LiveBlog: Nick Griffin speech at MSU Friday night

Some commendable points First, you make some points worthy of respect.  If you've recused yourself from Lennox-related reporting, that is wise, for the obvious reasons.  But note - my criticism of your conduct in the Lennox video goes beyond your mere physical contact with his camera (and I'm shocked to hear that you filed a criminal complaint, but I guess that matches the Dean Gates strategy).  You state after that to the unseen woman as apparent justification for your action "He's from YAF" (you say here "YAF wasn't responsible for Lennox's "attack"", but at the time you equated him to YAF!!), as if that had any logical bearing on his right to be present with a video camera.  That's where I interpret your bias against YAF, in addition to "my reading (scanning) of the entire YAFWatch blog" you've written and you're use of irrelevant attacks against Dr. Allen, among others. 

Your linkage of this video to the Dean Gates controversy is inapt because they are different situations and should be judged independently.  With Gates, Lennox appears to be seated (or considerably shorter) with his arm and camera at his side when contact is apparently made at a glancing angle, on the other hand it is much more apparent in your case that contact is made and forcefully made.

As to your interpretation of the two videos, you and I must be watching different videos (on both the recent Gates video and the one of you).  Looking at the video of you, I don't see you moving away from the camera or the camera following you - I see you rotating around at an odd angle, and when turning through that circle you realize that Lennox is there.  You may have been surprised, but there is no jerky movements by Lennox toward you, no "shove to your face", and it does not appear the camera was "6 inches" (for you to connect with the camera with your hand the way you did it would have been amazingly difficult if it was 6 inches from your face - you couldn't have reached outward the way you did).  I see a police office not "pushing Lennox back" but rather pointing at you and advising you of Lennox's rights.

You over-reacted.  That's forgivable.  Should you have been prosecuted for it criminally? Probably not, even though technically it was a battery.  But your version of events here simply isn't in touch with what the video tape shows, and your proclivity to file a police report which may have been false, adds to my concerns.

If you helped YAF against a student mob days ago, I applaud you.  Again, I don't follow every bit of news about you or YAF, nor is it reasonable to expect any reader to do that or be able to.

As to your general point that I am not "questioning the truth" of your "information", only the "words" used, that is partially correct.  I'm not calling you a liar (or in error) without knowing the falsity of your information, but that doesn't mean I'm accepting or endorsing the truth of the many factual allegations you have sourced poorly with general references as if I had a book knowledge of everything out there.  I question what you provide and source that appears wrong based on its internal inconsistencies, but I leave for the world to decide on what you assert baldly, and I am also questioning your interpretation of the facts in the best possible light to you as insufficient to your case.

Most importantly, you cite what SPLC cited to me in my interview with them.  Hate groups:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically based on their immutable characteristics ...

How does the 13 point memo express a belief that "maligns or attacks" an entire class of people?  It makes policy recommendations that would deny benefits to groups of people, and give benefits to other groups of people.  If by "attack" you or SPLC mean simply that giving some groups of people more benefits or other groups of people less benefits is an "attack," then through true irony, yes, YAF is a hate group.  And the University of Michigan, 46 states in the union, and every other person that gives preferences to some  would be "hate groups" too, under the same test. However, most people understand "attack" in the context of "attack and malign" to mean something closer to statements or practices that demean a group or articulate a group's superiority or inferiority (the latter being part of SPLC's definition of attack when I asked). I was careful to ask SPLC if this was what they meant or if it was the broader version of "attack" equaling any denial of political benefits and preferences. SPLC was explicit - preference itself is not an attack, and they also agreed that advocacy against all preference was also not an attack, preferring to focus on whether the hateful believed in superiority or inferiority, that is, the "attack" or maligning must be based on immutable characteristics.

While I sharply criticized (on your own YAFwatch blog I think) Bristow's 13 point memo for being contradictory (the individual points, advocated one at a time, could easily be advocacy for pure equality - for example, arguing to fund a white male support club is no different than arguing for a african-american social group, although i think it personally ridiculous to have either funded by government, and arguing to defund an african-american group so that no one is funded is obviously legitimate (though it "attacks an existing resource given to an entire group").  Arguing both at the same time obviously suffers the problem of giving a preference to whites, but that's the irony - if preference to whites is wrong ...

Clearly, Bristow is guilty of very bad reasoning and carelessness. But you must look outside the memo to find evidence of "hate group" status.  SPLC, when I asked, provided no other evidence (except to say "google him", which is wholly insufficient as evidence).

Now you may have come up with other stuff since then to justify SPLC after-the-fact, and I look forward to you posting the video, particularly with respect to clarifying your attacks on dr. Allen (whom you now attack as delusional, and no, I don't read every other publication in your history, nor is it fair to expect me to).  You assert that MSU "policy" somehow requires him to be aware of and approve every word and move of "his" (its not his) group - could you quote that policy exactly and explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

if YOU have read your entire own YAFwatch blog, you'd know that I have condemned Bristow and YAF for engaging in stupid and deplorable stunts when I have occasionally stumbled over there.  i know that YAFwatch adheres' to no journalistic code and you aren't paid for it, so I'd pretty much given up there because you simply ignored my points and the blog became tedious.  I raise the issue here and now because this is a different context.

I'm not asking that you like YAF - I'm asking that your exposure of their alleged wrong-doings be more precise.  That isn't unreasonable, is it?

As to Saul, his quote was simply that he'd been around Bristow several times and never heard anything racist, so he defended him.  I don't see where you have any evidence that Saul isn't telling you the truth as to his experience, and if you haven't proven to him a racist statement by Bristow (other than your assertion of the obviousness of your beliefs) I can't understand why he'd condemn him or allow your desires to dictate whom he throws to the wolves.  On the other hand, I know enough about Bristow to know he's not the "type of Republican" I'd support or want to encourage more of, if he is even really a Republican, or if that is really a relevant question.

response Chetly,

Let's be clear here, objectivity is a red herring. There is no such thing. The very process of writing is one of SUBJECTIVE action. The only thing a reporter can do is tell the truth, and ironically you are not questioning the truth of information, you are questioning the words used. It is a clever argument which takes away from the facts, which are a bit too uncomfortable to defend.

The "attack" video, if you watch is closely shows two important things. 1. It shows me moving away and the camera man, Dennis Lennox, II following me and shoving the camera in my face. 2. It shows clearly the video was violating my personal space.

Those facts alone bring one to conclude my actions were an act of self defense. In fact, a police report was filed, by me, charging the person who weilded the camera, again Dennis Lennox, II with assault as well as a violating campus ordinances. Prosecutors felt there was not enough evidence to charge Mr. Lennox, however there was an eyewitness statement available through FOIA from a member of the peace team in addition to my own testimony.

Incidently you might be aware that Mr. Lennox has done this same thing to a Dean at CMU recently, causing controversy.

And finally on this matter, since you were not there, let me make you aware of the chaos ensuing around us. I moved to that area because I saw police moving in aggressively and I was there as a reporter to cover the event. Not to have a kid shove a camera in my face in the middle of crowded aisle way, and continue to do so in an aggressive manner. With that much melee occurring around you, as a reporter, you have to be aware of what is happening as well as protect yourself and your space. I moved a camera from my face, it was about 6 inches from my face and had been shoved there twice in a violent motion. the camera was small, hand held and contained in the hand of Mr. Lennox. The motion was much like a punch coming at my face. I moved in a way to protect myself and used the necessary force to do so. Once MSU Polce stepped in and moved Mr. Lennox back I was fine. Funny how that works huh?

It is also important to note that I have declared a conflict of interest in covering Dennis Lennox, the assailant, but not on YAF. YAF certainly was not responsible for Lennox's attack and the fact I filed a criminal charge indicates how far I went to establish I would not tolerate physical assault.

Funny how I condemn the actions of antiYAFers who chased YAFers down after the Griffin event, and even assisted the YAFers by assisting with getting police there. But you claim I support the melees? You are off base and judging me without knowing me, or my personal views. I abhor violence, and I oppose it in all its forms. Period.

Secondly, as I reported in March, Dr. Allen is defending YAF. In fact, his defense goes so far as to appear paranoid, in my humble opinion. As anyone who knows me knows, technology is not my strong suit. However, when confronted with the internal memos and webposts of YAF, instead of saying wow I did not know that was happening, Dr. Allen instead accused me of hacking the website to post them. I printed his response in its entire form in Between the Lines. Perhaps you missed that story. I assure you I have enough trouble figuring out how to post on pre-designed systems like this to be able to hack anything. A former partner of mine who is a computer engineer laughed at the allegation saying "You can barely turn the computer on."

So, that said, either Dr. Allen is woefully out of touch with what his group is doing, or he is a paranoid delusional from his own statement. I would prefer to say he is a conservative, which he is, than accuse him of delusional thinking. If he is out of touch, an allegation by the way supported in my December 7, 2006 BTL story on YAF where he admitted having no knowledge of the protest of the comprehensive civil rights ordinance in Lansing by YAF, in violation of his advisor responsibilities as outlined by MSU policies available on MSU.edu, Iw ould certainly argue it is time for him to step aside from the advisor role and allow another professor to step up and run the advisory process. Dr. Allen is mentioned in the speech only because he is in fact responsible as advisor. I have no idea if he supports the agenda or not.

Again, in the spartansedge.com interview, Bristow said the 13-point agenda was "absolutely" the agenda of YAF. In March, he told the State News that it was the agenda of YAF, there was no couching of it as abhoring racially segregated groups. It was YAF supports this agenda.

And finally, the documentation of YAF's hate is overwhelming. Read the entire YAFWatch.blogspot.com It is a never ending litany of hate filled rhetoric after hate filled rhetoric. I spent two hours presenting documented evidence which fit under the criteria established on the SPLC website on hate groups:

"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

So there are the criteria. Take a check at YAF's blog againa and weigh this description. The facts are in, YAF is a hate group. One supported by Saul Anuzis as the kind of leader republicans want.

ex post facto proof doesn't prove the original argument First, whatever happened since SPLC made its announcement does not make SPLC's process any better.  I'm concerned about their process because I see the direction it is heading - as is the direction you are heading (when you attack someone like Dr. Allen for merely holding an anti-preferential-type-of-affirmative-action belief).

OK, after redigging from my original investigation back in march, here's the you tube from Jess Lipowski's interview for the SpartanEdge.

http://www.youtube.c...

Thats' part 2 of the interview - notably at 2:20 thru 2:30 Bristow says he would oppose all-white social groups as well. 

I asked SPLC what they thought of this information specifically (among a variety of other statements, including ones where Bristow admitted/claimed that he was using satire in the 13 point memo, and other statements).

Then there is the video of you attacking a YAFer's camera physically, and telling someone "He's a YAFer" when both they and police try to get you to calm down. 

http://www.youtube.c...

That's the video I relied up above in my statement that you were part of the melee and lost your objectivity. Not that you can't continue to report on the issue on your blog, just that it has become personal for you.  Not that I blame you entirely either given the emotion of the room, and its not something that should be held against you personally, but you made Bristow a crusade.  I'm sure I've been there before, especially on issues important to me or that I thought were important at the time, but I just can't see the value in the diminishing marginal returns of your continued work on this. Even if you're right, you're pounding rubble with 4000 lb bombs.

You say the first 9 minutes of your speech "is out of context".  Come on.  It's unedited, and YouTube has a 10 minute limit.  It's the introduction.  The superfluous attack on Dr. Allen was 6 minutes in - so the entire context of that is available.  Your attack against Dr. Allen solely as "very conservative" and "against affirmative action" (not exact quotes, but very close) is completely inappropriate discourse.  Maybe you have more evidence against Dr. Allen in your presentation, but given the man's eloquence and brilliance I can't imagine where he has misstepped (and unlike Bristow, Dr. Allen is very clear and experienced). Sure, he was unlucky enough to have accepted the advisory role for Bristow, but my understanding is that student group advisors do not have authority over or make decisions for the group and Allen couldn't have known Bristow would be as foolish as Bristow is. It's no surprise that he would accept a YAF advisor role - the history of the organization is traditionally conservative as is Dr. Allen.

But I'll give you an opportunity with the whole video - make sure you send me a link when its up (my first name at my first and last name dot com).

Finally, I'm stunned that you would imply that I'm not "rational" because I don't agree with you on a purely opinionated question of word definitions -- that of whether YAF is a hate group.  First, even if you or SPLC have proved that Bristow is a "hateful person", and the centerpiece is the 13 point memo, you haven't proven that group is.  While Bristow leads the group, the memo was Bristow's for his personal campaign for student government.  Sullying the rest of the YAF members with your broad brush based on that is inappropriate.  Second, while the things (killing homosexuals) you assert above are as "without evidence" as my claim of your involvement was (sans the link I've provided here in this response), and the milder things like "Smash Left Wing Scum" which should be condemned but arguably should not be labeled "hate speech" (any worse than what some on the left have used against the right - are they "hate groups" - I could make the SPLC list real long if I could include every statement like that), you're getting awfully high on your moral platform to say that your opinion is the only "rational" possible opinion.  Indeed, it proves your lack of distance and lack of objectivity.  I concede that your opinion is a possible interpretation - that is, I don't begrudge anyone the right to disagree with or condemn Bristow as a punk or otherwise bad person (indeed, I have condemned him myself).  But because I do not go far enough, you label me irrational?

Chetly wrote:

Mr. Heywood's entire body of work provides the evidence of my assertion (and in another thread the editor of this site has quibbled with me because I've asked that previous works be linked where relevant). Follow his own links. But I'll provide them, and additional link, shortly in response to his entry.

This is quite a lame copout, chetly. You did not, in fact, provide any links to anything Todd has said that supported the assertion that he has advocated or participated in "melees" to prevent someone from speaking at MSU, either in this message or in your response to Todd's comments. Now I've only known Todd for a couple of months so I certainly don't know his whole history, but I do know that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion and that nothing he has said in the time I've known him has advocated any such thing. You might want to take a look at his post condemning those who tried to disrupt Griffin's speech at YAFwatch, posted soon after the event. You've made the claim without even attempting to provide evidence for it. You need to either back it up or retract it.

Nonetheless, SPLC didn't use Bristow's speaker's list as its evidence. It used a 13 point memo as it's sole evidence (in addition to the "Google Bristow" statement) - a memo that had points that were mutually contradictory (eliminate women's groups and create men's groups, etc.) and appeared to be satirical in some ways. Neither "Creating men's groups" (or white cultural associations) nor eliminating women's groups could, in themselves, be argued as discriminatory, but together, if taken literally, could. Clearly Bristow was being reactionary to the current state of "multi-culturalism" at universities, which endorses all-black separate graduations and black-only support groups, or the same for other "protected categories," but discourages such groups for non-protected categories. His memo, taken non-literally, points out the insanity of that by suggesting a "whites-only" group. When Bristow was asked at the time by a State News reporter on a different YouTube video to articulate his views about the memo, he supported the ending of all the programs and made it clear he didn't want the whites-only programs, and that he was trying to make a point. I offered that State News link to SPLC before they made their final decision - they ignored it and refused to consider anything new. Their entire case for "hate group" status was based on that.

This after-the-fact adding to their case may be fun, and is certainly necessary, but it doesn't make SPLC's decision or process justified. You're right - they have a tendency to throw around that label "casually."

The fact still remains that everything YAF has done since being called a hate group has only supported that label. I was skeptical at first, but I'm not anymore. The evidence is in, it's time to admit it.

Is the Democratic Party a "hate group" because its leader, Mark Brewer, chose to defend a grand wizard of the KKK in a case? Of course not.

This is an exceedingly weak argument. Civil rights attorneys often must represent vile clients but they are not defending the validity of their views, they are defending the principles that defend all of us and our freedom to express our views. David Goldberger clearly found the views of the American Nazi Party repulsive, but he defended the principle of freedom of speech regardless. But that is not in any way analogous to what YAF did here. Their invitation was not about defending principle, it was about agreeing with their position.

Bristow may not even have known before he invited these speakers of their ties to white supremacy (Brewer knew, and had a choice to not to represent). He may have known too, which makes the action very questionable. But nothing to do with SPLC's inquiry last year.

Of course Bristow knew. He knew about Wiginton's views because his association with Wiginton has long been used as evidence of his ties to white supremacists. His defense was that he didn't really know Wiginton and that the fact that he was co-admin of a Facebook group was irrelevant because anyone can add anyone else as a co-admin. But lo and behold, who shows up on campus to emcee this event and sit and chat cozily with Bristow? Preston Wiginton. The man who advocates violence against "muds" - you know, dark people. And as for Griffin, if you really think that Bristow didn't know about his infamous racist views, you're living in a fantasy land. At the very least, he knew the day after he sent out a press release announcing the speech because a whole bunch of sources informed him of it.

Bristow made a conscious choice to invite these racist cretins to speak here. He claims that he just wanted to hear their views on the danger posed by Islam to America. And I'm all for that (as long as a distinction is made between Islamic radicalism and the more moderate forms of Islam). Bring in Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq or Azar Nafisi to speak on that subject and I'll be in the front row. I think Islamic radicalism is an immense threat to freedom all over the world and the single most reactionary and malevolent ideology in the world - violent, misogynistic, virulently anti-gay, and the enemy of all aspects of human liberty. But if you want to have a talk about that, you bring in someone who actually cares about those threats, not someone who embodies them himself, who holds all those same totalitarian views but just doesn't happen to like brown people. There's a difference between defending the grand wizard of the KKK in court in order to preserve liberty for all of us and inviting him to speak on campus and declaring how "honored" you are to do so.

Speech Chetly,

The speech will be posted in its entire run on YAF Watch in the near future. YAF has an amazing ability of taking video and posting the least information possible.

Clearly, the presence of Wiginton at the event proves the link written about, beyond just the administration of a facebook link.

As for evidence, I think any rational person spending even a brief time reading the SpartanSpectator.blogspot.com would reasonably conclude Young Americans for Freedom is hate group.

When they sponsor events  like Koran Desecretion, call on homosexuals to be killed, and use language like "Smash Left Wing Scum," they are raising to the level to advocating violence against minorities.

As for the agenda, you might be reminded that Mr. Bristow has twice since the listing announcement said the agenda, as it was, was in fact the agenda of the Young Americans for Freedom. In fact in a spartansedge.com interview, months before the listing by SPLC, when asked about the agenda and if it was the agenda of YAF, Bristow specifically said "absolutely."

Only in one interview following the listing did Mr.Bristow say the agenda was misconstued, and that was with the Lansing State Journal. But he turned around the next day and told the State News it was the agenda of YAF and supported by the group's membership.

Well, the first nine minutes Well, the first nine minutes of your presentation appears to be a mere introduction.  I'd love to see a tape of the rest.

In that nine minutes, you attack former US Civil Rights Commissioner Dr. William B. Allen, the YAF student advisor, on the grounds that he is 1) "anti-affirmative action" 2) very conservative.

Great evidence.

Come on I don't have an obligation to travel hundreds of miles to your speeches, nor do I have a desire to see racists like Griffin and Wiginton speak or give them the undue attention that they don't deserve.

Send me your "evidence" or publish it. If YAF "fits 6 of 8 SPLC criteria," I'd love to see it.  But don't blame me for not coming to an event where I'm required to spend resources (the time and driving a 100 miles) to see it.  Get your information to me.  Again, you turn on the information consumer and attack your own readers for "their failure" to get information from you outside of MM.  And regardless of whether your readers agree with you or criticize you, its inappropriate and violates the self-proclaimed ethics of this publication.

By the way, you know that I have ALREADY condemned both YAF and SPLC on my blog, if you're reading & referring to Power, Politics, & Money (my personal blog).  I have not "defended YAF" - I've merely said their ridiculousness doesn't rise to the level of hate group and SPLC's attention to them and label degrades the value of the "hate group" status they once did good work with. I condemned Bristow mere responses above this when I said the choice of speakers was stupid.  What do you want from me?  Be precise.

But as to my "un-evidenced" statement (it was opinion, so I'm not sure how I can prove it, but I'll work on that), that you've been too involved in the issue, I'll find the appropriate links to summarize and I'll watch on the 9 minutes of your presentation that appears to be on YouTube (is there a Google version of the video).

Consistency Ed, you've maintained a consistent position.  I have no quibbles with it.

Mr. Heywood's entire body of work provides the evidence of my assertion (and in another thread the editor of this site has quibbled with me because I've asked that previous works be linked where relevant).  Follow his own links.  But I'll provide them, and additional link, shortly in response to his entry.

You are right - Griffin's views are barbaric and should be protested and denounced (by individuals, not government, although government employees are free to make personal denouncements).  I have consistently joined with you in denouncing Griffin and folks like him. I even denounce Bristow's actions where appropriate.

Nonetheless, SPLC didn't use Bristow's speaker's list as its evidence.  It used a 13 point memo as it's sole evidence (in addition to the "Google Bristow" statement) - a memo that had points that were mutually contradictory (eliminate women's groups and create men's groups, etc.) and appeared to be satirical in some ways.  Neither "Creating men's groups" (or white cultural associations) nor eliminating women's groups could, in themselves, be argued as discriminatory, but together, if taken literally, could.  Clearly Bristow was being reactionary to the current state of "multi-culturalism" at universities, which endorses all-black separate graduations and black-only support groups, or the same for other "protected categories," but discourages such groups for non-protected categories.  His memo, taken non-literally, points out the insanity of that by suggesting a "whites-only" group. When Bristow was asked at the time by a State News reporter on a different YouTube video to articulate his views about the memo, he supported the ending of all the programs and made it clear he didn't want the whites-only programs, and that he was trying to make a point.  I offered that State News link to SPLC before they made their final decision - they ignored it and refused to consider anything new. Their entire case for "hate group" status was based on that.

This after-the-fact adding to their case may be fun, and is certainly necessary, but it doesn't make SPLC's decision or process justified.  You're right - they have a tendency to throw around that label "casually."

Do I think Bristow's actions deserve "sympathy", or that he has a right to "outrage".  No. He's chosen to play on the big field of politics and picked the main arena. I'm just judging both him and SPLC to be wrong here. That's a pretty equal opportunity critique.

Is the Democratic Party a "hate group" because its leader, Mark Brewer, chose to defend a grand wizard of the KKK in a case?  Of course not.  Bristow may not even have known before he invited these speakers of their ties to white supremacy (Brewer knew, and had a choice to not to represent).  He may have known too, which makes the action very questionable.  But nothing to do with SPLC's inquiry last year.

Odd Odd that you'd ask questions of me on this, but the answer is, no, not to my knowledge. I've never been a member of YAF, nor have I worked for someone in (or to my knowledge past members) YAF. I'd be surprised if someone I've worked for doesn't have some second-degree of separation association with someone in YAF, but I don't think that is your question.

I have taken an interest in SPLC because of their odd interest in Ward Connerly (who I have provided services to), and because their rhetoric in the media on YAF seemed devoid of evidence.  When I called SPLC earlier this year to ask for something so simple as evidence, I was told to "Google Bristow".  Obviously, that is a faulty standard of evidence.  When I asked harder questions, I was disconnected and accused of federal communications crimes (apparently, SPLC had received a series of harassing calls at the same time), to which I offered them open access to my phone records through the FBI.  Why my work must always be associated with a client baffles me, but I understand that, given I'm political consultant, people will speculate it.  My best work in the past has always been on my own initiative, and occasionally it generates clients down the road, but

I genuinely believe people are presumed innocent of things until proven otherwise, and I don't like the witch-hunt mentality that the attention to Bristow has created.  I agree that he's too much of an attention-seeker at times and certainly has crossed the lines of social decency.  But you and others give him that attention - too much of it. 

Allegations from Chetly It is disappointed you would make such a claim without any proof of the allegation. In fact, I have never advocated teh shutting down of events, and I have consistently told people the answer to hate speech is not less speech but more speech.

You on the other hand without taking the time to investigate the evidence-- you were not in attendance at the speech the other night-- have defended YAF on your own blog, and condemned SPLC. The evidence is overwhelming btw, I presented two hours worth of documented racist, sexist and homophobic information during the speech. YAF fits 6 of the 8 SPLC criteria for a hate group, and they have never waivered from that stance.


I am pleased to see you are condemning Griffin and Wiginton, but when are you going to condemn Bristow and his group? You had the opportunity to see the evidence for yourself, and you failed to show up to take advantage of that opportunity. Are you participating in a willful display of ignorace to allow plausible deniability?

chetly wrote

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers. I understand why the issue is personal to him - but he's not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers' ethical standards of reporting it.

You've made an assertion here without evidence. Regardless of whether it's true or not, my position remains exactly the same: any attempts to disrupt the speech, intimidate or commit violence toward the speaker should be met treated as a violation of MSU student rules (if they are a student) or a violation of the law, or both. Griffin is a vile human being whose barbaric views should be protested and denounced, but the expression of those views is clearly constitutionally protected.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow's judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable. Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group? No. But they could do far better (and they have - their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

When I first saw the SPLC's denunciation of MSU YAF as a hate group, I was skeptical. I do think they have a tendency to throw around that label a bit to casually at times. But they're right. If you bring in openly white supremacist speakers and declare how honored you are to have them even after you've been accused of being a hate group, you've lost all right to complain about the label. I don't believe that bringing in anti-immigration or anti-Islam speakers is evidence of hate. But this isn't even a close call. Nick Griffin and Preston Wiginton are just plain white supremacists. This is no different than bringing in the grand wizard of the KKK, putting out a press release about how honored you are to have him here and then feigning outrage when you get called a hate group. If it waddles and quacks, it's a duck.

Questions for you Have you ever provided services to any individuals affiliated now or in the past with YAF-MSU?  with YAF anywhere in the state?

Ah, Ed, but you do refer to Todd Ed, I fully respect your history of civil libertarianism and record of writing, and you are absolutely right here except for Mr. Heywood's involvement. 

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers.  I understand why the issue is personal to him - but he's not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers' ethical standards of reporting it.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow's judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable.  Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group?  No.  But they could do far better (and they have - their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

How sad While I absolutely agree that Griffin's views are repulsive and vile, it's tragic that those who oppose them think they have the legitimate authority to censor them. Condemn them? Absolutely. Protest them? Absolutely. Make your own voices heard in response to such hatred? Absolutely. But attempting to disrupt the event, shout down the speaker or commit any sort of physical violence (including chasing people around campus) is equally vulgar and inappropriate. The same right to speak one's mind that protects the expression of your views also protects their right to express theirs. Those responsible for those actions, like those who did the same thing at MSU last year and those who engaged in similar behavior at Columbia University during a Gilchrist speech, should be arrested and punished. The law punishes actions, not thoughts. No matter how much you hate their views, you do not have the authority to prevent them from expressing them (and by "you" I refer not to Todd Heywood but to those who did the things he describes in his story). As Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, errors of opinion must be tolerated as long as reason is free to combat those errors. Do not take away their speech, counter it with your own.