Free Speech
Free Speech in an Age of Terror
By Daniel G. Jennings
What restraints need to be placed upon the right to free speech during the war on terror and how do we protect our nation from terror while preserving the freedom of speech that is our birthright? These are questions we must ask ourselves in particular they are questions raised by the case of Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Right after the Sept. 11 attacks Churchill wrote an essay called “Some People Push Back: On the Price of Roosting Chickens” in which he said the victims in the World Trade Center deserved their fate. He compared the dead at Ground Zero to Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann and wrote that terrorists should attack America with chemical or biological weapons. Churchill has never retracted or disavowed these horrendous statements.
So what should be done to Churchill, should an individual makes such statements be allowed to remain in a public position such as college professor and should the government take action against Churchill? The knee jerk response in our age is that Churchill is guaranteed freedom of speech by the First Amendment so we can’t do anything about him and his antics. Yet given the Sept. 11, atrocity such a response seems too simplistic for our consideration.
Individuals as disparate as University of Colorado Chancellor Phillip De Stephano and David Horowitz, a well known right wing critic of left wing excesses on college campuses have defended Churchill’s right to free speech. Horowitz has gone so far as to say that Churchill’s right to a job is guaranteed by the First Amendment because his speech is political. A judgment that seems to be out of pace with the times.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Obviously the First Amendment doesn’t state that those with unpopular political opinions are guaranteed employment. The amendment is so vague that it gives us little guidance in these matters. So it is up to us, our elected political leaders, our lawyers and our judges to interpret it or reinterpret it to meet the needs of our age.
The primary needs of our age are to protect the nation and its people from terrorism and protect the rights of the citizens at the same time. This is where the case of Ward Churchill gets so tricky.
Churchill is openly praising the actions of our nation’s deadliest enemies and claiming that their crimes are justified. Yet there is no evidence that he is actively participating in terrorist activities or helping the terrorists in any way, shape or form. So how should Churchill be treated and what are the limits of his speech?
Perhaps the best standard is that the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes came up with during World War I. Holmes’ prescription accepted by the court, was that the right to freedom of speech ended when the speech started causing actual physical harm. Holmes’ example of prohibited speech was a man yelling fire in a crowded theater when there was no blaze and causing a panic in which people might be hurt. A person has no right to free speech when their speech has no merit and harms others.
So we have to ask ourselves has Churchill done harm with his speech? Well he hasn’t helped the terrorists or their cause or hurt the national war on terror.
Yet his speech has harmed the University of Colorado at Boulder and its students and faculty. Churchill’s ignorant ravings have certainly hurt the university, they’ve given it a bad name and the reputations of legitimate scholars and hardworking professors on the school’s faculty have been harmed. The University, its students and faculty may also be in physical danger from Churchill’s antics. Some deranged individual angry at terrorism and Churchill’s apologies for it might attack the CU Boulder campus with a gun or bomb. Obviously the campus administration has an obligation to protect their people from such an attack. Churchill has done a great deal of damage with his moronic and irresponsible behavior. It is apparent that Ward Churchill is not a responsible individual and doesn’t deserve his position of trust at CU Boulder.
If Churchill was operating in a vacuum where his speech and actions had no effect there would be no discussion here. Nor would this have been much of an issue ten years ago when terrorism wasn’t regarded as a major threat to America and Americans. Unfortunately, terrorism is the major issue on our agenda, especially after the death and destruction done on Sept. 11.
The Churchill affair challenges us to ask whether we should restrict freedom of speech in the terror war and if so how much? Civil liberties absolutists will say there is no cause to take such actions but I can think of many scenarios in which freedom of speech will have to give way for the common good.
What happens if a journalist or news outlet starts publishing or broadcasting the details of investigations into terrorism, the secret methods and details of military operations or intelligence work or the names of agents or informants? Putting agents, informants or military personnel in the field and innocent civilians in danger. Or if a journalist or other public figure begins claiming that there is no threat from terrorism when the threat is real putting the public in danger? What if a public figure starts exposing secret information that helps terrorists? Or if a news outlet begins running stories falsely branding large numbers of Arab Americans terrorists and deliberately encouraging racist hysteria?
Shouldn’t the government have the power to stop such reprehensible actions and punish those responsible? Yet giving the government such power would limit our freedoms and violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately it might be necessary to do so to protect the nation and its citizens from harm in this terrible age.
I’m not comfortable thinking along these lines but in these terrible times we have no choice but to consider these unthinkable scenarios. If we do we might be able to find ways to balance our freedom and our need for security. Perhaps we should thank Ward Churchill for challenging us to think along these lines?
By Daniel G. Jennings
What restraints need to be placed upon the right to free speech during the war on terror and how do we protect our nation from terror while preserving the freedom of speech that is our birthright? These are questions we must ask ourselves in particular they are questions raised by the case of Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Right after the Sept. 11 attacks Churchill wrote an essay called “Some People Push Back: On the Price of Roosting Chickens” in which he said the victims in the World Trade Center deserved their fate. He compared the dead at Ground Zero to Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann and wrote that terrorists should attack America with chemical or biological weapons. Churchill has never retracted or disavowed these horrendous statements.
So what should be done to Churchill, should an individual makes such statements be allowed to remain in a public position such as college professor and should the government take action against Churchill? The knee jerk response in our age is that Churchill is guaranteed freedom of speech by the First Amendment so we can’t do anything about him and his antics. Yet given the Sept. 11, atrocity such a response seems too simplistic for our consideration.
Individuals as disparate as University of Colorado Chancellor Phillip De Stephano and David Horowitz, a well known right wing critic of left wing excesses on college campuses have defended Churchill’s right to free speech. Horowitz has gone so far as to say that Churchill’s right to a job is guaranteed by the First Amendment because his speech is political. A judgment that seems to be out of pace with the times.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Obviously the First Amendment doesn’t state that those with unpopular political opinions are guaranteed employment. The amendment is so vague that it gives us little guidance in these matters. So it is up to us, our elected political leaders, our lawyers and our judges to interpret it or reinterpret it to meet the needs of our age.
The primary needs of our age are to protect the nation and its people from terrorism and protect the rights of the citizens at the same time. This is where the case of Ward Churchill gets so tricky.
Churchill is openly praising the actions of our nation’s deadliest enemies and claiming that their crimes are justified. Yet there is no evidence that he is actively participating in terrorist activities or helping the terrorists in any way, shape or form. So how should Churchill be treated and what are the limits of his speech?
Perhaps the best standard is that the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes came up with during World War I. Holmes’ prescription accepted by the court, was that the right to freedom of speech ended when the speech started causing actual physical harm. Holmes’ example of prohibited speech was a man yelling fire in a crowded theater when there was no blaze and causing a panic in which people might be hurt. A person has no right to free speech when their speech has no merit and harms others.
So we have to ask ourselves has Churchill done harm with his speech? Well he hasn’t helped the terrorists or their cause or hurt the national war on terror.
Yet his speech has harmed the University of Colorado at Boulder and its students and faculty. Churchill’s ignorant ravings have certainly hurt the university, they’ve given it a bad name and the reputations of legitimate scholars and hardworking professors on the school’s faculty have been harmed. The University, its students and faculty may also be in physical danger from Churchill’s antics. Some deranged individual angry at terrorism and Churchill’s apologies for it might attack the CU Boulder campus with a gun or bomb. Obviously the campus administration has an obligation to protect their people from such an attack. Churchill has done a great deal of damage with his moronic and irresponsible behavior. It is apparent that Ward Churchill is not a responsible individual and doesn’t deserve his position of trust at CU Boulder.
If Churchill was operating in a vacuum where his speech and actions had no effect there would be no discussion here. Nor would this have been much of an issue ten years ago when terrorism wasn’t regarded as a major threat to America and Americans. Unfortunately, terrorism is the major issue on our agenda, especially after the death and destruction done on Sept. 11.
The Churchill affair challenges us to ask whether we should restrict freedom of speech in the terror war and if so how much? Civil liberties absolutists will say there is no cause to take such actions but I can think of many scenarios in which freedom of speech will have to give way for the common good.
What happens if a journalist or news outlet starts publishing or broadcasting the details of investigations into terrorism, the secret methods and details of military operations or intelligence work or the names of agents or informants? Putting agents, informants or military personnel in the field and innocent civilians in danger. Or if a journalist or other public figure begins claiming that there is no threat from terrorism when the threat is real putting the public in danger? What if a public figure starts exposing secret information that helps terrorists? Or if a news outlet begins running stories falsely branding large numbers of Arab Americans terrorists and deliberately encouraging racist hysteria?
Shouldn’t the government have the power to stop such reprehensible actions and punish those responsible? Yet giving the government such power would limit our freedoms and violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately it might be necessary to do so to protect the nation and its citizens from harm in this terrible age.
I’m not comfortable thinking along these lines but in these terrible times we have no choice but to consider these unthinkable scenarios. If we do we might be able to find ways to balance our freedom and our need for security. Perhaps we should thank Ward Churchill for challenging us to think along these lines?
posted by great one at 1:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home