Collegiate Times

what? I'm so sorry... you've lost me...

You're crazy Devin Stone. Why don't you go burn a tire or blow up a Wal-mart. See if that helps your cause, you idiot terrorist. Way to be counter-productive.

I stopped reading after "slash the car tires of military and CIA recruiters, destroy the property of chemistry buildings". That is no way to voice your opinion, Mr. Stone. That's not free speech, its criminal.

You bemoan the loss of freedom of speech (or something to that effect... I think), then you advocate denying others the right to free speech. Slash the tires of recruiters? So you can deny them the means to go speak to people? People who might have a different opinion than yours and may decide they want to serve? What gives you that right? While it is obvious, based on your many writings, that you hold people who serve in contempt, but they are serving for you. It doesn't matter if they work for the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, and, yes, even the hated Central Intelligence Agency - they are all working for the betterment of this society. Or do you believe that they would be more valuable vandalizing some public edifice with a can of spray paint?

The bottom line here is, Civil Disobediance is STILL disobediance. Chip makes an excellent point regarding Mr. Stone's equivocation regarding free speech. My reading of this article seems to indicate that Mr. Stone is displeased with the lack of more violent and, dare I say, creative forms of political speech; keep in mind, though, that your right to speech ends "where my nose begins," to paraphrase a past Chief Justice. Talking is one thing. Slashing someone else's property, ESPECIALLY the government's (you may claim it to be your property, but I claim it is also mine and so neither of us has right to denigrate it).

"Peaceful protest never got the job done/ so i wake up in the morning grab my soymilk and my gun." Good Clean Fun, from the song "In Defense of All Life" It's funny to note that the United States government commonly advocates violence against foreign leaders. In fact, it even praises such an act as glorious and honorable (JOIN UP FOR THE MILITARY TODAY). But to advocate violence against American leaders, is not protected under the first amendment. The result, is an idiot proclaiming an entire people "Evil", entire nations "evil", who then orders others to go over seas to kill. The monopoly of violence of the state is the greatest impediment to peace. Challenging the monopoly of violence is the only way to control our leaders. Not challenging the monopoly of violence of the state, is to allow the rich to dictate the rules. Also, the CIA has no first amendment rights. It is a government agency, not a person. To grant a government agency the same rights as individuals would be a dangerous, dangerous, orwellian mistake. We already made that mistake with the 14th amendment and corporations. I hope you're intelligent enough to know why.

so Mr. Stone is calling our generation tragically naive, misinformed, and lazy? Sounds like Cindy Sheehan with a thesaurus.

My point about the CIA's First Ammendment rights had nothing to do with its operations. I was referring to Mr. Stone's well-voiced opposition to CIA recruiting on campus. The CIA has the same right of access to students for the purposes of recruiting as any other entity, whether it be civilian or government.

Usually Mr. Stone's article's are good for a chuckle or two, but this one is borderline scary. Once you strip away all the hyperbole and pretentious language ("intellectual mastrubation" anyone?) he is basically advocating anarchy. Thank God no one takes this loon seriously...

False. Only corporations have first amendment rights which allow them to go to and speak at career fairs. Government agencies have no first amendment rights to do such things, hence they only have a "right" if they are invited by a student organization, and if they are not invited, then the university has the "right" to decline them the opportunity. The reason universities do not decline the right to government agencies to speak, is because they will be denied money by the state to do such a thing. Hence the CIA speaks at career fairs because the rich dictate the rules.

And why shouldn't the state be able to determine what is and is not in its best interests? You act as though schools DESERVE the money the state gives them, and should be entitled to this funding inconsquentially. The fact of the matter is, schools are NOT inherently 'owed' money by the state. As a result, it is well within the rights ot the state, which has an interest in protecting its citizens among other things, to refuse to fund organizations (such as schools) which refuse to allow them a reasonable opportunity to fulfill their obligations to society. The biggest question in my mind has always been, why is it considered a 'protection of free speech' to prevent ROTC and recruiters from coming on campus?

Devin Stone - someday you will look back at these articles and see how naive and pretentious you truly were.

Freedom of speech is designed to protect individuals from the government. It is not designed to protect the government from the people. The government has no right to censor people, but the people have every right to refuse to let the government speak on a college campus. To say the government has a right to speak on college campuses, is to use the first amendment to protect government propaganda. Orwell would be rolling in his grave if we as a society come to accept government propaganda as protected free speech.

Well, that is true, CM - however, the government ultimately gets to decide where the public monies are spent. You can refuse government speech at your campus all you want, and the government in return can not send the money to your campus. You have to keep in mind that the fact that the government isn't offered the same protections doesn't mean that the government as an estbalishment has no rights at all.

Then my question would be that if free speech is so sancrosanct, why would you willingly deny it to anyone? What are you afraid of when you allow a recruiter on campus? Are not college students bright enough to decide for themselves whether what a recruiter says, whether he be representing IBM, the CIA or the Peace Corps, is the truth or propaganda? The whole principle behind free speech is that it is supposed to protect speech that is unpopular or with which you disagree. Incidentally, I believe that universities such as Virginia Tech are state institutions and as such are state property. Here's something to ponder: Many people complain that the military has become far too conservative, failing to mirror the society it serves. Perhaps a consequence of preventing military recruiters on the campuses of institutions generally regarded as liberal is that fewer liberally-minded citizens are allowed to hear military recruiters' pitch and are thus less likely to join.

The day the conservative right believes that the government has "rights" over it's people, and believes that the government has "interests" that correspond with the people, is the day the conservative right has abandoned all it's ideological beliefs. If you want to believe that the government should be sacrosanct over the people, travel back in time to the cold war and go join communist russia and experience the fascism your inherently trying to promote. The government doesn't care about you, neither does the military. They are here to protect the rich who give campaign contributions. The nature of government is the same in a capitalist society as it is in a communist society.

You almost had a good point, until you started your mini-screed about 'the rich and powerful.' I don't contend that the government has 'rights' over its people, at least not in the traditional sense. But I also don't believe that schools have a right to demand money from the government. I mean, on the whole, I find it tenuous at best to claim that the government has a right to demand money from me for more than 'services rendered' - military protection, protection of interstate commerce, and other such responsibilities enumerated by the Constitution. I don't think, however, that this is such a 'rights-based' argument.

I'm afraid you really don't know anything about the military if you think "it" doesn't care about you. The military is made up of over a million of your fellow citizens who have all of the same concerns you do. To say that they are in the service "to protect the rich who give campaign contributions" is frightening.

Those who serve in the military have no control over it as an "institution". The military is a top-down organization, following the orders of the highest officials in the government. President Bush says invade, they invade, constitution be damned. It's the campaign contributors who get the president into office.

Mr. Stone. I'd like to point out that quite a few VT alum have chosen - and continue to choose - to support this nation by serving in the military. I wouldn't classfy that group as suffering from "boredom and apathy" in their college careers. It might be hard for you to understand, but just because the vast (and I mean vast!) majority of VT students don't share your views doesn't mean they are uninvolved or unconcerned.