A couple of recent stories have set me to pondering if people in the US today truly understand the idea of free speech.
Last month a series of protests in Oklahoma forced Attorney General Eric Holder to cancel a planned speech to the graduation class of the Oklahoma City police academy.
The protesters objected to Holder because of his views on gun control, his perceived lack of cooperation with Congress in the investigation of the Fast and Furious scandal along with a number of other issues. Or to put it more simply the protesters did not like him or what he might say.
Then thisis month former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice cancelled a planned commencement speech at Rutgers University after similar protests.
As with Holder the objection of the protesters had to do with the views and conduct of Secretary Rice. In this case mostly tied to her work in the Bush administration.
Now certainly in both cases the protesters had (and have) a perfect right to object to the speaker and to express their views.
But I find it troubling that they feel the right extends to the point of preventing someone from speaking. This is especially true on a college campus where the idea of free exchange of ideas is supposed to be key.
I used the two examples I did because I am guessing that there are a fair number of people who like one but dislike the other and so you are left with the issue of justifying blocking the speaker you dislike while condemning the effort against the one you like.
Again, I have no issue with protests themselves. That is part of our free society.
But the idea that certain points of view are simply not allowed is troubling to say the least.