Modern Communication Capabilities

Mary-jane Garasi
28 November 2011
RD4

Modern Communication Capabilities

Among the most cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme court struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The First Amendment states, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.” Criticism of the government that are distasteful or against public policy, such as hate speeches are almost always permitted. Censorship is not always evil, but is a tool like anything else; it can be used to accomplish good or evil. [THESIS] Modern communication capabilities can affect free speech in a lot of ways, both enhancing and diminishing, depending on how it is used. No matter how you look at it, freedom of speech will be affected in every country.[THESIS]

Ward Churchill, a former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks. He argues that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He describes what he called the “Technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns.” This phrase was an allusion to Hannah Arendt’s depiction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann who was an ordinary person promoting the activity of an evil system. Churchill stated that there was simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11. He compared the American people to the “good Germans” of Nazi Germany, claiming that the vast majority of Americans had ignored the civilian suffering by the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, which Churchill claimed had killed millions of Iraqi civilians, including over 500,000 children. Chruchill characterized these sanctions as a policy of genocide.

According to the article published by the Rocky Mountain News, some agreed that whether they agreed on the content or not, Churchill has the right to say his opinion. Rocky Mountain News launched an online poll asking readers whether Univeristy of Colorado professor Ward Churchill should resign over his essay about the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. Majority of the respondents in this unscientific poll- 72 percent- want the professor of ethnic studies to resign, while 28 percent insist that church not leave his post. One response was “Isn’t that the type of democracy that we are trying to promote in Inaq? Isn’t that why we ousted Saddam?” (1) While another said, “Churchill is entitled to his opinion (freedom of speech) and to publish it (freedom of the press).” Although Churchill testified that he didn’t mean his comments to be hurtful to the September 11 victims, he was simply arguing that if you make it a practice of killing other people’s babies for personal gain…eventually they’re going to give you a taste of the same thing. When you are thinking about it, Churchill wasn’t trying to gain anything from his speeches about September 11. He didn’t ask for money, but was simply fraciticing his First Amendment rights.

As Simon stated in our Laulima discussion for defending Churchill, he stated, “Everyone basically have different thoughs and values and nobody can force others to have same one, neither blame others because they have different thought or values. This is the base of the freedom and the base of America. Even if someone like Ward Churchill writes something that is hurtful, it is his right as an American citizen. It is a staple that helps keep this country the land of the free.” (Lee) In this essence it is hard to please everyone in trying to understand your values. When you come across feeling so strongly about a certain point, no other opinion can deter your process in analyzing that your statement stands firm. This reminds me of my trip to Las Vegas. I just got home yesterday and the night before a group of 7 of us, all boys with me being the only girl decided to watch The Circque du Soleil show at the MGM. Coming from Hawai‘i we like to applause the cast by giving, “Chee-hoos!” With the reaction of the other thousands of people sitting around us did not understand. We were pretty much the loudest ones in there. It took the security guards five times until we understood that it was inappropriate. Of course we understood it wasn’t a luau show or even the Merry Monarch, but we thought everyone would be all hyped up that we were giving the cast a lot of whistle blowing and chee-hoos! After the fifth time of the security walking a flight of stairs to just come to tell us that we were being inappropriate we were forced to leave the premises. This goes to show that our thankfulness of being entertained with a good show was not appropriately gestured when given chee-hoos! Although our freedom of speech seemed okay to people who have been raised in Hawaii, others certainly expressed different values of knowing what was appropriate and what wasn’t. I have learned that when we gather the courage to be different, it may not seem gracious to other people.

Our whole democracy is based on opinion and forever finding the explanation. I don’t think a solution could ever be found without discussion or even experimenting or trying. “Without that freedom some things may never get reported, just because they are uncomfortable” (Suguitan). There is always a first to everything. Someone being the first to discover the moon, trials and tribulations of finding the latest drugs to cure some type of disease or cancer. These all starts with discussion. Some maybe too uncomfortable in expressing their findings only to fear what the outcome will be, but not Churchill or even his followers. I agree with Jessica’s expression in saying that it may never get reported. Without discussion of new ideas, we probably won’t have a history to remember. Nothing revolutionary that can actually push our country towards new creations that will better our society.

Ward Churchill’s essay did seem rather hurtful, but what happens to the thousands of other people who believed the same thing, but did not come forward in actually taking about it like he did? This huge ordeal that caused Chuchill to lose his job didn’t amount to anything that he could have possible gained except to be heard. The article posted by Steven K. Paulson stated that “Hoffman told lawmakers that tampering with tenure would be a mistake that could drive away other faculty members and make it difficult to hire new ones.” (Paulson) Some believed this was like recreating the Nazi holocaust. Ward Churchill did make malicious comments to the public towards the victims that were in the devastating September 11, 2001 tragedy. Churchill’s actual analyzing and historical research did point out deceitful flaws that our county is filled with imperfection, but did not deny the fact that he is an American. Just disgusted with the Administration of what our county has done. I do commend that he did have an abundance of courage to bring up these points to our administration which he probably knowingly knew what was in line, but still did it to be heard by his fellow Americans. Like my incident with screaming chee-hoos in an audience of over one thousand didn’t cross my mind that it was inappropriate, I give Ward Churchill a standing ovation of his courage to do what he has done. Many may have not favored his essay and ridiculed him for plagiarism, but I commend his courage in his message that the truthfulness is what makes people like me listen. Readers of Churchill’s essay can take this as not being censorship only as long as the middlemen are being truthful about what sort of information manipulation they are performing. You could equally well say that it is impossible to characterize how a message is being manipulated because a message is such a complicated thing once you take context into account.

It is our human right to be able to express ourselves freely with expression. In order to be able to understand and relay the opinions that we feel strongly about it has to be said. Ideas are meant to create history otherwise we would be living a dull boring life without new innovative ideas to better our society and broaden our education on certain materials. It is our right to be able to be able to get feedback on our opinions’ even though it may seem malicious, just as long as the message is crossed over to someone else. Another person’s knowledge should always be treated with respect as if it was your own. Free speech is the right to express any expression in public, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public, without being pressured, denied access, arrested, or otherwise punished by anyone, subject to somewhat fuzzy, but fairly well-understood exceptions. Modern communication capabilities can affect free speech in a lot of ways, both enhancing and diminishing, depending on how it is used. Some may think it is okay depending where you are and who is your audience. No matter how you look at it, freedom of speech will be affected in every country.

Works Cited:

Steers, Stuart. "Churchill, the Man, an Enigma." RockyMountainNews.com 2 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 .] (1)

JURY: Ward Churchill was wrongly fired from University of Colorado. OnePeoplesProject.com 27 April. 2009.
http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6:jury-ward-churchill-was-wrongly-fired-from-university-of-colorado&catid=39:stupid-right-wingers&Itemid=24.

Lee, Simon. “Defend Churchill” Online posting 23 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 Nov. 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e].

Suguitan, Jessica. “Defend Churchill” Online posting 24 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 Nov. 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/tool/e24f70fd-6ce1-4c3b-8cb9-78e4e4cff63d/posts/list/424902.page].

Paulson, Steven K. “University leader urges calm in professor decision.” Associated Press. Starbulletin.com 23 Feb. 2005. 23 Feb. 2005 .]