September 20, 2002

9:38 PM

Free Speech 101 -We must acknowledge that people who use force to suppress the opinions of others are committing assault not merely on other humans and on the basic promise of free speech, but on democracy itself.
posted by semmi (31 comments total)

uh if we really lived in a democracy, would bush be president?
posted by illiterati at 9:54 PM on September 20, 2002

No. QED
posted by hincandenza at 9:58 PM on September 20, 2002

Right. Exactly. Today's left would prefer to pretend that everyone actually agrees with them -- the only reason the world is any different from your expectations is some awful conspiracy. It would be much too difficult to acknowledge that there are people who believe differently and -- horrors -- sometimes win elections. Ain't that a kick in the head. Can't face that fact -- no, just keep on believing in fantasy liberalland, and you won't ever have to confront the divergence between your views and all those other people out there. Your left, then, is doomed to failure and continued self-flagellation. I do pity you.
posted by dhartung at 10:08 PM on September 20, 2002

Funny, you can interchange 'left" with "right" in everything dhartung said and it would still make the same disillusioned point.

So how about those Mets, huh? All the way this year. yeah...
posted by spungfoo at 10:16 PM on September 20, 2002

Spungfoo, I agree, but you cant really blame dhartung when the thread got derailed right off the bat with a pointless revival of the debate over the statistical tie of an election in 2000 (yes, thats right, neither of them won, either would have been a fair pick).

Speaking of derailing, this thread would make a perfect place for MeFi to have the Meaning of Censorship debate for the tenth time. I'm sure there is at least one dictionary definition that hasn't been posted yet :)

Back on topic, this article seems strangely meandaring. She starts off talking about the First Amendment and University political correctness (a played out editorial topic for sure). And ends by talking about violent anti-israel demonstrations at canadian universities and how violence isn't speech. Maybe she should pick a topic next time?
posted by malphigian at 10:46 PM on September 20, 2002

malphigian: Also, if you're staying on the PC theme, why bring up the teacher in Florida fired for the exact opposite of political correctness? He was fired for basically conservative reasons. (Really. This WSJ editorial had it that free speech comes with costs - and the Florida prof's firing, according to his logic here, was no big deal.) I take issue with her painting all universities with the same brush besides, based solely on incidents in California and, as noted above, Canada. Finally, Muslims were attacked on college campuses, among other places, after Sept. 11. Some people in academia were threatened with violence and at least intimidated for left-leaning views, but does Slate's judicial reporter doesn't bother to say anything about them? Nope, she instead relies solely on already well-publicized stories, or reports from conservative watchdog organizations, which are legion and exceedingly well-funded. What a lazy article.
posted by raysmj at 11:57 PM on September 20, 2002

Yes, spungfoo, accidental irony strikes again.

malphigian: "I'm sure there is at least one dictionary definition [of censorship] that hasn't been posted yet."

ha-ha!

"violence isn't speech"

Funny, though, violence is speech. I ain't no Constitutional law professor (who'd admit it if they were?) so maybe it isn't in first amendment terms, but sure as hell is in any other sense of the word. Throwing a brick through a window, sending in the National Guard to bust a protest, taking part in a lynching--all these are actions, but they speak louder than words.

"... the state must acknowledge that people who use force to suppress the opinions of others are not performing some sacred protected speech act. They are committing assault, not merely on other humans and on the basic promise of free speech, but on democracy itself."

Confusion! Is Dalia saying the police may never pepper spray citizens in the genitals? Hitting and punching Israeli activists is bad, what about beating other activists? The beating even happened on a campus, where was her outrage then? Wasn't it the kind of speech she wants protected? No, no. Of course not. There is one brand of speech she wants protected from harm, others may get a nightstick to the gut.
posted by raaka at 12:58 AM on September 21, 2002

Great article. Sadly and depressingly true.
There have been several incidents at Cornell, where students simply burn hundreds of copies of the The Cornell Review any time they disagree with its contents.
The new left's "feel-good hug-factory", indeed.
posted by hama7 at 1:59 AM on September 21, 2002

Semmi - have you really investigated the incidences of "violence" in question?

Read the articles at Indymedia and the Concordia Thursday Report Online regarding the incident that led to the cancelation of the Netanyahu speech, and you will see that the event was largely peaceful except for pushing, shoving, and name calling by both pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli factions.

Before the event even happened, the school's administration specifically warned Hillel, the sponsors of the speech, that the event could cause great unrest on campus, but the organizers insisted on holding their event on campus. The event was not open to the general student body, and, in fact, Arab students were specifically not allowed to attend.

It's worth noting that out of the over 2000 protesters, only one was arrested for assault. Four more were arrested -- one for resisting arrest and three others for unlawful assembly. One of those arrested was Aaron Mate, a Jewish student at Concordia and a member of the student union executive committee. His crime? Stepping between the protestors and police, urging both sides to relax.

Indeed, the primary reason that the event had to be cancelled was the police use of tear gas and pepper spray inside the building where the presentation was in order to disperse the protesters. Not only did this result in the event being cancelled, it also resulted in the cancelation of several classes being taught upstairs in the same building. Students reportedly flooded out of their classes, complaining of the fumes.

If anything, it was the university and those students who weren't a part of the protests who were the victims here. The school didn't ask for Hillel to bring this event to their campus -- quite the opposite. The general student body didn't ask for all the hassles of having such a confrontation on their campus, nor did they expect to have to flee their classes in order to avoid being tear gassed. Obviously, neither the students or the university's feelings were considered in this matter, however. Why? Hubris, plain and simple. Under the circumstances, I fully support the university's actions to keep these kinds of events off their campus in the future.

There is also the case of the May 7th protest, which was described in the article as As for the event at SFSU, described as a "Jewish peace rally"... well, how many peace rallies include protesters screaming "You terrorist!" and " Fuck your camel"? (mpg files)

Note that I am *NOT* saying that the pro-Palestinian protesters were somehow more noble -- only that like everything involving this conflict, neither side's hands are clean. People on both sides are going out of their way to provoke violence. Under the circumstances, it is ludicrous to suggest that pro-Palestinian protesters are responsible for violating your right to free speech. Quite the contrary... they are exercising their right to free speech too.

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself and ignore the sanctimonious bleatings from *both* sides. Where are the peacemakers in this madness? How can either side lay claim to some kind of "moral higher ground"?

If you believe in free speech, obviously you should speak out loudly and support the rights of Pro-Palistinian supporters to protest, and loudly decry provocations made by anyone -- even Israel's leaders -- which lead to further violence. You can start doing that today, for instance, by questioning the sense of shelling Arafat's headquarters.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:43 AM on September 21, 2002

> Throwing a brick through a window, sending in the
> National Guard to bust a protest, taking part in a
> lynching--all these are actions, but they speak louder
> than words.

So the Klan can go back to lynching people, on the grounds that it's a form of protected speech? Will they have ACLU lawyers?
posted by jfuller at 6:20 AM on September 21, 2002

The Klan has the same rights to free speech as you or I do. Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution of the U.S.

Murder is a crime.
posted by hama7 at 6:36 AM on September 21, 2002

That's the point, hama.

hama7:
"Funny, though, violence is speech."

I don't think that anyone disagrees that violence sends a message. The point (made well or badly) is that violence is both wrong and illegal, and shouldn't be tolerated under a free-speech banner.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:02 AM on September 21, 2002

How many faculty have been fired lately because of their beliefs (left or right)? I mean, the gentleman in Florida hasn't yet been fired, has he? I can think of any number of faculty who have been unfairly reprimanded, or given the wrong reprimand--there are some instances on the F.I.R.E. site of faculty who deserved a good rap on the knuckles, but got flayed instead--but fired?
posted by thomas j wise at 7:19 AM on September 21, 2002

raaka: "Funny, though, violence is speech." No, it isn't. It does seem that money = free speech for some. But violence is just violence.

malphigian: "I'm sure there is at least one dictionary definition [of censorship] that hasn't been posted yet."

OK, the truth is I just don't like cats.
posted by ?! at 7:19 AM on September 21, 2002

LittleMissCranky,

Please don't do that. I don't know what that colon after my handle implies, but I never said that.

And as far as free speech is concerned, blab your lungs out.

But the moment you so much as crack a window or throw a newspaper machine through a windshield, you are alone and on your own, buttercup.

Vandalism is also a crime, last time I checked.
posted by hama7 at 7:33 AM on September 21, 2002

The point (made well or badly) is that violence is both wrong and illegal, and shouldn't be tolerated under a free-speech banner

Well said.
posted by hama7 at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2002

I found Dahlia's piece a little hard to follow. Maybe she was trying to make the point that everybody can be the bad guy, but I'm not sure.

The way I come down on this is that everybody should be able to have their teach-ins and the their rallies on the quad, and publish their papers and websites (free speech, free assembly, etc.) and nobody should be able vandalize, occupy dean's offices, burn other people's papers, throw things, threaten violence (all of which are crimes).

Although I strongly resist the notion that private parties and institutions exercising editorial or prudential control over speech is any way equivalent to government censorship, I do think that private universities have, by way of their intellectual and quasi-public orientations, a practical obligation not to regulate speech or assembly (at least of those who are students or faculty) than is permissible to a public university.

With the odd exception here and there, I think that the left is being largely hypocritical. They have grown so accustomed to a monopoly on the rhetoric and tactics of university protest and organization, and so comfortable in an (utterly unwarranted and improper) tolerance of tresspass, riot, and vandalism by administrators and local police, that they are shocked when they see Jewish and moderate students and faculty taking up their own banners, or administrators actually insist upon lawful behavior.
posted by MattD at 9:35 AM on September 21, 2002

The point is indeed that violence is both wrong and illegal, and shouldn't be tolerated under a free speech banner. The implication is that only liberals use violence in such a mannner on university campuses in America (never mind that half the examples come from Canada and the rest from one state), and also intimidation, which (unlike thomas j. wise), the Slate writer also condemns. She also focuses on liberal political correctness, even though the thomas j. wise "intimidation is OK" thing doesn't fall under the PC banner. Either type of action is wrong, though.

(Also, raaka is right, in a sense. Military people consistently talk about military action in terms of communication - e.g., bombing campaigns "sending a message." It was beyond clear to me that didn't think murder is constitutionally protected. It wouldn't hurt to mull over what someone is saying before condemning the post.)

Oh, and the South Florida prof was fired, then re-hired, and now the school is trying to have him re-fired.
posted by raysmj at 9:42 AM on September 21, 2002

I found Dahlia's piece a little hard to follow. Yeah, it was a mess. What is the real message in this article about the nature of academia in re free speech? At one point, campus is a "quasi-parental hug-factory", but a little later it is a place where "you may 'speak' freely—with fists, chairs, and broken glass". Overall, a pretty sloppy piece of mostly significance-free whining. These comments contain far more ideation and sense.
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 9:54 AM on September 21, 2002

"Maybe you should try thinking for yourself and ignore the sanctimonious bleatings from *both* sides." "...for instance, by questioning the sense of shelling Arafat's headquarters."

I'm trying insomnia_lj, and will ignore your sactimonious bleating as well.
posted by semmi at 10:12 AM on September 21, 2002

raysmj: "(Also, raaka is right, in a sense. Military people consistently talk about military action in terms of communication - e.g., bombing campaigns "sending a message." It was beyond clear to me that didn't think murder is constitutionally protected. It wouldn't hurt to mull over what someone is saying before condemning the post.)"

mull, mulling, mulled

The idiom "sending a message" isn't what we were discussing.

Can "violence" be construed as "speech" under the system currently in the US? I still believe it can not. I further believe the students at Concordia (and some other recent protests) disagree with me. Now ask me if "violence" has a place in "protest."

No cats were harmed during the writing of this post.
posted by ?! at 10:28 AM on September 21, 2002

?!: Yes, it was exactly what you were discussing, even if you're unable to process the concept. I certainly don't think that violence is ultimately the most effective form of "communication," however. The costs of it are too high.
posted by raysmj at 10:47 AM on September 21, 2002

From an article about terrorism: "As far as the media are concerned, airline and airport acts of terrorism are 'sexy.' They make good headlines. In their book 'Violence as Communication,' A.P. Schmid and J. De Graaf make a case for censorship of the media during acts of terrorism (but also balance the case against censorship), by suggesting, inter alia, that terrorists use the media as a platform for recruitment; that publicity is a reward in itself; that detailed coverage of acts of terrorism provide a model to increase future success rates; that during hostage-taking incidents, hostages' lives may be endangered; that reporting incidents may provoke 'copycat' acts and that media reports can cause panic in hostage-takers, leading to the kidnapper killing the victim(s)."
posted by raysmj at 11:06 AM on September 21, 2002

It just goes to show that neither the hard left or the hard right have a monopoly on self-righteousness and moral arrogance. That's why I usually ignore the nonsense the both of them spout.
posted by beatnik808 at 1:45 PM on September 21, 2002

raysmj: -- pointless appeal to ridicule removed --

Nevertheless, your statement "?!: Yes, it was exactly what you were discussing" is not informed and, even from context -- false. I quoted raaka: "Funny, though, violence is speech." and addressed that comment. I stand by my comment.

Your repeated appeals to ridicule makes further discussion tedious. If however, you'd like some additional insights into violence is not speech I'd suggest investigating the works of Hannah Arendt, Niklas Luhmann, and Talcott Parsons.
posted by ?! at 2:25 PM on September 21, 2002

What repeated appeals to ridicule? You're a bit too sensitive there, but you deseved to get called on your post. Anyway, raaka was not saying that violence is protected speech, as I read it. Also, I've read Hannah Arendt's "On Violence," thanks - and if you've read it, you'll know my comment about violence's long-range limitations is informed by that work. Finally, my first message was not addressed at you, specifically, but people adding statements like, "What, lynching are legal now?" Such comments were disrespectful and thoughtless responses to a rather nuanced, if admittedly provocative, post from raaka.
posted by raysmj at 2:46 PM on September 21, 2002

illiterati: uh if we really lived in a democracy, would bush be president?
Brilliant! And... you got to be the first one to post. Awesome!
posted by Witty at 2:48 PM on September 21, 2002

She also focuses on liberal political correctness, even though the thomas j. wise "intimidation is OK" thing doesn't fall under the PC banner.

*jaw drops*

Whoa there, pardner. I queried one part of the article, namely, the part about "firing." That's because, to my knowledge, there isn't an epidemic of people being fired for academic freedom reasons. A tiny minority of F.I.R.E's work, last time I checked, had to do with people actually having their jobs terminated; they normally deal with improper disciplinary actions, various free speech issues dealing with institutional censorship, and so forth. The AAUP censure list, which addresses far more instances of actual job termination, has many more cases dealing with improper procedures--that is, legal technicalities--than with academic freedom.

The last time I checked, intimidation was a Bad Thing. (And since I have several acquaintances on both the left and the right who have been "intimidated" by their opposite numbers, I've even heard about intimidation up close and personal.) I happen to think students who burn newspapers or engage in vandalism ought to be arrested, that faculty ought not to be punished (either by the administration or their colleagues) for having "unpopular" views, and so on, and so forth. For crying out loud.
posted by thomas j wise at 3:07 PM on September 21, 2002

thomas J. wise: OK, sorry if I misjudged your comments. It was your use of "good rap on the knuckles" that bothered me. Under what circumstances is that allowed? When harassing language is targeted at an individual student, say, or groups or individuals are physically threatened? (The above could be a legitimate grounds for dismissal.) In any case, the question as to whether the South Florida teacher was fired was answered in the posted article.
posted by raysmj at 3:32 PM on September 21, 2002

When harassing language is targeted at an individual student, say, or groups or individuals are physically threatened? (The above could be a legitimate grounds for dismissal.)

As a faculty member, when I think "good rap on the knuckles," I mean "get chewed out by department chair and/or dean and promise never to do it again"--not "get called up before the disciplinary committee and lose tenure" or whatever. The F.I.R.E. site has some instances of faculty or students acting stupidly and/or unprofessionally, then getting met with mind-blowing accusations of racism, sexual harassment, and whatnot. The situations you describe certainly merit a gamut of actions ranging from a) official reproof (letter in one's file), to b) dismissal (if faculty) or expulsion (if student), to c) arrest or lawsuit, if necessary.
posted by thomas j wise at 5:14 PM on September 21, 2002

OT/ hama7 -- I really, really apologize. I connected the wrong name to the wrong post. My mistake.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:09 PM on September 21, 2002