The First Amendment is applicable against the government. It does not apply to private citizens, organizations, or institutions. Thus, the current brouhaha over the decision of Boston College to cancel a speech by terrorist Bill Ayers raises precisely ZERO free speech issues.

Friday morning I found out that Bill Ayers was scheduled to appear at Boston College the following Monday - yesterday. When a listener to my talk show tipped me off, I didnÂ’t believe it. And because BC was being so careful not to promote it, it took me several Google searches to confirm the details.

Yes, the unrepentant founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization that bombed a dozen American targets, advocated murder and whose members killed at least two police officers, among others, was invited to speak on the campus of a Catholic university.

* * *

In other words, I just shared the facts. Friday evening, after a day of getting pounded by angry BC alums and horrified citizens, the college did the right thing and barred this repugnant cretin from its campus.

And thatÂ’s when the Angry Left turned their sights on me.

I attacked “free speech.” I was a talk radio hypocrite, only supporting controversial opinions from the right. My favorite is the blogger bemoaning “a verbal terrorist assault by right-wing yakker Michael Graham.”

LetÂ’s look at this. Boston College is a Catholic institution. It has no obligation to host an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers on its campus. This should not even be controversial. Indeed, were we talking about arch-racist David Duke, there would be no controversy at all. The school would have cancelled the speech without so much as a second thought, and the Left would have told anyone who would listen that the decision was a proper one. Ditto an admitted abortion clinic bomber.

So why the difference here?

Because Ayers is a man of the Left – and a close associate of Barack Obama. The Left also embraces the terrorism that Ayers and his associates engaged in four decades ago because they view the cause for which he allegedly acted as a noble one.

Now if BC were a public college or university, I might be troubled by the actions of the administration. But they aren’t, so I’m not. This Catholic institution has decided that to bring among them a man who was prepared to kill hundreds in an effort to give victory to a totalitarian enemy of the United States was simply scandalous. They did not silence Ayers – they simply decided that their campus should not be the venue for his talk. Doesn’t BC have the right to determine that it does not want its name and reputation associated with the actions of one who was involved in the murder of policemen and plotted the deaths of military officers and their dates at a dance? What of the school’s right to speak and associate – or not associate – freely? What of the right of Boston College to refuse to facilitate a speech by an unrepentant killer?

And as for Michael Graham, what he did hardly constitutes any form of terrorism. He expressed a righteous moral outrage at something that was, when looked at objectively, outrageous. He urged folks to act peacefully to bring about change. Interestingly enough, those who argue that there was something wrong with his actions actually make Graham’s point – they want to silence speech they oppose.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.