14 December 2011
FD4
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. Modern communication capabilities can affect free speech in a lot of ways, both enhancing and diminishing, depending on how it is used.Our communities are communicating free speech in a lot of different ways. Modern technology like our daily newspaper, conversation with peers, emails, television, and even the radio expresses our communication for freedom of speech. [THESIS]It is our human right to be able to express ourselves freely with expression.[THESIS] No matter how you look at it, freedom of speech will be affected in every country.
Modern communication is everywhere. For Ward Churchill his communication of his free speech all started with an essay. 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 innocent victims on the September 11th attack. 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. Churchill characterized these sanctions as a policy of genocide.
According to the article published by the Rocky Mountain News, some agreed that whether they argued 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 Iraq? 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).” Modern communication such as newspapers have a 100% capability to write whatever the writers feel. 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 Lee expressed his defense for Churchill, he commented “Everyone have different thoughts and values...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 Business Law class last semester. It was a full blown speech class of politics and democracy. We would get points when we would talk about events that have happened in our lives like court cases, drug habits, kids, etc. One day a student went up and explained that she will not be attending the last week of the semester because she is getting an abortion. She was so many weeks and have come to terms that she is aborting the baby. I was in complete shock being that I am a mother. I just looked at her and couldn't help, but shake my head. During her speech the class started to engage in a discussion to whether it was a good idea or not. For or against abortion became the topic in class for the rest of the hour. In some cultures it would be considered outlawed and impossible to even discuss the topic of having abortion as a choice. After our class ended I had the utmost respect for her. Given the courage she had to come out and be open to let us know what she is going through. I have learned that when we gather the courage to be different, there will be a great exchange of differences being discussed. It would be up to the person gathering the knowledge the ability to either interpret what was being said offensive, informative, or with no such feelings at all.
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.The capabilities of today's society are filled with freedom of speech in every direction possible. Television news and the local radio station are always announcing on who said what. 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 interesting topic of abortion in Business Law class, I commend her courage telling the students that she believed abortion was the only way she can succeed in life because she was just simply not ready. Truth is what makes people like me listen. Readers of Churchill’s essay can be taken as not having 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 are everywhere and we use these capabilities every day. It 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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment