Free speech
Free Speech in a War on Terror
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of our most important rights, Freedom of Speech could become one of the major casualties of the War on Terror.
Sadly enough Freedom of Speech’s gravediggers maybe the well intentioned artists and journalists who claim to be standing up for and practicing freedom of speech rather than any would be tyrant or terrorist. Recent news stories point to two prime examples of how the times in which we live and the irresponsible behavior of a few threaten the rights of all.
In the United States we have the so-called surveillance scandal in which The New York Times and other media outlets have revealed many of the details of the National Security Agency’s program to collect intelligence about terrorists and would be terrorists. A deadly enemy has been tipped off about the details of our intelligence gathering efforts through the actions of self proclaimed journalists.
These journalists are decent and honorable people who are convinced they are doing the right thing. Yet they are seriously endangering our war on terror. Can we fight such a war and allow journalists the freedom to report on its details? In past wars we have kept the media in dark about stories and occasionally suppressed their activities. What happens if a journalist discovers the details of a plan to capture or kill Bin Laden and plans to expose them, how far should the government go? Should the government jail that reporter?
Over in Europe we have something more complex and troubling. A Danish newspaper published cartoons insulting and lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. An action that most Muslims consider sacrilege. A number of other European publications repeated this action. This inflamed Muslims around the world and led to deadly riots, and could inspire terrorist attacks on those countries.
Now should the European governments crack down and perhaps ban such cartoons thus infringing upon free speech? That’s a tough question, because the cartoons are legitimate expression of opinion or art but a legitimate case can be made for banning them. During World War I, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes justified limits on free speech in war time by citing the example of a man who falsely shouts the word “fire” in a crowded theater in a deliberate effort to create a panic. Like Holmes’ hypothetical loudmouth, the European cartoonists are not adding anything to political debate or culture but they are putting real people in danger. So a legitimate case can be made for suppressing those cartoons.
There are precedents for suppressing free speech in wartime. During the US Civil War deadly riots broke out in a number of Northern Cities over the draft particularly in New York City where thousands were killed. In 1864, a Manhattan newspaper published false stories that claimed another draft was imminent. President Abraham Lincoln concerned about this ordered the federal marshal to padlock the newspaper’s doors to keep it from publishing.
It’s not hard to imagine some European leader, quite probably a Social Democrat and former student protestor ordering his or her police force to shut down newspapers and websites in face of rioting or terrorist attacks. Nor is it hard to imagine an exasperated US president asking the Attorney General to have the FBI arrest journalists with too much knowledge of intelligence gathering methods.
The question we have to ask ourselves is free speech a fundamental right or an expensive luxury we can’t afford in the terrible times in which we live? A question our forebears asked and answered by sacrificing freedom of speech.
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of our most important rights, Freedom of Speech could become one of the major casualties of the War on Terror.
Sadly enough Freedom of Speech’s gravediggers maybe the well intentioned artists and journalists who claim to be standing up for and practicing freedom of speech rather than any would be tyrant or terrorist. Recent news stories point to two prime examples of how the times in which we live and the irresponsible behavior of a few threaten the rights of all.
In the United States we have the so-called surveillance scandal in which The New York Times and other media outlets have revealed many of the details of the National Security Agency’s program to collect intelligence about terrorists and would be terrorists. A deadly enemy has been tipped off about the details of our intelligence gathering efforts through the actions of self proclaimed journalists.
These journalists are decent and honorable people who are convinced they are doing the right thing. Yet they are seriously endangering our war on terror. Can we fight such a war and allow journalists the freedom to report on its details? In past wars we have kept the media in dark about stories and occasionally suppressed their activities. What happens if a journalist discovers the details of a plan to capture or kill Bin Laden and plans to expose them, how far should the government go? Should the government jail that reporter?
Over in Europe we have something more complex and troubling. A Danish newspaper published cartoons insulting and lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. An action that most Muslims consider sacrilege. A number of other European publications repeated this action. This inflamed Muslims around the world and led to deadly riots, and could inspire terrorist attacks on those countries.
Now should the European governments crack down and perhaps ban such cartoons thus infringing upon free speech? That’s a tough question, because the cartoons are legitimate expression of opinion or art but a legitimate case can be made for banning them. During World War I, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes justified limits on free speech in war time by citing the example of a man who falsely shouts the word “fire” in a crowded theater in a deliberate effort to create a panic. Like Holmes’ hypothetical loudmouth, the European cartoonists are not adding anything to political debate or culture but they are putting real people in danger. So a legitimate case can be made for suppressing those cartoons.
There are precedents for suppressing free speech in wartime. During the US Civil War deadly riots broke out in a number of Northern Cities over the draft particularly in New York City where thousands were killed. In 1864, a Manhattan newspaper published false stories that claimed another draft was imminent. President Abraham Lincoln concerned about this ordered the federal marshal to padlock the newspaper’s doors to keep it from publishing.
It’s not hard to imagine some European leader, quite probably a Social Democrat and former student protestor ordering his or her police force to shut down newspapers and websites in face of rioting or terrorist attacks. Nor is it hard to imagine an exasperated US president asking the Attorney General to have the FBI arrest journalists with too much knowledge of intelligence gathering methods.
The question we have to ask ourselves is free speech a fundamental right or an expensive luxury we can’t afford in the terrible times in which we live? A question our forebears asked and answered by sacrificing freedom of speech.
posted by great one at 3:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home