Time for a talk with the Beav
There are many people who say things which I don’t agree with, but it is imperative that they be allowed to say them whether I agree or not. The difficult thing with our first amendment, is, if we perceive language ot be a form of action, where does linguistic action cross the line from saying something offensive to doing something offensive.
Two cases in point. The first, today on cnn.com: Professor sticks with comparison of Nazis, 9/11 victims. (The professor is Ward Churchill–hence the title of this post.) His criticism of those who work in the World Trade Center as being “little Nazis” sounds extremist and it is, undoubtedly to capture attention. Should he be allowed to say it? When I follow the line of thinking, I want to say that it’s not at all true, because the Nazis intentionally manufactured a genocide of another way of life…but then I remember that a lot of Nazis were “just doing their jobs” and didn’t think about the larger implications of their actions…and Churchill’s arguments are that there is a cultural genocide taking place via America’s technocracy. I can see his point, but it’s a little harsh. But as there is no such thing as bad publicity, I can imagine his motivation.
But I love the end of the article:
“David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent.He called instead for an inquiry into the university’s hiring and promotion procedures to see how Churchill managed to rise to the chairmanship of the school’s ethnic studies department.”
Hmmmm. I wonder why there are so many professors on the left? Could it be because conservative people, at least those who are conservative about social policies, prefer to work for corporations where they can make exponentially more money than they ever could in an academic environment.
The second case:
No Free Speech in Preaching A Swedish preacher who make really scathing anti-gay statements was thrown in jail for a month. Again, I think his particular opinions are repulsive, but he should have the right to say them. Was it crossing the line from just speaking them in church, through the language-action of pushing the views on the community through his published article in the local paper?
Either way, I prefer when people are truthful in their communication—because then I know where they stand. It’s the people who aren’t speaking their mind (perhaps politicking?) and have access to the power and resources to create discriminatory practices that are the most dangerous…
