On Free Speech

Last Tuesday, I got to see the President of Israel speak. I say see, not hear, on purpose. You see, between the protesters outside, those inside, and the fact that Peres is a very soft speaker with a fairly heavy accent, I only caught about 1 out of every 6 words. Still, it was an unforgettable experience, partially because all of those factors.

I don't know much about the situation in Israel and Palestine. I know the basics, and I know that a two-state solution seems to be the most logical argument. I even took a class where we looked at the ideologies behind terrorists in places like Israel and Palestine. But I am far from an expert on the subject, and I definitely don't feel strongly enough either way to feel compelled to protest a speech. Instead, I spent the time thinking on free speech, protests, and what they can do.

Now, I love free speech. I love it when people protest. I think it's a fantastic example of democracy in action. But I also wonder what good an angry protest does. The most successful protests I can think of are sit-ins, marches, and the like, all of which were ... quiet in a very powerful way. The protest of Peres was anything but. Lots of chanting and shouting and trying to aggressively convince people of their position. It made me wonder how well it worked, in the end. I 100% support their ability to protest, but I wonder: What can be learned from shouting?

Similarly, during the speech, about 6 people stood up and said various facts about what Israel has done to Palestine. Now, this was much calmer and more fact-driven. But the people were using their right to free speech to take away someone elses, and to take away my right to listen. That seems rather unfair. I might not agree with everything Peres says, but I still have the right to listen to him say it.

It all kind of makes me wonder why some people thing that converstaion, dialogue, and speeches are so dangerous. Of course, there are numerous ovious examples of when it can be. But this was a speech on globalism and peace given at an international university and there was a question/answer time. Why was it necessary to interrupt that? Why were people so mad that he came to speak that they shouted at people who went to listen? It's quite likely that I simply don't get the whole situation, and that there are complexities and atrocities that should make me that angry. But still, I just wonder...

Any thoughts?