An interesting definition of free speech

The New York Times' Patricia Cohen reports that John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's book-length treatise, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, will be released on September 4th. Because of the controversy, some venues, like the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, have cancelled appearances by the authors. Part of the problem, however, seems to stem from how Mearsheimer and Walt define "free speech": ?One of the points we make in the book is that this is a subject that?s very hard to talk about,? Mr. Walt said in an interview from his office in Cambridge. ?Organizations, no matter how strong their commitment to free speech, don?t want to schedule something that?s likely to cause controversy.? After the [Chicago Council's] cancellation Roberta Rubin, owner of the Book Stall, a store in Winnetka, Ill., offered to help find a site for the authors. She said she tried a Jewish community center and two large downtown clubs but they all told her ?they can?t afford to bring in somebody ?too controversial.? ? She added that even she was concerned about inviting authors who might offend customers. Some of the planned sites, like the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, a cultural center in Washington, would have been host of an event if Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt appeared with opponents, said Esther Foer, the executive director. Mr. Walt said, ?Part of the game is to portray us as so extreme that we have to be balanced by someone from the ?other side.? ? Besides, he added, when you?re promoting a book, you want to present your ideas without appearing with someone who is trying to discredit you. Yes.... I can see how presenting an 'opposing view' stifles free speech and debate. UPDATE: Mearsheimer and Walt elaborate on why they don't like sharing the stage with the 'other side'. This paragraph is particularly interesting: One might argue that our views are too controversial to be presented on their own. However, they are seen as controversial only because some of the groups and individuals that we criticized in our original article have misrepresented what we said or leveled unjustified charges at us personally?such as the baseless claim that we (or our views) are anti-Semitic. The purpose of these charges, of course, is to discourage respected organizations like the Council from giving us an audience, or to create conditions where they feel compelled to include ?contending views? in order to preserve ?balance? and to insulate themselves from external criticism. I think it's actually pretty easy to parse between charges of anti-Semitism and charges that "The Israel Lobby" is a slipshod work of social science. And, hey, what do you know, so do people quoted in Cohen's story: As for City University, Aoibheann Sweeney, director of the Center for the Humanities, said, ?I looked at the introduction, and I didn?t feel that the book was saying things differently enough? from the original article. Ms. Sweeney, who said she had consulted with others at City University, acknowledged that they had begun planning for an event in September moderated by J. J. Goldberg, the editor of The Forward, a leading American Jewish weekly, but once he chose not to participate, she decided to pass. Mr. Goldberg, who was traveling in Israel, said in a telephone interview that ?there should be more of an open debate.? But appearing alone with the authors would have given the impression that The Forward was presenting the event and thereby endorsing the book, he said, and he did not want to do that. A discussion with other speakers of differing views would have been different, he added. ?I don?t think the book is very good,? said Mr. Goldberg, who said he read a copy of the manuscript about six weeks ago. ?They haven?t really done original research. They haven?t talked to the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying.?