Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Free Speech Doesn't Come Without Cost
Free Speech Doesn't Come Without Cost
Free Speech Doesn't Come Without Cost
By Gregg Easterbrook. Mr. Easterbrook is a senior editor of the New Republic and Beliefnet.com1 and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. His book "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" has just been published by Universe.
In this time of semi-war, is free speech threatened when those who denounce U.S. foreign policy or sympathize with America's adversaries are themselves denounced? Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.) complained last week that she was being "attacked for speaking" because she made an overture to a Saudi prince with anti-Israeli politics. Several college instructors around the country have been assailed by editorialists and students for condemning the U.S., reactions Ruth Flowers, an official of the American Association of University Professors, told the Washington Post "harken back to McCarthyism."
Set aside the hypersensitivity of equating mere criticism with the darkness of McCarthyism. What's at work here is fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It guarantees a right to free speech, but hardly guarantees speech will be without cost.
Consider Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who calls the U.S. a terrorist nation, asserts that American policy in Afghanistan is a "war of lies" and that a secretive "small elite seeking to extend its power" has tricked the public into supporting apparent anti-terrorism that is actually "the culmination of a decade of U.S. aggression." Mr. Jensen is now extremely unpopular in Texas. There is a letter-writing campaign to get him fired, and he was recently criticized by the president of his own university as a "fountain of undiluted foolishness."
His backers are saying this is an attempt to suppress Mr. Jensen's free speech. In fact, Mr. Jensen continues to speak freely and often. What they really mean is that Mr. Jensen should not have to pay any price for his views. But this misunderstands the nature of the First Amendment. Mr. Jensen's right to his expression -- clearly political and protected -- is absolute. But there exists no right to exemption from the reaction to what is said.
When the Bill of Rights was enacted, the First Amendment was construed mainly to shield speakers from imprisonment for antigovernment views. That expression could have other costs -- denunciation, ostracism, loss of employment -- was assumed. Many of the original patriots took enormous risks in the exercise of speech, Patrick Henry being an obvious example. William Blackstone, the English legal theorist closely read by the Framers, argued that the essence of free speech was forbidding prior restraint: Anyone should be able to say anything, but then must live with the aftermath. A citizen should possess "an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public," Blackstone wrote in his "Commentaries" -- which James Madison consulted often while working on drafts of the First Amendment wording -- but "must take the consequences" for any reaction.
The reaction to free speech, Madison thought, would be part of the mechanism by which society sifted out beliefs. Protected by Madison's amendment, the Ku Klux Klan can spew whatever repugnant drivel its wishes. Society, in turn, shuns KKK members for the repugnant people their free speech exposes them to be. No one expects the KKK to speak without a price; its price is ostracism. Why should repugnant speech on foreign policy or terrorism be any different?
And so, though Robert Jensen has the right to say what he does, his university's president has an equal right to call him a fool. When talk show host Bill Maher says the September terrorists were brave and American pilots are cowardly, his comments fully merit First Amendment protection. But the advertisers who yanked support from his show were also within their rights: That A may speak hardly means B must fund A's speech. (Mr. Maher has since retracted his comments.) Many orchestras are now refusing to perform work by the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, who called the World Trade Center destruction "the greatest work of art ever" (the only flaw, according to him, was that the victims "hadn't agreed to it"). Mr. Stockhausen is entitled to his bizarre views; to be boycotted is the price he pays.
Similarly when the novelist Barbara Kingsolver says "the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder," or the novelist Arundhati Roy says George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are "interchangeable," these statements are safeguarded. But readers may fairly respond by declining to buy Ms. Kingsolver's and Ms. Roy's books, and bookstores may fairly respond by declining to stock them. That these authors have a right to their views does not mean publishers and bookstores must promote them. It is censorship if books are seized and burned; it is not censorship if books are tossed into the trash because their authors mock the liberty that made the books possible. Indeed, expressing revulsion at the sight of a Kingsolver book is itself a form of protected speech.
Dilemmas in the relationship between the freedom of speech and the cost of speech are summed up in the case of Richard Berthold, a professor at the University of New Mexico. On Sept. 11, Mr. Berthold twice told classes, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Students have since held rallies against Mr. Berthold, and state leaders called for his dismissal.
As regards speech privilege, Supreme Court precedent is firmly on Mr. Berthold's side. In a 1987 case, Rankin v. McPherson, the court ruled that an employee could not be fired for saying, on hearing of the 1981 assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan, "I hope they get him." This was protected expression, the court found, not a "true threat" of bodily harm. However obnoxious, Mr. Berthold's comment was clearly facetious and not meant as a threat to the lives of Pentagon employees.
But the fact that Mr. Berthold has a First Amendment right to say that he wishes the Pentagon destroyed does not mean such speech comes without cost. Students, administrators and local leaders have a First Amendment right to find his views repulsive. Taxpayers have a First Amendment right to call for his dismissal. (No one has a right to send Mr. Berthold threats, and he has received some; "true threats" are crimes that should be prosecuted.) Writers have a First Amendment right to use Mr. Berthold as an example of the ingrates who benefit from American freedom while disparaging its guardians.
Speech must be free, but cannot be without cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1004923568252960760.djm
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://beliefnet.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your Subscription Agreement and copyright laws.
For information about subscribing, go to http://wsj.com
By Gregg Easterbrook. Mr. Easterbrook is a senior editor of the New Republic and Beliefnet.com1 and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. His book "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" has just been published by Universe.
In this time of semi-war, is free speech threatened when those who denounce U.S. foreign policy or sympathize with America's adversaries are themselves denounced? Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.) complained last week that she was being "attacked for speaking" because she made an overture to a Saudi prince with anti-Israeli politics. Several college instructors around the country have been assailed by editorialists and students for condemning the U.S., reactions Ruth Flowers, an official of the American Association of University Professors, told the Washington Post "harken back to McCarthyism."
Set aside the hypersensitivity of equating mere criticism with the darkness of McCarthyism. What's at work here is fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It guarantees a right to free speech, but hardly guarantees speech will be without cost.
Consider Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who calls the U.S. a terrorist nation, asserts that American policy in Afghanistan is a "war of lies" and that a secretive "small elite seeking to extend its power" has tricked the public into supporting apparent anti-terrorism that is actually "the culmination of a decade of U.S. aggression." Mr. Jensen is now extremely unpopular in Texas. There is a letter-writing campaign to get him fired, and he was recently criticized by the president of his own university as a "fountain of undiluted foolishness."
His backers are saying this is an attempt to suppress Mr. Jensen's free speech. In fact, Mr. Jensen continues to speak freely and often. What they really mean is that Mr. Jensen should not have to pay any price for his views. But this misunderstands the nature of the First Amendment. Mr. Jensen's right to his expression -- clearly political and protected -- is absolute. But there exists no right to exemption from the reaction to what is said.
When the Bill of Rights was enacted, the First Amendment was construed mainly to shield speakers from imprisonment for antigovernment views. That expression could have other costs -- denunciation, ostracism, loss of employment -- was assumed. Many of the original patriots took enormous risks in the exercise of speech, Patrick Henry being an obvious example. William Blackstone, the English legal theorist closely read by the Framers, argued that the essence of free speech was forbidding prior restraint: Anyone should be able to say anything, but then must live with the aftermath. A citizen should possess "an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public," Blackstone wrote in his "Commentaries" -- which James Madison consulted often while working on drafts of the First Amendment wording -- but "must take the consequences" for any reaction.
The reaction to free speech, Madison thought, would be part of the mechanism by which society sifted out beliefs. Protected by Madison's amendment, the Ku Klux Klan can spew whatever repugnant drivel its wishes. Society, in turn, shuns KKK members for the repugnant people their free speech exposes them to be. No one expects the KKK to speak without a price; its price is ostracism. Why should repugnant speech on foreign policy or terrorism be any different?
And so, though Robert Jensen has the right to say what he does, his university's president has an equal right to call him a fool. When talk show host Bill Maher says the September terrorists were brave and American pilots are cowardly, his comments fully merit First Amendment protection. But the advertisers who yanked support from his show were also within their rights: That A may speak hardly means B must fund A's speech. (Mr. Maher has since retracted his comments.) Many orchestras are now refusing to perform work by the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, who called the World Trade Center destruction "the greatest work of art ever" (the only flaw, according to him, was that the victims "hadn't agreed to it"). Mr. Stockhausen is entitled to his bizarre views; to be boycotted is the price he pays.
Similarly when the novelist Barbara Kingsolver says "the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder," or the novelist Arundhati Roy says George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are "interchangeable," these statements are safeguarded. But readers may fairly respond by declining to buy Ms. Kingsolver's and Ms. Roy's books, and bookstores may fairly respond by declining to stock them. That these authors have a right to their views does not mean publishers and bookstores must promote them. It is censorship if books are seized and burned; it is not censorship if books are tossed into the trash because their authors mock the liberty that made the books possible. Indeed, expressing revulsion at the sight of a Kingsolver book is itself a form of protected speech.
Dilemmas in the relationship between the freedom of speech and the cost of speech are summed up in the case of Richard Berthold, a professor at the University of New Mexico. On Sept. 11, Mr. Berthold twice told classes, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Students have since held rallies against Mr. Berthold, and state leaders called for his dismissal.
As regards speech privilege, Supreme Court precedent is firmly on Mr. Berthold's side. In a 1987 case, Rankin v. McPherson, the court ruled that an employee could not be fired for saying, on hearing of the 1981 assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan, "I hope they get him." This was protected expression, the court found, not a "true threat" of bodily harm. However obnoxious, Mr. Berthold's comment was clearly facetious and not meant as a threat to the lives of Pentagon employees.
But the fact that Mr. Berthold has a First Amendment right to say that he wishes the Pentagon destroyed does not mean such speech comes without cost. Students, administrators and local leaders have a First Amendment right to find his views repulsive. Taxpayers have a First Amendment right to call for his dismissal. (No one has a right to send Mr. Berthold threats, and he has received some; "true threats" are crimes that should be prosecuted.) Writers have a First Amendment right to use Mr. Berthold as an example of the ingrates who benefit from American freedom while disparaging its guardians.
Speech must be free, but cannot be without cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1004923568252960760.djm
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://beliefnet.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your Subscription Agreement and copyright laws.
For information about subscribing, go to http://wsj.com
For more information:
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1004...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
It's grafitti, pure and simple. This is the work of someone too stupid and inarticulate to write for himself, who is doing the cyber equivalent of stealing a can of spray paint and scrawling the most offensive words he can recall on a wall.
There's precious little difference between this behavior and some skinhead moron spraying "KIKE" on the wall of a synagogue.
While I lived in Philadelphia, I saw the public transit system go from being covered in grafitti to being largely free of it. The technique involved was simple: as soon as a "tag" appeared in a station, SEPTA would either remove or paint over it. Once the vandals realized that their handiwork wouldn't even last a day, they lost their motivation to continue.
The same thing should work here. As soon as a piece of plagiarized spam appears, get it off the newswire. Do that consistently and the Freeper creeps will either have to go somewhere else to vent their hostility or have to learn how to write.
Is the SF Indymedia collective willing to take the bull by the nuts and defend this site as a place for relevant news and original writing, or would that be taboo under the tenets of somebody's pet ism?
And censorship is most definitely contrary to the "tenets of [many people's] pet ism[s]." This is an open forum, Mulberry. Nobody's forcing you to visit the site. If you want to change the policy, join the collective. I think you'll face a lot of resistance, however, to implementing more heavy-handed censorship.
And the freedom not to listen to the blather is alive and workin also. Freedom to be accepted is what you seem to want. Aint gonna happen. Doesnt happen anywhere.
An idiot knows you arent anti semitic just because you dont support US support for Israel. I dont think they need a dime. There. Look at it written there. Freedom.
All freedoms come with a cost. Thats in our genetics.
Elections. Elections. Elections. We are free to throw out by ballot those who dis-ease us. Play the front. Be a freekin citizen already. The damn US religios right nazis have a political movement up front. Why doesnt Berzerkley.