The cancellation of Republican Speaker Eric Cantor’s planned lecture at the University of Pennsylvania fascinates me. Clearly, the man had as much of a First Amendment right to speak as to not speak. Just as the demonstrators who are now crowing victory for having intimidated him would have in theory had a First Amendment “right” to have shouted him down.
It might be rude, but that’s politics in America.
Amid Occupy Philadelphia protesters and discrepancies in the attendance policy, United States House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) canceled his Wharton Leadership Lecture slated for Friday, Oct. 21 at 4:30 p.m. Cantor had planned to speak at Huntsman Hall about income inequality.
ERIC CANTOR: Wharton remarks, as prepared for delivery
“The Office of the Majority Leader was informed last night by Capitol Police that the University of Pennsylvania was unable to ensure that the attendance policy previously agreed to could be met,” Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon wrote in an email. “Wharton is a educational leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, and the Majority Leader appreciated the invitation to speak with the students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the UPENN community.”
His absence didn’t deter activists, however, who assembled inside and outside Huntsman.
“It appears [Cantor] doesn’t want to talk to the 99 percent,” said Jamie Mondics of advocacy group Keystone Progress, after learning of the canceled speech.
Is that it? He didn’t want to “talk”? Did these demonstrators really want Eric Cantor to “talk”?
Isn’t it just more likely that they saw the event as little more than an opportunity to make it literally impossible for him to talk?
(Is there a right to heckle, to shout people down? Where is the line to be drawn between that form of making it impossible to speak and other forms of intimidation?)
Was Cantor a “coward” as many of the gloating commenters insist? While I think it would have been politically more astute in the long run for him to brave the event and be shouted off the stage (which clearly would have happened), he certainly was not obliged to do that.
Bravery aside, from a First Amendment standpoint, how relevant is it that the man was intimidated by the demonstrators?
By definition, the word “intimidate” means to cow — to make a coward of. So when the demonstrators gloat over Cantor being a coward, are they not celebrating the fact that they intimidated an American for trying to exercise his First Amendment rights?
Cantor may be a coward, but is such intimidation something to be proud of?
AFTERTHOUGHT: While it isn’t my job to give advice to politicians, I think that if Eric Cantor wants to redeem himself, a really neat way for him to do it would be to go to Zuccotti Park and attempt to address the demonstrators there. (Being shouted down builds character, and subtracts years from your life!)
Would he have a right to speak there? Would the demonstrators there have more of a “right” to shout him down than the demonstrators at Penn? I’m at a loss to explain why they would, or why they wouldn’t.
Is there really a right to speak under the First Amendment? Or is it merely a right not to have the government stop you?
Comments
8 responses to “Occupying the First Amendment?”
By arriving at an event to waste time being yelled at by semi-illiterate morons gives the semi-illiterate morons a platform, and wastes his time. By NOT seeking the spotlight of conflict he comes off better, they come off pettier and less time is wasted.
He’s not a coward, he’s practical.
The question is , does the public square belong only to those who shout the loudest and longest so that those who speak softly and to the point are never heard?
The university loses.
They should be ashamed of themselves. If they had any self respect they would tell Cantor they will guarantee that he will be allowed to speak and they will not allow the heckler’s veto.
Unfortunately, they’re probably not going to do that and they’re also probably not ashamed.
Academia today is not big on other points of view.
Just ask FIRE.
It’s a sad state of affairs and just part and parcel of why I think our civilization is doomed.
I think had he been yelled at and booed off the stage with the cameras running, Cantor would have greatly helped his cause, because the voters remember stuff like that. Letting your enemies create a backlash is a very effective political tactic.
I think had he been yelled at and booed off the stage with the cameras running, Cantor would have greatly helped his cause,
And harmed the university. Which harm they deserve.
He should have gone anyway. I know it sucks, but you can’t let a-holes win without a fight.
This is a typical liberal straw-man argument. Invite a conservative speaker, make it known that the left will disrupt his presentation and then chide him for not wanting to “speak to the 99%.” (BTW, since when do coddled university students and faculty represent 99% of Americans?)
One thing is missing, the left’s dismissal of the meaning of the word audience; from the Latin “audire,” meaning “to listen or to hear.” They had no intention of listening.
Somehow I suspect that these folks aren’t Wharton Business majors. With UPenn being one of the most expensive and exclusive universities in this country, don’t they really represent the 1%?
Now, try to imagine for a moments Tea Partiers had done this.
“Brownshirts” is the word we’d be hearing. This is particularly ironic since the Nazi party has endorsed OWS.