Unfiltered.

Seeing as how this comment is getting lost in the flow at Saipanmiddleroad.blogspot.com I have decided to repost it here. I am very interested in what people may have to say on this issue. This is in regards to the heated controversy of having the Iranian President speak at Columbia. Many people have criticized this and said that he should not have been given him the stage.

I think that no one should be censored from speech. People liken him to Hitler. I say let him talk. People can listen and then come to their own decision on how they feel about him. I can come to my opinion without someone stopping me from listening for fear that I may not be able to handle what he has to say. Thank you for trying to protect us, but it truly is not necessary.

Who among us is so great that they have the right to decide these matters? Who is so perfect that they can cast such a large stone as one large enough to suppress the freedom of speech? Some have said that freedom of speech is limited to Americans. I can not believe that they feel that way. But that is their opinion and so be it. My opinion is that it is not limited. Speak. Question. Listen. Decide not to listen. Make up your own mind and stop worrying about filtering things for the masses.

If he is not welcome and people all believe what the press is reporting, if I am alone in believe that he should be allowed to say whatever he wants to, if all Americans believe he should not be given an audience then all they had to do was not show up. Quick easy simple solution. Obviously people showed up. Obviously the news covered it. Obviously they don't embrace the thought that he should not have been given an audience. How hypocritical is that that you say he should not be allowed to speak then go and watch him?

Here is my comment from Middle Road:

Pragmatic Plato said...
The homosexuality comment made up about 20 seconds of his entire forum. I personally feel it was slightly misinterpreted. I watched the entire forum last night (an unedited version). I have read interviews and backstories on him and seen him in two other interviews. He appears to be a very intelligent man. Many people's preconceived notions of who he is and what he believes in stem from misreported facts, spin, items taken out of context, etc.

I laughed at each and everyone of the questions that were asked of him after his speech. Each question was phrased with an attack and laced with information that may have not been accurate. I love the fact that he took a deep breath and entertained the questions none the less.

He was cordial, eloquent and poised. I often wonder how we as a country can so easily and blindly accept what mainstream media pumps out as truth. I also wonder why it is so hard for people to remove themselves from their own comfort zone and try and see things from another person's point of view.

Remember the US a few years back had slaves, committed hateful crimes against them, did not condone homosexuality, had massive amounts of crimes including death against homosexuals, aided iraq in administering the use of chemical weapons on iran, back isreal with support in a fight against the palistinian people, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in combat (not once but twice), continues to develop nuclear arms and test them, still has the death penalty and utilizes it, there are places in the U.S. in which homosexual acts are illegal and can be punished by imprisonment and fines, the list goes on and on.

Regarding the Homosexuality question, here is how our US Military sees homosexuality:

"US Military
Statute: US Code Title 10, Section 47, Subchaper X, Sec. 925. Art. 125. Sodomy.
Penalty: Court Martial
Classification: Felony
Restrictions: None
Enforcement: 106 members of the armed services were discharged during the 2000 fiscal year that ended September 30, 2000, for homosexual acts according to the Pentagon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statute
Section 47 - Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter X, Punative Articles
Sec. 925. Art. 125. Sodomy

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with
another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy.
Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "


Major case of pot calling the kettle black? Chime in. Lets try and keep this related to the issue at hand and not turn it into another "you are anonymous so it doesn't matter" debate.

9/28/2007 10:39 AM