Local peace activist Mark Stahl is apparently experiencing a little pushback for some critical remarks he made about the Brown pie-tossers. He relayed these comments to me via e-mail this past week, and I thought it was important to include his gist in the related story by Ariel Werner:
“I totally reject this action as an absurd and unwelcome attack on freedom of speech. I wonder how we would react if a speaker at one of our peace events was peppered by a pie. If we don’t support the principles of free speech and civil discourse, then we might as well shut down our organizations.”
Stahl believes that stunts such as those performed by the pie-tossers are “particularly counter-productive when the increasing inroads against civil liberties in this country make it all the more important for us to take a principled stand in support of freedom of speech.”
The pie-tossers view the situation differently:
From Brown students to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin (who deemed the pie-throwers “enviro-nitwits”), commentators have portrayed the incident as the latest example of liberal intolerance at Brown. But Little says that she and the Colonel aimed to provoke that very notion.
“What we were trying to draw attention to is the subtle hegemony of free speech on a campus where certain speakers — mainstream and right-wing speakers — get brought to campus and other voices aren’t heard or are silenced."
I'm with Stahl in this one. Where does one draw the line, for instance, between throwing pies and rocks, or otherwise interfering with what people have to say in a public forum? Anyway, Mark copied me on a followup e-mail he sent, and publishing it here seems in keeping with the spirit of the related discussion:
Dear friends,
A question has been asked as to why I sent a copy of my statement about the pie-throwing incident to the Providence Phoenix. I guess the answer is simple enough, I was hoping they would publish it! In the immortal words of Cicero, Cum tacent, probant! ("When they are silent, they approve.")
This incident has been widely covered by the national media, and the clip on YouTube has been viewed over 76,000 times. I intended my comments to be a public response to a very public incident. This is what democracy is all about, people being free to express their opinions without fear of retribution.
I appreciate the lively debate on this issue, as I know Molly does. One thing I would like to comment on is the idea that this was a "non-violent" action. Having viewed the clip on YouTube I do not regard it as non-violent. The protesters knew the missiles were harmless custard, but Mr. Friedman did not.
He instantly recoiled from the assault, with an instinctive reaction of fear. He could have easily lost his balance and slipped on the custard that was splattered on the floor, and injured or broken his leg. People have been seriously injured during what were intended as pranks or harmless actions.
Perhaps more important, this incident represented an assault on his dignity. Some may believe that he deserved it, as is their right. But in my opinion as a pacifist, assaults on human dignity are never justified, and never contribute to the creation of a more just and peaceful society.
Mark Stahl
Providence, RI