As Abbie Hoffman would remind us, freedom of speech is not about the ability to pray at a prayer meeting or salute the flag. It is about protection of the expression of unpopular views. And in that sense, the U.S. is a most un-free place. We don’t begin to practice what we preach to the world, and the world knows it.
________________
Here’s Glenn Greenwald of the same subject:
I’m still not quite over the most disgusting part of the Juan Williams spectacle yesterday: watching the very same people (on the Right and in the media) who remained silent about or vocally cheered on the viewpoint-based firings of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, Van Jones and so many others, spend all day yesterday wrapping themselves in the flag of “free expression!!!” and screeching about the perils and evils of firing journalists for expressing certain viewpoints. Even for someone who expects huge doses of principle-free hypocrisy — as I do — that behavior is really something to behold. And anyone doubting that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Muslim speech should just compare the wailing backlash from most quarters over Williams’ firing to the muted acquiescence or widespread approval of those other firings….
Piece of Mindful 
It is about protection of the expression of unpopular views.
It doesn’t mean we have to subsidize their propagation. Ward Churchill can rent his own hall, or go door to door and leave tracts tucked in the crack. Taxpayers don’t need to pay for his secretary, or for the recruitment of his victims.
How were the Dixie Chicks denied any free speech? Their US fans simply quit buying their records, or tickets to their concerts. Happens to me all the time.
the U.S. is a most un-free place.
Oh, I think we do pretty well. Who you gonna compare us to, Venezuela? Cuba? We don’t have much government action against speech, unlike, say, The Netherlands where Geets Wilder is currently in the dock for speaking truth to craziness, or Canada where Mark Steyn was called before the Commission for Show Trials and Purges for something he wrote.
Let us also not forget our more conservative brethren such as uber researcher James Watson who was fired for accidentally speaking the truth, or talk show host Michael Savage who was banned by the British from travelling to that country.
LikeLike
Thank you. You make my point precisely. Hoffman said that freedom of speech was not about allowing “assimilated conformists” to speak. That’s way easy – even the USSR allowed that, even encouraged it. If’s about not punishing people for speech even when not doing so pains you. Dissidents are a pain to conformists, who always want to shut them down. That’s when the first amendment, which is just a bunch of words, has meaning – when people actually use it.
The Dixie Chicks were taken off the airwaves by a corporation that had monopolized ownership of radio stations. Their concerts continued to sell out. Clear Channel, removed from market pressure by lack of competition, had unchallenged power, and sure enough, could not help itself.
Ward Churchill is my point in spades, a dissident. Yes, we did have to continue to let him keep his job if we really mean what we say about our wonderful selves. But we don’t. When freedom of speech is annoying, as you demonstrate, we shut it down.
It’s about us, by the way. Us. The U.S. We wrote that damned amendment, but like always, freedom is not given. It is taken. If people like Churchill and Maher and Donahue don’t continue to piss off people like you, then freedom is just a another word …
LikeLike
Dissidence doesn’t make someone’s speech more valuable, and we don’t need to subsidize it. Ward Churchill could buy time on Clear Channel, or buy his own radio station and have at it.
I realize that a license to use the public airwaves carries a responsibility to the public, but I’m not sure how much “common carrier” status that entails. I would like Clear Channel to broadcast speeches by Dick Cheney, but I don’t think they have that much requirement to honor my wishes. From what I understand, the Dixie Chicks only sold out their foreign concerts while U.S. interest plummeted.
I find many of Ward Churchill’s statements to be false or highly misleading. How much of a responsibility do have to give him a platform from which to broadcast such views? Where’s the subsidized platform for David Duke?
LikeLike
Are you an older guy, like me? If so, you should know by this time that pretzel logic can really harm the body. Kids can get away with this stuff, but people our age know to exercise our brains logically.
LikeLike
Since when does your opinion mean anything about another’s 1st amendment rights? Particularly about what is “false or highly misleading.”
Honor that, and you honor the 1st Amendment.
Generalize your opinion into one of community or societal “responsibility” and you begin stifling another’s rights. To wit, the birth of the moral minority…
LikeLike
When free speech must be bought (“Ward Churchill could buy time on Clear Channel, or buy his own radio station and have at it.”), well, doesn’t that just about sum it up in a nutshell? Oh, now we have a market for that too? Who are these people?
LikeLike
Yep, these guys want the “free market” to be the final arbitrators of free speech.
And thus the corporatization of the 1st Amendment continues…
LikeLike
And thus the corporatization of the 1st Amendment continues…
What’s your alternative?
I’m no fan of corporate America, but when I drive by Wal-Mart and see the place packed while mom and pop stores wither, it seems to me people are voting as to who has the power in this country.
Tenured professorships allows a platform where one can have dissident viewpoints that reach a wide audience. If someone (like Ward Churchill) abuses that privilege by making false statements, someone else can have that post. Ward can join the rest of us.
LikeLike
Simple. A Constitutional Amendment reserving 1st Amendment rights under the Constitution to flesh and blood citizens.
People shop at Wal-Mart because they’ve been led to believe that it is a cheap place to shop (even though a significant percent of products actually are higher priced than their competitors, and their sales are never as low as many competitors). And Wal-Mart has become a business success by cheaply importing products made in China, India, Brazil, etc. at the expense of American production.
While you may think that the free market notion of voting with one’s dollars dictates winners and losers, conversely I’d say that trade policy is more responsible for the success of companies like Wal-Mart and Apple.
Take away corporate personhood and 1st amendment rights, and change trade policy to level the playing field, and you’ll see a totally different landscape with the big box stores and downtown businesses.
LikeLike
oops, that quote was supposed to read:
darn copy/paste madness
LikeLike
JC, well said.
I was thinking along different lines. The sentiment from LadyB and Mark T is that unless the Dixie Chicks can unload on George Bush at a Clear Channel sponsored concert, they have no free speech. That is a false choice, but it indicates that they are given over to the belief that everything is corporate organized, and the debate is over bringing forth a better corporation, one organized by a Castro, or a Chavez, one that will broadcast more Chomsky. They are not against corporate control, they just want their side in charge.
LikeLike
Talk about false choice! What a statement.
Again, it’s a simple point – free speech is easy if everyone gets to say nice things that the government like to hear and you, a supporter of those who hold power, like. That’s not even a test.
The test is when someone says something unpleasant. What do we do? We fire, ban, excoriate. Free speech in the USA is a joke.
Two other things – you’re like a trained attack dog, eyes focused on Chavez, teeth bared and growling. Would you even know about him if our government did not want him dead?
And Clear Channel is in the picture because due to the Clinton-signed Telecom Bill, they own 2,000 radio stations. That’s the platform that they banned the Chicks from. That’s too much power.
You don’t believe in free speech, by the way.
LikeLike
What it comes down to is that you like Ward Churchill because he goes to your church, the Church of Cafe Boulder.
If Ward Churchill went on rants about Niggers, Jews, and the joys of pedophilia, I suspect your enthusiasm for defending him would flag a little bit.
You can finesse the situation by calling for freedom of political speech, but even here we draw a line at calls for violent overthrows, assassination of officials, etc.
On another topic you yourself said “We are not allowed much room to talk about this subject” which tells me you implicitly accept limits on speech.
Yes, I’m biased against Hugo Chavez. My brother’s inlaws are from Venezuela, so I’ve been regaled with stories of how he is gutting the country. Sorry about that, since Chavez is another member of your church. I should be more circumspect on these sectarian websites.
LikeLike
Ward Churchill did not go on rants about Niggers, Jews, and the joys of pedophilia. If he did, I would not be much impressed with him. That’s kind of an obvious point. What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not think this thing through without such diversions? Ward Churchill expressed contempt at the American state for real crimes, and wondered if 9/11 were not blowback, even deserved. That is thought crime, and he was duly punished.
Most interesting is Orwell’s circus dog – the people who punished him, the academics who suck on the tit of the state, knew to do so without being instructed.
Please give me some evidence that 1) you have a grasp of the big picture in Venezuela, and 2) you have any grasp of crimes committed by countries and people that our government has not targeted for hatred. Show me you’ve an independent mind.
LikeLike
Churchill called the financial sector in NYC “little Eichmanns”. I equate this with racial slurs and the like. His position at UC was a sinecure at taxpayers expense. The bar of what is said from this pulpit is a little different than someone walking down the street. My point is that Churchill, in his position, does not have carte blanch to say what he wants. I think you would agree with me on that, but we disagree on what constitutes over the line.
1) you have a grasp of the big picture in Venezuela
I know people who live and work in Venezuela. Real wages have fallen since Hugo’s takeover. There has been a brain drain, he is not developing the oil sector like he should, crime is way up. You hold up Chavez as an example of the popular will taking over and fixing a country, when it is the usual we get from the Left: a thugocracy with no accountability.
2) you have any grasp of crimes committed by countries and people that our government has not targeted for hatred. Show me you’ve an independent mind.
I’m not sure what you are asking. Is it about crimes against the U.S.? I’ll agree it is problematic: we are friends with Saudi Arabia and prop up their government, which suppresses their people. But in our absence the oppression there would be even worse. Our influence has made them more “liberal”. I’ll hold out the possibility that I’m wrong here. In that case you would be right.
I don’t put that much stock in our influence. I think the Left overstates the case because the Left likes to think they can be puppet masters of human events. America is mainly a convenient target for those who don’t like the way things are going and need someone to blame, rather than blame the underlying causes.
LikeLike
Saudi Arabia – is your world view really so small that this is all you can see? We have over 700 bases in 60 countries, with a lot of thugs on our payroll. Hugo is a Boy Scout.
LikeLike
One country at a time. Our influence is a two edged sword for other countries: the wealth and economies of the western world under our wing makes Nigerian oil more valuable, and makes them a wealthier country, but it helps fund a corrupt oligarchy, and we’re inclined to throw a nickel into the dollar of their politics.
We have over 700 bases in 60 countries
Most of this is inertia and social spending.
with a lot of thugs on our payroll
I thought the crusading of Bob Torricelli et al had scrubbed us clean of such, leaving the way open for Muhammad Atta.
America’s been a pretty benevolent super power relative to our historical asymmetry in wealth and power, and compared to past powers such as the Ottomans, the British, the Russians, and the future Chinese.
LikeLike
Those bases exist to protect American business interests. As old Smedley Butler, a General who was once asked to participate in a coup to overthrow FDR said (instead he exposed it and the Wall Street barons who approached him), he spent most of his military career fighting to make money for Wall Street.
The Brits, Spanish, Dutch and Russians all claimed to be benevolent, like you just said. That’s another trait of imperialism – extreme denial, or grand delusion.
Imperialism works to extract cheap labor and resources from colonies. It does not benefit its victims, except in the minds of it’s practitioners. That’s a common thought, but fact is if you survey countries, those that developed were free of colonialism. The US did not develop until it threw off the Brits. Of all the countries of the Asian rim, China, Korea and Japan are strongest, and are the ones that best resisted European colonial interference.
LikeLike