Okay - now THIS might be worthy of a "live-blogging" I think I'd even pay for it. You MUST tell us how this goes down!

My God but we're a strange country, booing our own folks off the stage because they belong to the wrong party but insisting on "free speech" for murderous foreign bullshitting cretins such as Ahmadinejad. I really don't get us at all.

Jane, which would you prefer?

A. That we politely (continue to) listen to the out-of-touch ramblings of Hughes, whose half-educated gang many of us believe has contributed to the ruining our reputation in the very places where she's now looking for hugs while she "presents a positive vision of hope and opportunity rooted in American ideals." (Do you think there's anyone in any of her audiences who doesn't think THIS is bullshit?)

B. That we don't allow Ahmadinejad to speak at all. At Columbia they laughed at him, they jeered him (and when he had a point, they even cheered him) ... but I think having heard him out, we do have a better understanding of this particular bullshiting cretin than we did before. As for Hughes, that bullshitting cretin has had her say. And had it, and had it, and had it.

What's so strange?

Jane - the good thing about free speech is that everyone is entitled to it. The problem with free speech is that everyone is entitled to it.

While the Newts and the Karens of the world are entitled to accept the presumably generous speaking fee to appear at conferences, those in the audience who do not agree with what he and she say, or what past actions indicate they stand for, also had the right to exercise their free speech by booing.

My Mom taught me that someone obtains my respect by earning it, not by having a particular position or title. While I don't think I would actually boo someone, I have to agree with David that Karen Hughes, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and others in the Republican/conservative camp have had extensive access to address their views and plans to the public. The same access has not been granted to others seeking to air differing opinions in recent years.

Jane - I wish that some of the officials in the current administration were as open to having a healthy dialoguge as you are, because even we we disagree, I respect your opinions, and I know you respect mine. I don't see indications of that respect from the more official people in power and that is scary to me in a democratic society.

Q. Why do we no longer trust what elected (Republican) or appointed officials say?

A. Because Democrats keep telling us, through their willing messengers mainstream media, that everything Republicans say is a lie. They have delivered that message to us so often that we are repeating it down to the blog level.

Q. What happens to a country whose citizens no longer trust anything said by their leaders?

A. Anarchy and chaos in the streets.

Q. What happens when people no longer trust their media to give them true information?

A. Anarchy and chaos in the streets.

Just food for thought... And a reminder -- even in the Clinton/Gore administration's darkest hours, they were still *our* leaders, no matter what. Even the worst president we ever had -- the one who resigned in disgrace -- was still *our* president. We have abandoned that principle altogether with the current administration.

Will

David and Kristen: In a perfect world, here's how I think we would act:

Towards Americans (Karen Hughes, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Clooney, anyone): Let them speak and WITHOUT FAIL let them know immediately, during their speech, when what we're hearing sounds like bullshit or lies. Hold their toes to the fire. Wouldn't that be simply amazing?

Towards on-record enemies of our country who don't want us to "change" but just want us dead: DON'T INVITE THE MUHFUHS TO SPEAK AT YOUR COLLEGE CAMPUS. If the U.N. invites them to speak, allow them into the country to do that and then politely escort them back where they came from. Playing host to these people unnecessarily isn't "free speech," it's idiocy. It makes us the laughing stock of most of the rest of the world, and we aren't going to learn anything true or substantial in the exercise.

Will - I think I may have misunderstood your comments, so allow me to ask for clarification.

On Q1 - Do you truly believe that Rupert Murdoch's news organization, which I believe is considered "mainstream" is acting as the "willing messenger of Democratic" positions?

On Q2 - Are you saying that simply because one is an elected official we should automatically trust what they say without question?

For myself, I still believe that it is not only our right, but our solemn responsibility to question public officials when what they say doesn't make sense, ring true or stand up to public scrutiny. But maybe I'm the minority in that?

Kristen, if you're the minority, then there is much to fear.

A for On Q1: No. But some would have us all believe that Murdoch's properties are "radical right wing." I don't believe they are that either. It will be interesting to see what he does with Wall Street Journal, eh?

A for On Q2: Of course not. In fact, I seldom trust what elected officials tell us, and I really don't give a damn what party they are from. I completely agree with you on questioning public officials when what they say doesn't make sense. But I stand by my statement that (a) Democrats want the whole world to believe that everything Republicans are saying these days is a lie and (b) mainstream media is all too willing to help Democrats push that message out.

Will

Will--

So it's only okay for non-Democrats to seldom trust what elected officials tell us?

Jane--

I don't disagree with your policy for letting Americans speak; I only questioned PRSA's wisdom in inviting Hughes. I predict PRSA will be sorry, conference attendees will be angry, and Hughes will be embarrassed.

I don't think it would have been a violation of free speech to disallow Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia. I do think it was a good idea to do so--gave many Americans a chance to hear the guy first-hand (probably for the first time in many cases) and judge him for themselves (and I think most judged him harshly).

This result means a deeper popular understanding of who we're dealing with here. That's good—and will be valuable if we ever have to act aggressively against him.

As for your contention that letting him speak here makes us a global laughing stock, I'd like to see your evidence.

David

David, I don't have the kind of "evidence" you may be looking for, but I have a long-standing friendship with a really smart, urbane, 46-year-old Italian. We communicate well (a pat on the back for his English, NOT for my Italian!). He is polite and kind and likes me and my husband a lot, and is inclined to like America and Americans. He also gives me a great glimpse of how America and Americans look to Europeans--even to Europeans who may be inclined to like and even respect us. Frankly, we often look innocent to the point of stupidity.

I LOVE that we're the land of liberty, for ourselves and for anyone else who wants to come here, but I HATE that our judgment isn't always great. Protecting free speech and giving forums to our enemies are two completely different things, and the line between them is seldom fine. (I'll admit that what your average resident of Italy or France or Egypt or Lebanon thinks of the U.S. may be vastly different from what his or her government thinks of us. That can be good or bad, depending on the government and how much free access to information there is in that country.)

So okay, Ahmadinejad got booed. Goody for us. There was just as great a possibility of his being treated like a hero; it's happened more times than we can count in recent history when Holocaust deniers, Muslim extremists, and other big-time hate-mongering idiots took the stage. My point is, why invite it, especially if they're foreigners? We don't owe it to them.

I guess I'm supposed to care whether an Italian thinks I'm naive or not, but I don't. I care if he thinks I'm evil or a bully, yes; his cultural memory contains Mussolini; he knows of evil bullies.

But I don't care whether he thinks I'm naive. What in blazes does Italy have to teach about innocence?

For the last time—and I don't think we'll agree on this, but I do want it acknowledged that I said it—I do NOT think we "owed" it to Ahmadinejad to let him speak.

However—regardless of the rest of the world's opinion, which I don't pretend to be able to divine on this one—I am glad we did.

"There was just as great a possibility of his being treated like a hero; it's happened more times than we can count in recent history when Holocaust deniers, Muslim extremists, and other big-time hate-mongering idiots took the stage."

I can't agree simply because the hate mongerers to whom you refer tend to be treated like heroes when speaking to friendly (and pre-screened audiences), while I gather the one at Columbia was more general and not as likely to fall into line. It sounds like they didn't, which is why I don't think it was a bad thing to give him the opportunity to put his foot into it, which he obligingly did. He's not a charismatic leader adored by millions, unlike some, and seems to be on tenuous footing at best, from what I understand. (Many qualifiers because I don't profess to be an expert.)

I gather the "we" who invited him to speak was someone at Columbia, so there really is no "we" as this wasn't the U.S. government asking him to speak, on behalf of We, the people.

The message I got out of all this is that people will see he can talk freely here, while the growing dissident movement in Iran is further repressed. He makes me appreciate what we have even more.

If we're serious about free speech, then there is room for both Ahmadenijad and Hughes on the respective podiums.

Let's not forget what a privilege it is that we can even have this discussion.

Europe is where terrorists hang out these days. Many European countries are soon going to have a citizenry the majority of which is Muslim, well within our lifetime if not within the next decade, and the terrorists are making lots of hay with this. In Europe, the fear of bombs is always present and they've adapted their lifestyles accordingly. It's a fear we just don't understand here, thank God.

There are lots of subjects on which I don't give a rat's ass what Europeans think, but if they think we're being naive about terrorists we might be wise to pay attention. They know whereof they speak.

Jane, the Europeans have horrible ghettos full of poor and dispossessed Muslims in their cities. Muslims in our country thrive by comparison.

It's apples and oranges. I could understand their concern about an inspiring Ahmadinejad appearance causing a dangerous local Muslim uprising which might be supported by organized terrorists in some way.

That is not among our many worries here. I don't think Ahmadinejad's appearance put us in any danger. Do you?

David,

It looks like we'll agree to disagree on the topic of whether we should distrust everything coming out of the present administration. My point all along has been that just because we don't trust what a general says about the war, that doesn't mean we should not trust what leaders of Social Security, Department of the Interior or Veterans Affairs, for example, tell us about those parts of the administration's business -- but there are those on the left who would carry the argument that far.

But there is plenty to agree on here: "I don't think it would have been a violation of free speech to disallow Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia. I do think it was a good idea to do so..."

People need to remember that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution guarantee many rights for Americans -- not Iranian presidents and not for enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be gracious enough to extend a podium to a despot or grant a fair trial to an enemy combatant. If we (government officials) denied that podium some would say that violates the right of Columbia University to extend the invitation.

So I completely agree with your argument there -- we didn't have to let him speak, but it's a good thing that we did.

Will

Will--

"It looks like we'll agree to disagree on the topic of whether we should distrust everything coming out of the present administration. My point all along has been that just because we don't trust what a general says about the war, that doesn't mean we should not trust what leaders of Social Security, Department of the Interior or Veterans Affairs, for example, tell us about those parts of the administration's business -- but there are those on the left who would carry the argument that far."

Well, I know people on the left who think The New York Times is a shill for the RIGHT and I know right-wingers who think Fox is too left. (Actually, I don't know any of those right-wingers.) But most liberals don't distrust everyone in the administration. For instance, we trusted the heads of FEMA for many years ..... :)

As for me, I'm DESPERATE to hear a member of the administration who sounds trustworthy, and when I do hear one I become inordinately excited. If you saw my post on Petraeus a couple weeks ago, you know that unlike many on the left and right, I thought HE sounded trustworthy, although that affair was/is so complicated by Bush's abdication of Commander in Chief .....

But as the kids say, "I'm all like, whatev."

David

I'm desperate to lose the labels.

Sorry to jump in late, but my access while traveling overseas has been limited...

It seems to me we're getting hung up on a lot of labels here (many of which sadly reflect some blatantly one-sided biases) while missing the point of David's original post...

Isn't this PRSA inviting a guest speaker who occupies what is arguably a key PR position (no matter what the official title)?

I've heard/read some of the same reports about Hughes that David referenced. Is that all she can offer? Is she really just a political hack who can barely spell PR, let alone do it? What a great opportunity to see whether this highly visible PR person really "gets it." If she gives a damn, she'll walk in there knowing who her audience is and what they want. If she has any PR smarts at all, she'll skip the political propaganda (read: BS) and use the opportunity to discuss her current PR challenge. And how she's facing it.

The debate over whether to offer someone controversial a public forum in which to espouse their views is as old as the very notion of freedom of speech. I may not agree with Hughes's politics, but I'll tip my hat to her if she delivers a talk that elevates the entire PR discussion to a new level. My personal biases notwithstanding, I hope Hughes proves us skeptics wrong.

It's her game to win or lose.

I look forward to the post-mortem.

Signing off from Berlin, where the past week has given me a fascinating new perspective on what freedom (of speech, assembly or anything else) really means...