I WOULD NEVER expect the editors of a major newspaper to exhibit a layman's misunderstanding of freedom of speech, and blatant disregard for the fact that the marketplace of ideas encompasses our entire society, not just college campuses.
But your Oct. 4 editorial does exactly that, and exemplifies why Israel's supporters are justified in being disillusioned with the media.
If you actually visited the Campus Watch site and read its mission statement, you would find that its sponsors have no intention of suppressing anyone's right to speak.
The site substantially limits itself to gathering information regarding the views of college professors, critiquing it and disseminating its conclusions. Those professors' views have been substantially immune from criticism because they have never before been widely disseminated beyond the extreme left-wing confines of academia.
Likewise, "boycotts and wild charges of anti-Semitism" against powerful institutions like the Inquirer and NPR do not suppress anyone's right to speak. They are themselves a legitimate exercise of free speech. Until recently, the media were substantially deaf to criticism because its critics did not have effective means to disseminate their views. Fortunately, the Internet has changed that.
In stark contrast, the mob at Concordia University prevented Mr. Netanyahu from speaking by staging a riot for that express purpose. That is without question the suppression of free speech. Even if Campus Watch demanded that the professors named on its site be fired, its actions would not be remotely comparable to the violence of the Palestinian supporters at Concordia and San Francisco State.