Free speech is an interesting topic and seems to be one of the key elements against this particular event. Can someone define it por favor. Its a very complicated issue it seems like.

For instance, is it ok to say anything, since it is free speech? Even if it has severe/violent/illegal consequences? I'll clarify with some examples.

In Rwanda, the radio kept telling the Hutus to kill Tutsis and regular civilians began to muder their neighbors with machetes, raping Tutsui girls, the works. (it was the most efficient attempt of genecide in history). IS that free speech?

FOr Bush's first election, FOX had advertised before the recount was finished, that Bush had won. Later on it was clear that there was no clear winner. But FOX kept the winner as Bush and all the other "liberal" stations decided to follow the good old fox and told the population that Bush had won. THis is distorted and probably a planned tactic that worked really well. Is that free speech?

Pat R. telling his audience on his show that Hugo Chavez should be taken out with our forces, and illegal act (not to mention hypocritical in light of our invasion), free speech?

These might seem like extreme examples but they are recent tangible incidents that have or might have serious consequences of violence.

I personally feel that free speech gets complicated when the speaker is manipulating the audience toward violence, or information that might lead to violence. The military is promotes violence by nature, unfortunately. They practice to kill people without thnking twice. You'd have a very inefficient army if your soldiers kept thinking about whether or not is was ethical or really the goal of your mission to kill the person your bosses called the "enemy."

Military, current administration, gangs, mafia, KKK, terrorists etc. all promote violence in some way through their speech and actions. They are not necessarily similar organizations, but have similar tactics and consequences. SO what do you think? Is it necessary for us to allow violence promoting organizations, or calls for violence to be part of free speech?

Also, how much free speech was really blocked by the protest? I doubt it really affects the the military if they have a queer kiss in, and others questioning the recruiters? What message from the military was not allowed? What was it that they were not able to say?

I do agree that banning groups you don't agree with isn't a good tactic, but it is not as simple as that. If you have a gang problem, should you just accept them for who they are and let them recruit your friends and children? It might be a hard parallel to see, but in a lot of ways if you focus on violence and the macho fear group identity based culture, they are very similar. So is this some abstract issue about free speech in the ideal world, or are there clear parameters about what freespeech is.

I do agree that education is the key, and i think protests are a way of educating people. Unfortunately most people just are uninterested in all the social, political, environmental issues. Any suggestions on how to educate the masses? This is a university that can barely get ppl to show up to classes though.

Should we tolerate violence? (the war gets more complicated because we're trying to end violence through violence. And the freedom fighters/terrorist (an issue of discourse) are using violence against the violence of the US, which is geared toward ending violence? What do you think?

PS i'm still down to figure out a time and place to meet if you believe your ideas are solid, or if you want to learn a different perspective.