Misusing the First Amendment
By Paul Shelby Lewis
 
The ever humble and honest Mahmoud speaking at Columbia University; the Colorado State University student-run newspaper running a rather churlish editorial; the University of Florida tasing a student for what some are calling his "free speech;" seems like the perfect time for a lesson on the First Amendment.
 
Lets begin with the ordeal at Columbia University.  Now, the question of the propriety of the invitation to Ahmadinejad is certainly up for debate; this writer does not necessarily have a problem with it as such, especially since it puts Mahmoud's ignorance, arrogance, and shear stupidity on full display for students who might have held him in high esteem.   In addition, letting him speak provides a forum for direct criticism from which he would otherwise be shielded.  As John Coatsworth, dean of students, stated, "If he were willing to engage in a debate and discussion, and be challenged by Columbia students and faculty," and providing that we were not at war with the country, Hitler would be invited to speak. 
 
All that said, it is interesting that Columbia would allow a dictatorial, holocaust-denying tyrant to speak, while at the same time rescinding an invitation to Jim Gilchrist, president of the minutemen project.   Granted, the events were sponsored by separate school entities, but the overriding message is frightening.  A brigand of history who wants to destroy the nation of Israel .  .  . by all means send the invitation.  A man who wants nothing more than to protect the borders of our country so as to defend it from such men as Ahmadinejad .   .  . surely he is too controversial.  What is more astounding is Gilchrist's appearance at Columbia last year.   The students of this same University,  who stood behind the invitation to Ahmadinejad and gave him a respectful hearing all in the name of free speech, stormed the stage when Gilchrist was ready to take the podium and thwarted any chance he had to speak.   "I've always respected Columbia, but I've relegated it to a gutter school after that incident," Gilchrist said in a phone interview with Fox News. "They've stopped free speech. That's worse than killing people. With that, you can kill an entire nation."
 
Next on the docket, the Colorado State University student-run newspaper decided to run an editorial with a headline that would no doubt get the attention of everyone.  For those who have heard nothing about the words splayed across the page, there were two; one was "Bush," the one preceding it was a four letter word more often heard preceding "You!" when a fan yells at an umpire (sorry if you cannot follow that, but this is a family show).  The editor claims that this was intended to get people talking about the importance of free speech.  But, just as it would be hard to imagine the students at Columbia allowing someone they despise, such as Gilchrist, to speak freely, it is equally difficult to obtain a mental picture of the suggestion above being directed at Al Gore.  After the editor's job was put into question, he and other students began to cite the first amendment as their right to print and/or say whatever they wanted without the ability of an oversight council to say otherwise.
 
Finally, there was the incident of the student being tasered at the University of Florida (which was one of the events prompting the above editorial title).  Now, the press made every effort to turn this into a student merely speaking according to his 1 st Amendment rights; yet you rarely hear that this same student was asked several times to remove himself before he became violent with the authorities at the event.  What they also do not tell you is that those by whom the student was tasered were neither federal or state officials.
 
All of the above leads to this point:  The first amendment protects the citizens from the federal government and state governments.   It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition for government for a redress of grievances."   In none of the above cases does the 1st amendment apply.  The problem in the Columbia case is that while they stand behind letting a dictator speak and cite the 1 st amendment as their reason, they do not apply that same standard to Mr. Gilchrist.  One should not claim that he is supporting healthy debate if he is only allowing one side of the debate to be spoken.  
 
Neither does the 1st amendment apply to the CSU case, as school officials have every right to dismiss the editor for what was printed.   Even if one is free to say whatever he pleases, or publish whatever he likes, that does not mean his superiors are not free to punish him for his choice of words, be they spoken or written.  This especially when those superiors are not connected with the government.  I suppose you could make some case that since CSU is a state school, that the first amendment applies in such a case, but that is a stretch to say the least.   And finally the 1st amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the tasing event.  Though the student was in a public setting, he was on a private campus and was arrested by non-government officials.  The liberal press that has been covering (or not covering in some cases) the many aspects of these stories would do well to read the first amendment in a common sense fashion; a 14-year-old child could see that such laws do not extend beyond the reach of federal and state entities.   Then again, most of the media sees the world through 3rd-grade level eyes, so common sense in this case might be hard to come by.