tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post116951701954948537..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The First Amendment Does Not Require Applause and CandyDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1169544729772752402007-01-23T01:32:00.000-08:002007-01-23T01:32:00.000-08:00I'm going to go with...the Poles, whose sordid his...I'm going to go with...the Poles, whose sordid history of anti-Semitic oppression makes them an easy target for contemporary claims today.<BR/><BR/>And regardless of whether our unnamed group was Jewish or not, it is quite irrelevant. If said group thinks Judt's speech was anti-Semitic (or otherwise bad), why shouldn't they speak up and be heard? Should they maintain their silence? Should they applaud? So long as they don't put <I>legal</I> pressure to bear, I have trouble identifying the problem here (as opposed to the ideal of how a liberal society ought to conduct itself).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1169542677043794202007-01-23T00:57:00.000-08:002007-01-23T00:57:00.000-08:00Hmm, ah, yeah.I would be interested to hear your...Hmm, ah, yeah.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the <A HREF="http://amechad.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-dissent-criticism-of-israel.html" REL="nofollow">aborted address</A> that Tony Judt was supposed to have given in New York late or mid last year.<BR/><BR/>The pressure applied to the Polish Embassy by an unnamed group was never denied (or for that matter confirmed) as being Jewish. <BR/><BR/>The question has to be asked - who would benefit the most by silencing Judt in New York?The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.com