|
I have to marvel sometimes at how obtuse some otherwise intelligent individuals are, and no
subject invites more ludicrous opinions than freedom of speech. Allow me to pose a distasteful analogy, for which I apologize, but it best serves to make my point. Let's supplant freedom to "eat" in lieu of "speech", and further that we all fill our plates from one common pot. Wouldn't it be an abonination if we allowed an individual, or group of individuals, to defecate in the stew? There are millions of Americans who apparently believe that others have the right to, as it were, discharge their filth into the community pot, and they are willing to pick around the sickening flotsom on their plate in the interest of "free speech". Let's get this perfectly clear....our responsibility as free men is that we respect the RIGHT of others to hold their own views, no matter how peculiar, but we are NOT obligated to sit quietly and allow scoundrels of every stripe, as well as well meaning citizens, to spew their misguided rhetoric without challenging them. To the contrary! When we encounter a person who has a decidely skewed view of the world we are responsible to state the truth. A man named Ward Churchill was recently invited to Hamilton College to speak about his claims that blame America for September 11th. He says the people who died there "deserved what they got!". When a member of the Hamilton faculty was questioned about this arrangement on a national news program he informed the listening audience that the college adamantly disagreed with Churchill, but they were allowing him to speak (and pay him a handsome stipend) in the interest of free speech. The principle that apparently escaped Hamilton's faculty is that we, as free men, have every right to express our disagreement with anyone, in word or in action, or both. It simply doesn't make sense to accept passively the banal tenents of any arguement, especially when an opinion is destructive of freedom. Those who hold heretical or tyrannical views cry and moan when the consumer public refuses to buy their recordings, or stops buying tickets to watch their movies, or even so much as states a brisk arguement on television or radio. They accuse those who disagree openly with them of undermining their rights, or trying to silence them. Hogwash! This is typical debater's technique, cleverly designed to obscure the truth, and intimidate an opponent who has no conviction as to his values. Consider for a moment what IS denial of rights. We need look no further than Cuba, or Hitler's Germany, or the former Soviet Union. When thugs in uniform show up at your door, arrest you and toss you in a cell, torture you, or even kill you, THAT is denying a person of their rights! I would point out that those who condone such gestapo tactics (against others of course) are always those who espouse a philosophy like Ward Churchill's. Given the power and materiel, he would wage such a campaign of terror and intimidation. Tragically, there are many examples of tyranny which has been imposed by people who are right in what they believe, but who mistakenly, in their zeal, resort to intimidation as well. I cite the case of the late Senator McCarthy, the man who instigated the infamous Congressional hearings that resulted in the blackballing of many individuals in the entertainment business. Even if many of those who suffered at the hands of McCarthy were adherents to Communism, it should be pointed out that government does not possess the license to practice the fundamental rights that we citizens do. It is the place of our elected officials to uphold the law, not condemn those who abuse their freedom, as Ward Churchill does. Even so, members of our government have the same rights that we do, and they act within the franchise of fundamental liberties when they express their personal opionions, but when they parlay that priviledge into official governmental policy, and impose sanctions on free men, they are distorting the process of free speech. Citizens, too, abuse their freedoms when they resort to violence or threats. Socrates comes to mind, a Greek who spoke out against the popular norm, and was executed by private citizens for his beliefs. Yes, there is a fine line between boycotting, say an actor's movies, or a recording artist's records, and resorting to violence as a weapon to silence them. On the one hand, the right way, we are exercising our free will when we resort to the former methods. People with views like Churchill should feel the sting of society's righteous indignantnation. Jane Fonda comes to mind as an example of someone who should be shunned for life. What she did in Hanoi, during the Vietnam war, was vile and treasonous, and resulted in the brutal beatings of the American prisoners involved, three of who died from the cruelty of their captors. The Vietnamese pulled those prisoners out of their filty holes and cleaned them up to meet an "American activist". When they lined them up to meet her, she trooped the line citing little snipets like "Aren't you ashamed of bombing babies?". Each of the men passed her, an American, small scraps of paper with messages to their families. When she reached the end of the line, after the cameras stopped rolling, and to the utter amazement of the POW's, she handed the messages to the commanding officer of the Vietnamese unit. One man, when struck with a truncheon, fell and touched an officer's boots, he was beaten so severely that he suffers from agonizing headaches and double vision to this day. Should Miss Fonda be lauded for her conduct? Should she be respected for taking a stand such as this? After all, she was exercizing her "right to free speech". Not so. She was guilty of treason and, according to United States law, should have been executed for aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. At the very least she should be branded a traitor and treated with utmost contempt by all Americans. Those with anti-American and anti-Christian views should be allowed to speak on any street corner in America, as is their right, but in a healthy society, with sound values, there should be no listeners. And if they suffer a loss of income, or embarrasment in a public place, or the criticism of a news program, such is the just recompense for their open hostility to the principles of freedom. One last issue comes up too frequently, and is handled poorly. When a company refuses to hire someone because of their beliefs they are exercising their rights as a privately owned enterprise. This isn't a "violation of their civil rights", and there is no justified body of law which militates against a company which has this policy, Equal Opportunity Employment or no. Slighting an employee because they are a minority is one thing, but turning away a person with evil convictions is quite another. In closing on this vital subject; the actions that a government take against a private citizen must be confined to the law, but there is another sphere of law, unofficial in so far as it is not enforceable by police officers or judge and jury, but a law which is recognized in the conscience of a nation of people. There are beliefs and actions that are techinically legal, but which should be rejected by right thinking citizens in no uncertain terms. We are responsible to regulate ourselves, as a collective of free people, and ostracize those who hold views that are destructive to our liberties. Whatever hardships these people suffer as a result of their notions is their own doing, and what they richly deserve. |