider it yourself.
I saw many articles locally that were positive when this was passed, so I dispute the NO ONE.
You contest my position that the memorial was a done deal from the beginning. Of course I’ve looked at the minutes to the inital vote - I think it is clear that some of the no votes were from people who thought the memorial should be for more than just Boyington. This is even clearer if you go back and read the forum postings of JonoHanks before and after the vote and of Karl.
I have, and I understand that a few have said so in and around the debate, but in the meeting, it was never even mentoined, let alone made clear, whereas the political correctness and anti war sentiments were. YOU based your views here on what you want to see, no offense.
Yes, Edwards and Miller deserve criticism, but it was clear that despite general support for a memorial, this failed because certain senators thought that it was too limited, and that the other MOH winners deserved recognition too.
We agree to disagree.
You rightly expressed scorn at what some said and disappointed with the PC and anti-war tone. But man, what about the fact that this was student sponsored, and half of the students voted yes on even the first memorial? And why no expression acknowledging that a good deed was done, and despite all of the ugly invective?
I posted my hoped that they would do the right thing, and I posted my happiness it was done.
It seems to me you just like to bash and never build up, and your vet background makes you susceptible to finding student an easy target. You’d be more credible if’d you’d acknolwedge that many have their heads screwed on right.
No I don’t use my personal background to find a student to be an easy target. My background makes me sensitive to anti military activities in general, a bias I clearly admit is not moderate.
In that regard, I get more perturbed with the proferssors then the students who are often victims of their teachers lessons.
Karl, on the issue of the anti-abortion crosses, there is no simple answer here. I think the University was wrong to approve the placing of crosses on lawns, unless it’s only for a time as long as a public speech or demonstration.
I might actually agree with you, making it a long term memorial may be over the top.
I could be wrong though, but it seems to me that the protestors didnt even let a day pass before then removed it, so not sure what the original intentions were.
Those who want to tlak have their right to talk, while others do not have to listen if they wish. In any case, the speech is for a brief time. Here, the so-called "speech" is continuing and can only be avoided if one is blind. I question the wisdom of the U in approving this type of speech, and am curious how much longer it is intended to go on (as the crosses were appreantly not damaged and have been restored).
Well replaced anyway, but I see your point.
While I do not at all equate either pro- or anti-abortion speech with Naziism, I do want to point out that it is hard to see any meaningful legal difference between installing fows of crosses or installing rows of swasticas.
Only that one is a recognized symbol of hate speech.
I am curious as to what you think would be acceptable counter-speech by those who wish to defend arbortion rights, but that is not strictly relevant.
Post a few people with signs to patrol the area with crosses?
As a legal matter, if those who installed the crosses were engaging in symbolic speech on public property, I think it is also obvious that those who removed the crosses were also engaging in symbolic speech. It doesn’t seem to me that either side’s rights to speech were violated (only government can violate the 1st amendment).
It should though, that is the core of the debate. Does one speech have to destroy the other to be elgitimate?
Clearly an argument can be made that those removing crosses violated U policy/permitting rules or perhaps even laws concerning vandalism, but then the question becomes whether such U policy/rules or vandalism rules violate the first amendment rights of those who removed the crosses.
Regards,
Tom
In theory I cannot see how the display violates anyones right to speech merely by being there. The crosses were passive and static. They can always respond so how could they restrict someones speech?
How they respond is another issue, and in their response, they did cross the line into suprressing someone else. Thats where I take issue.
NKU Professor Sally Jacobsen Update…
The Display has been restored and an apology has been issued from professor Jacobsen, though by the president of the University, there is still a full investigation to come and further action may be warranted….
Karl,
On the UW students, my point was that none of the blogswarm noticed that the memorial was a student idea, and there was ZERO follow up to thank the students once it was done. The lasting impression is of students in liberal Seattle, when one could very easily say it was the blogswarm that was immature and ultimately ungrateful. The initial proposal was a tie vote, and it was easily approved after the memorial was expanded to cover not only Boyington, but also other MOH winners. Vets and others should be grateful that the students followed through, when they could have easily turned away. It was wrong for the right to smear all of the students, and it is still wrong of them not to say thanks when a good deed is done. What is in the local papers is quite different from what makes it into the blogs.
If anyone should have a good word to say at the end of the day, it should be you. Your refusal is pig-headed, wrong and disappointing.
Tom
Karl,
On the crosses, you misunderstand the Constitution. Only the state can violate individuals’ free speech right. If you speak and I shout over you, neither of us is violating any constitutional right of the other - though we might be subject to criminal or civil sanction if we get in a fight or destroy the other’s property. Accordingly, neither the students making a graveyard of crosses nor the students pulling out the crosses violated the free speech rights of the other.
When different gropus are trying to speak past each other, the main state interest is in preserving the peace, including preventing damage to property. Another factor at an institution of public education is whether the speech unduly interferes with the mission of the university.
It sounds like we could use for facts as to what really happened/is happening at NKU in terms of how long the cross display was approved, and what was the timing of the action to remove them and whether any were destroyed.
As to crosses as opposed to swasticas, I don’t think there is a legal distinction. The ACLU worked hard and successfully to allow Nazis to parade in Skokie some years back, as you may recall. If the school has to allow symbolic speech on campus, I think the school would have a very tenuous basis for distinguishing between them.
Tom
Tom,
RE: the students
On the UW students, my point was that none of the blogswarm noticed that the memorial was a student idea,
First, it was A student, Andrew Everett who made the resolution, just for sake of clairity.
Second, your accusation is silly. Of course the b-sphere knew it was student driven, that was the whole point of the debate, the divide between the liberal and conservativestudent factions.
and there was ZERO follow up to thank the students once it was done.
Maybe you are correct,t hat not enough people acknowledged this, though to say ZERO is an exageration. I think people were focused on the result and glad it was done.
The lasting impression is of students in liberal Seattle, when one could very easily say it was the blogswarm that was immature and ultimately ungrateful.
I admite some were, and some of the students supporters were the immature ones. As in so many debates, there was good and bad to go around.
The initial proposal was a tie vote, and it was easily approved after the memorial was expanded to cover not only Boyington, but also other MOH winners.
Not so fast. The debate almost didnt get to a vote as some members tried to table it in committee. The attention of the blogsphere and the msm had a lot to do with keeping it alive I think.
Also, as I noted before, there is no evidence to support the contention that the single/multiple honoree aspect was the deciding issue. You have decided it was, and that’s fine.
And it’s interesting to note that many liberal are onpenly condemning this because they claim the students were coerced into doing it by the media coverage. In fact the accusation was made that making it a roll call vote was done so for that very reason.
My end statement on it, is that I am glad that the the right thing was done for whatever reason. I am more interested in the results, not the motives and methods.
Vets and others should be grateful that the students followed through, when they could have easily turned away. It was wrong for the right to smear all of the students, and it is still wrong of them not to say thanks when a good deed is done. What is in the local papers is quite different from what makes it into the blogs.
If you insist on painting with a broad stroke, this is going to be a frustrating discussion. Not all the right condemned them, and only some were singled out for scorn. To say they condemned them all is In may case, I have given out praise and scorn as I saw fit.
If anyone should have a good word to say at the end of the day, it should be you. Your refusal is pig-headed, wrong and disappointing.
If you feel I didn’t express my approval loud enough, well maybe so. In my case I am cautiously optimistic that the memorial will see fruit, but in reality it is still not a done deal.
When it is done and up, then I will express my gratitude, to all involved.
On the crosses, you misunderstand the Constitution. Only the state can violate individuals’ free speech right. If you speak and I shout over you, neither of us is violating any constitutional right of the other - though we might be subject to criminal or civil sanction if we get in a fight or destroy the other’s property. Accordingly, neither the students making a graveyard of crosses nor the students pulling out the crosses violated the free speech rights of the other.
With all due respect Tom, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Your comment about the state may be true in principle, but not in fact. People have stretched that line many times.
When different gropus are trying to speak past each other, the main state interest is in preserving the peace, including preventing damage to property. Another factor at an institution of public education is whether the speech unduly interferes with the mission of the university.
Which I cannot see a matter of issue here.
It sounds like we could use for facts as to what really happened/is happening at NKU in terms of how long the cross display was approved, and what was the timing of the action to remove them and whether any were destroyed.
Perhaps
As to crosses as opposed to swasticas, I don’t think there is a legal distinction. The ACLU worked hard and successfully to allow Nazis to parade in Skokie some years back, as you may recall. If the school has to allow symbolic speech on campus, I think the school would have a very tenuous basis for distinguishing between them.
I think too many states and communities have prohibition on hate speech to make that a done deal. A swastika is a symbol of hate and can be banned as hate speech depending on its usage, even though it often has to be allowed in other instances. So can a cross, such as a burning cross used by the KKK.
The real issue is the intent of the person making the use of the symbol. A person puttign a cross up in this context (abortion memoria) is not the same as the KKL example (to instill fear), they have different motives. The same with a swastika.
And what you are missing is that the person viewing it has their own prejudices to deal with , and their perception has a lot to do with any prohibition.
Read the latest case the ACLU won for a good example.
Karl, it’s pretty clear that several people voted against the initial proposal only because it was not comprehensive enough; if these people had voted in favor it would have been approved regardless of the other opposition. That’s why it was clear that the new, expanded memorial was going to be approved. Lee Dunbar noted that half of the initial no votes were people who wanted a more inclusive memorial: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/157669.php.
And as I said, none of the blogswarm has said thanks - maybe you can find one, but I haven’t despite looking. That you want to wait another couple of years is rather pathetic.
Tom
On free speech, I was trying to make a point as to what the Constitution provides. As to arguments between citizens, I hope that we can be civil and recognize the importance of allowing each other to speak, but when people try to speak past each other or disregard each other, or even damage their property, there is no Constitutional violation (which restrains government, not citizens), although there may be private (torts) or criminal sanctions.
It seems to me you are buying into alot of PC crap about "hate speech". Yes, speech may be vile and hateful, but all of us are worse off when we pass laws restraining free speech.
Regards,
Tom
Karl, it’s pretty clear that several people voted against the initial proposal only because it was not comprehensive enough;
There is no way you can prove that based on the notes, and the personal accounts are contradictory. That it was defeated narrowly is the only really relevent factor.,
if these people had voted in favor it would have been approved regardless of the other opposition. That’s why it was clear that the new, expanded memorial was going to be approved.
Sigh, Keep saying it, but it is a product of you imagination, not fact.
Lee Dunbar noted that half of the initial no votes were people who wanted a more inclusive memorial: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/157669.php.
That Lee said that is revisionist for all i know, but besides that it is a moot point. it is unproveable.
And as I said, none of the blogswarm has said thanks - maybe you can find one, but I haven’t despite looking. That you want to wait another couple of years is rather pathetic.
Tom
I make no apologies for the blog world. I have tried to remain encouraging and optimistic. I will continue to do so.
The rest of the blog sphere is responsible to their own beliefs.
On free speech, I was trying to make a point as to what the Constitution provides.
the constitution makes it a simple issue, but the courts have made it much more complex by extending free speech to matter beyond the original scope. FWIW i dont believe that expressoin as defined by the cross display itself is something that should be speech as protected. I think speech means speech. But the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, which is why porn is protected.
As to arguments between citizens, I hope that we can be civil and recognize the importance of allowing each other to speak, but when people try to speak past each other or disregard each other, or even damage their property, there is no Constitutional violation (which restrains government, not citizens), although there may be private (torts) or criminal sanctions.
Well sorry, but the courts have done a great job of ruling otherwise.
It seems to me you are buying into alot of PC crap about "hate speech". Yes, speech may be vile and hateful, but all of us are worse off when we pass laws restraining free speech.
perhaps so. But you are expecting rational behavior from people. I’m a bit more cynical.
Payday…
Payday…
Horny cam girls, free live video chat…
…