Free speech is the bedrock upon which western democracy has flourished. Dating back to at least the ancient Greeks, the societies that have flourished the most are the ones who have promoted open discourse and the exchange of ideas, no matter the outrage it instills in one's opponents. If you don't like what somebody says, you should say why; on occasion this even results in the odd notion that one party changes her mind on an issue.

The notion that students at an elite college feel that Bill Maher's invitation to speak should be rescinded because UC Berkely isn't the Government and therefore has no obligation to uphold freedom of speech is absurd. The petition that declares Maher does not uphold the values Bill Maher stands for ironically states in the same breath, "Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist... [his] public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive." I'm sorry, but the freedom of speech does not come with the caveat that any particular person or group has the right to be offended, nor do I think UC Berkeley, as an institution of higher learning, would support the values being promoted here--squashing the exchange of ideas and in classic ad hominem form, attacking Maher for the person they perceive him to be rather than the critiquing the things that he says.

If there is a concern about Maher's views, stage a rally, boycott the commencent, or preferably engage in open discourse about why you think he's wrong. But don't come in with some preconceived notion that because institutions of higher learning are not explictly covered in the Constitution that the ideal of free speech is unworthy of any organization other than the Government. If you think Maher's ideas are dangerous, they pale in comparison to the danger that in a society that is not free, you may be the one being censored someday. One can't help note the irony that one of the top trending petitions on this site involves freeing a woman who is being persecuted for blasphemy, an offense, which if you take the time to listen is one of the focal points of Maher's criticism.

As Salman Rushdie said, "One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

The alternative, however, is far worse. Just ask the people who are executed on a daily basis for thought crimes.