bernie (03/16/83)
My feelings on the subject are simple, and I've stated them before: the
childish behaviour of the students doing the heckling is pointless, and
will only cause support for their cause to dwindle. *Regardless* of what
Jeane Kirkpatrick was saying, the students had no right to interfere. There
were people in that hall who were there to hear what Jeane Kirkpatrick had
to say; they were undoubtedly intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions
about the validity of those words. Not only were the demonstrators interfering
with Kirkpatrick's right to speak, they were interfering with the audience's
right to listen. A mob of not-quite-rational self-made rebels should *never*
be allowed to interfere with anyone's freedom of speech, even if that person
is wrong in what they're saying.
By preventing Kirkpatrick from speaking, those students are taking away my
right to hear what the woman has to say; I object strongly to having *any*
of my rights taken away by a mob.
--Bernie Roehl
...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernieucbcad:ingres (04/01/83)
#R:spanky:-24700:ucbcad:4800001:000:395 ucbcad!ingres Mar 31 10:05:00 1983 "One difference between reading a press conference and hearing her in person: in the latter case you have an opportunity to ask questions after the speech. In the case of Kilpatrick, who seems to avoid cer- tain topics unless specificly asked about them." Kenneth Almquist True, true. Sometimes. The Ambassador's speech was advertised as NOT having a question/answer period. Ken