Protestors right to disrupt Columbia talk

There are two major flaws in the Indiana Daily Student editorial board's article, "Columbia Crash" (Oct. 13). One, freedom of speech includes the right to protest, and two, "legitimate debates" do not include people who threaten or use violence against the opposing party. Protest is a form of political engagement protected by the Constitution. The event at Columbia was not about one group preventing the free speech of another group. Karina Garcia, an attendee and organizer said, "One group was promoting hatred and violence, and the other group was loudly opposing it." During the event, protestors stormed the stage and unfurled a banner that read, "No One Is Illegal," and one of the protestors was kicked in the head. Attacking someone physically is suppression; protest is not.\nI agree with the IDS, "Just because someone disagrees with someone else does not give them any less a right to express their opinion." However, excluding the Minutemen from the arena of legitimate debate is not based on a disagreement of opinion. Minutemen sit out in the desert with guns threatening to shoot immigrant families and have said, "It should be legal to shoot illegals." Jim Gilchrist is friends with Council of Conservative Citizens member Barbara Coe who regularly calls Chicanos savages. The CCC is a white supremacist organization that is officially opposed to "miscegenation." Gilchrist ran for Congress under the American Independent Party; the party founded by George Wallace. And his xenophobic views include the absurd idea that Chicanos are attempting a violent takeover of the Southwest. The legitimate debate on immigration does not include people who, at the worst, threaten murder.\nFor footage that wasn't shown on Fox or CNN, try Democracy Now! or Univision. Democracy Now!'s coverage also features a debate between Gilchrist and Garcia which shows Gilchrist red-baiting and then leaving because he dislikes what Garcia says. Garcia's statements about Gilchrist may not be respectful, but instead of challenging them and engaging her in debate, Gilchrist cuts off the interview while threatening legal action. This controversy is not about freedom of speech; it is about criminalizing dissent and legitimizing hate speech.