At UCLA(March 10, 2006), Johns Hopkins University(March 13, 2006), and USC(April 10, 2006) the ARI will unveil the Danish cartoons and have a panel discussion which is part of what they call their Free Speech Campaign.
Apparently the Rebulican UC Irvine students had a discussion panel and display on March 8, 2006 that had around 1,000 Muslim protesters and a “huge police presence and bomb-sniffing dogs”.
This recent letter to the editor.. from the Ayn Rand Institute on the cartoon jihad has a more personal touch than usual. (And I enjoyed that!)
Dear Editor,
Although I was unable to get into the February 28th University of California, Irvine (UCI) event to watch the unveiling of the Danish cartoons and the panel discussion on terrorism (I was told by security that the hall was filled to capacity), I did have an opportunity to closely observe the mob of protestors demonstrating against the event. Amongst those chanting “Allah Aqubar” and holding signs such as “Mohammed Protector of Women” and “Young Republicans = the new KKK”, were a noticeable number of people wearing green arm bands nearly identical to those worn by Hamas suicide bombers in the Middle East. Apparently this is not the first time these armbands have been worn by students on the UCI campus. To learn that there are people right here in my own backyard who openly display support for a terrorist organization like Hamas was a real wake up call.
I’d gone to the event in defense of my right to free speech, and my right to see the Danish cartoonists’ message without fear of violence or intimidation. What I came away with was the realization that my right to free speech and my right to life were under a much more immediate threat.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARI’s efforts, please make an
online contribution
…
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact [email protected]. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
I only wish I could witness the reaction to the Free Speech Campaign in person! (If I weren’t so overwhemed with school, I’d certainly fly to a coast to see either the March 10th lecture at UCLA or the March 13th lecture at Johns Hopkins.)
the panel consisted of four people, including Yaron Brook, the president an executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Kevin James, a KABC radio talk show host; Avi Davis, a journalist, commentator and documentarian on the Middle East; and Khaleel Mohammed, an assistant professor of religion at San Diego State University
“You don’t have the right to call to (for the) murder of cartoonists, to incite violence,” Brook said
"“You don’t have the right to call to (for the) murder of cartoonists, to incite violence,” Brook said, adding that violent reactions against free speech are wrong, regardless of the content. "
So does Dr. Brook think that people should be arrested for waving signs that say “kill the cartoonists”? Since we have free will, doesn’t the responsiility for a murder fall on the person who actually commits it, not someone else who “incited” them to do so?
Note that ARI itself has a piece calling for Saddam’s execution:
I think the distinction here is that Saddam pretty much forfeited his rights when he became a dictator and slaughtered a lot of people in his country. The cartoonists have done no such thing.
I think in the first case it’s more of a call for justice, and not inciting others to initiate force against innocent civilians.
I think inciting violence can properly be prosecutable, if the incitement is real and reasonably known to be taken seriously. For example, if some loon walked around with a sign saying “Hit Bill Cosby with Gobs of Jello Pudding”, he would reasonably be dismissed without any further consideration. But if, say, we were at war with militant Islamists, and enduring acts of terrorism, beheadings, etc., and a militant Moslem chanted “Behead infidels in the street!”, and got lots of angry Moslems to join in, then I think that’d represent a reasonable worry for citizens.
A good body of legal precedents would be the best guarantee that prosecutability didn’t become subjective.
My personal opinion is that we should declare war, and anybody explicitly advocating violence on behalf of the enemy should be considered an enemy combatant, and shot on sight. Carrying a “death to infidel” sign should become a de facto suicide note.
I think the distinction here is that Saddam pretty much forfeited his rights when he became a dictator and slaughtered a lot of people in his country. The cartoonists have done no such thing.
I think in the first case it’s more of a call for justice, and not inciting others to initiate force against innocent civilians.
Fair enough; the situations are not really comparable. edit: The idea of immediately executing Saddam, though, is based on the Objectivist concept of justice, which is not accepted by our lawfully elected government. The idea of killing the cartoonists is based on the radical Islamic concept of justice, which is also not accepted by our government. They are still not strictly comparable, but there is a double-edged sword here … Suppose one of Saddam’s jailers were to read the ARI piece, decide that it was correct, and kill Saddam in his cell. Should ARI be criminally charged for “inciting violence”?
As it happens, I met Dr. Brook today and asked him this directly. He tried to equate the sign-waver with a Mafia boss who orders a hit (I’m paraphrasing). I’m having trouble with that, though; I see a distinction between planning and/or ordering a specific crime and general encouragement of violence without a specific plan or direct danger to the victim.
In regards to the last unveiling that took place on 3/13/06, I finally have found a link to an article about the Johns Hopkins University unveiling and panel discussion here.
If anyone has any information to add about the last two ARI Free Speech Campaign events, please share it with us.
One difference is that the Objectivist concept of Justice is actually backed up by something, and the Islamic justice isn’t (by which I mean it’s not grounded in reality). By which I mean is that an Objectivist could explain much better why he thought Saddam deserves to die without resorting to arguments from authority (i.e. my book says it has to happen, so it has to happen).
I think the difference is huge, actually. To ask for the death of an innocent person is lightyears away from asking that someone who is essentially a mass-murderer gets his just desert. You can’t just throw both on one pile and say: Demanding that someone dies is bad, always.
This reporter is negative about the ARI presentation; nevertheless, I figure some might be interested in what the opponents are saying about the campaign.
Disciples of Ayn Rand and her ideology of radical individualism, the objectivists have been blamed for the increasingly conservative drift in American philosophy departments, where logic and certainty is worshipped, and such “relativist” fields as post-colonial, ethnic and women’s studies are abhorred
I didn’t know ARI was doing so well spreading Objectivism that they’re already mentioning it in a disapproving manner
“I believe the cartoon demonstrations are equivalent to 9/11 in terms of their motivation and goals.” Over the next eight minutes, after telling the audience that he stands for free speech, he reiterated the word “terror” in his Brooklyn accent until everyone was dizzy and let loose a diatribe about how we should learn from the Hiroshima example and nuke Iran into submission, and recommended that all those who had issued fatwas against the Danes “should be arrested,” and that “America should have taken action” because "violence is the only way you can stop people from talking.
I’ve heard Dr. Brook speak live and even this out of context quote helps me to recall how powerful his arguments are… I’d love to hear another “diatribe” of his in person, so long as “diatribe” is used in the sense of a forceful or bitter argument. We in the West have a lot to be bitter about when it comes to Islam.
I’ve heard Dr. Brook speak live and even this out of context quote helps me to recall how powerful his arguments are…
Not to mention that the person you quoted is so out of touch with reality that he apparently doesn’t realize that Yaron Brook doesn’t have a *Brooklyn* accent - he’s from Israel.
