Why do I call him that? Well, it's not because he is, or isn't, a "sham" environmentalist with views that might not be in the best interest of environmentalism and global fairness, or any such global social issues, etc., but because he's a "fraudulent" man. Once again, a sanctimonious punk like Margaree Little (you have my empathy, Brown University, for being cursed by her presence), because she didn't get enough attention with other methods, so she says, has taken it upon herself to behave as if free speech were the purview of her kind; the obnoxious.
The genius apparently said, according to The Providence Journal, that she sees "[her] act as a way to get a conversation started about free speech at an elite university such as Brown, where the cherished concept is often “rhetoric.” Also from Little: “To tell him [Friedman] that we don’t respect him and we don’t want our tuition going to speakers like him.” What this tells us is that she both has the arrogance to think she speaks for the students of Brown, or that she and the Greenwash Guerrillas are of far greater importance than them, and that her method of free expression superceeds Friedman's right of free speech. She also says Brown is "not neutral territory," and that might well be true. What's also true by that statement, and her behavior, is that she also believes, as judged by her actions, that she may choose who people can associate with. Of course, I'm sure Little would just love to pay for the expense of seeing Friedman in other venues, had she succeeded in "..undermine[ing] his comfort on campus..”
But does Friedman want to punish Little for her jackass display of self importance? No, of course not: "I’m leaving it for Brown to decide what kind of values they want to uphold on their campus,” Friedman told the Associated Press.
Why? Because tolerating her crap makes him seem "Gandhi-like," and it might "shame" her by comparison. Here's a clue for you, Tommy. People like Little don't learn from their own ironic and hypocritical behavior. They accept only what their own sense of pragmatism tells them to; she's a narcissist. Do you really believe not succumbing to vengeance makes you better than her, that you would be violating her "free speech" if you went after her? Horse crap. The only way the latter is valid in a legal sense is if the action you take against her is unconstitutional or currently being, or is set to be, resolved in the Supreme Court. She's not entitled to avoid your wrath; it's questionable whether she was even entitled to behave as she did, given the security implications, which do mitigate free expression, et al.
In Little's world, harrassment by her is free expression, and speech by those with whom she disagrees is meant to be squelched by use of her free "expression," i.e., her behavior is authoritarian, which is ok because she means well; she's a revolutionary, don't you know?
Thomas, take her arrogant premise to its logical conclusion, and show her that free speech is not, nor has it ever been devoid of consequences, and crush her. Become a man.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/pie_discipline_04-26-08_459TRJB_v15.357b15a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment