Free Speech Vs. Disruption

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In the February 4 issue, four individuals (Ms. Satz, et. al.) write a letter protesting the threat of disciplinary action against two students, members of the Spartacist Youth League, for their actions in disrupting the Caspar Weinberger talk at the Harvard Law School Forum. A number of different issues are confused in their letter and it is important to disentangle these.

1)Disruption is not free speech. Disruption is not a "right." One has rights (and protections thereof) only to the extent that one is also willing to grant the same rights to others. (If this were a "southern university" of 30 years ago and Klansmen were disrupting a speech of Blacks or Communists, would these individuals "defend" their rights?)

2)Why single out those two, when hundreds of others were involved, they ask? The answer is simple: Because the Spartacists announced they would disrupt and they did disrupt. They singled themselves out. A police-man breaking up a riot may not be able to arrest all the rioters, but if someone runs up to the policeman with signs proclaiming that he or she will riot, does the policeman say, wait a minute, I have others to arrest? Joseph Kare