This past week, when Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia University, New Yorkers and image-conscious politicians conveniently forgot about a tiny little piece of writing called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Free speech was created so that anyone, regardless of their political affiliation or world views, would have a chance to speak freely about what he or she believed in. But as hundreds of New Yorkers lined up to protest Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University, it was nothing less than amazing to see that so many people forgot that the very reason free speech was made into law in this country was because of the likes of Ahmadinejad.

It is understandable that many people, specifically Jews who survived the Holocaust or Iranians who were tired of seeing their country smeared by this so-called “leader,” had due reason to be upset with Ahmadinejad’s words and beliefs. There is not one Jewish person who should not be enraged by a man who says, “Death to Israel,” or calls the Holocaust a “myth,” but there is something wrong with staging a protest with the purpose to bash Columbia University and stop the man from speaking.

A protest was clearly in order, but protesters should have concentrated their efforts to attack the ideas being spoken, not the man doing the speaking, nor Columbia University’s invitation. After all, it was the ideas themselves that angered protesters. Had Ahmadinejad come to Columbia to support Israel in its ongoing conflict with Palestine and pledge his support for the war on terror, the number of protesters of his speech would have likely totaled zero.

Furthermore, those who called Ahmadinejad “little Hitler” must not remember history very well. In Germany, those who spoke out against Hitler were never heard from again. They could not challenge his ideas, or prove his logic to be ridiculous and fruitless.

But Columbia University presented protesters with a chance to do just that.

People like the Iranian president become dangers when their speeches are held behind closed doors with no dissenters present to speak their mind and give a second side to unfortunate propaganda. To question Ahmadinejad on his views and show those watching at home that his thoughts and ideas had no merit would have been encouraging.

The 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Brandenburg v. Ohio has long ago established a precedent in this manner. The Supreme Court ruled that one’s freedom of speech may only be curtailed when allowing that individual to speak would “result in imminent lawlessness.”

Simply put, if Ahmadinejad had wanted to come to Columbia and encourage supporters to start a “real” Holocaust, only then would his freedom of speech be usurped by the Court. Clearly, this was not the case. Therefore allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, while unpopular, was the correct move by Columbia University.