I feel like both groups have the freedom to share their opinions; however, it was disrespectful for the students to storm into Jim Gilchrist’s speech. The issue with freedom of speech is that it is not well-defined and its limitations are not established.
I consider that freedom should be defined in order to avoid barbarous acts being done in its name. Also, I think that someone’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. Jim Gilchrist’s is a clear advocate and founder of the minute-man and I am sure that he would have tried to persuade individuals to join his cause, but then again every speaker does that- they are trying to promote an agenda. I feel the students in this case had the right to stop something that might have endanger their well-being in the future; for instance, if his speech was going to cause a division or hatred towards them within their campus, then it was better to stop it before it even began.
Even though I feel storming in was an inappropriate way for the students to promote their opinion, I would have done the same thing. If the information the speaker was going to provide was targeted towards the discrimination, hatred, stereotyping, racism towards any human being, then I feel it would be my responsibility to stand up and say something.
I think that the students did not handle the situation very well. I think that with freedom of speech, you can use it to your advantage if you handle it the proper way. They did not make themselves look good when they stormed the stage. They should have listened to what he had to say and then in a Q&A brought up their points so that he would be able to rebut. At the same time, the minute men did not handle it well either because they got violent about it. Overall, all sides could have handled the situation a lot better than they did.
ReplyDelete