Freedom Of Speech: The Foundation on which our Country was Built

Jeremy Hine

28, April, 2011

Rd #4

In the aftermath of September, 11, 2001 Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an inflammatory essay about his views on the causation of the attacks on the world trade center and pentagon.  Many of his points were valid, as he tried to come to an intellectual understanding of what happened on that day. However, his insensitivity and offensiveness when using certain correlations with 9/11 victims not only caused an uproar among the right wing of the country but also made many of his arguments weaker. [Thesis]This being said, we cannot silence such speech. Freedom of speech means we have to accept and allow statements and sentiments that we ourselves don't agree with, in order that we can make statements that others will not agree with.  Although there are several things I disagree on with Churchill, I would be the first to stand up and defend his right to speak [Thesis].

When the first settlers came to the United States, fleeing the imperialist and religious persecution of Europe, it is likely that the notion of freedom was on many of their minds. After all, isn’t that why many of them had come to the new world? It is not surprising then that our nation’s founding fathers made the first amendment, to the constitution of this republic, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech after all is a tenant of any free society. When freedom of speech is cauterized, a society will no longer have equality and freedom for all its citizens.  However, there will always be those who try and mar freedom of speech when it goes against their own beliefs or sentiments. After all it is in our human nature to take offense to that with which we do not agree. However we need to rise above these instincts and realize that there are others who may find what we say offensive. We need to afford the same rights to those we do not agree with. For example, I personally find Terry Jones, the controversial pastor from a small Florida church (notorious for bringing “God hates fags” signs to soldiers funerals and burning the Koran), quite offensive. At the same time, I know my views as a staunch atheist can be just as offensive to those who have a strong religious faith. So no matter how much I despise the speech of Terry Jones and myriad of other people I disagree with in this country, I must acknowledge there right to speak, so that I have the freedom to hold my own personal and sometimes controversial beliefs. 

Similarly to the case of Terry Jones, Ward Churchill offended and provoked with his article on the causation of 9/11. Comparing the victims to “little Eichmanns" directly responsible for the attacks is hard to get around. As someone who had a family member who worked with one of the firms in the World Trade Center, and who luckily survived, to make him somehow implicit in the attacks just seems ludicrous to me.  Once again we need to rise above these insensitive comments and realize that Churchill has a right to his own opinion.  My sentiments follow that of what UH President David McClain said when Churchill was scheduled to speak to an audience on campus "This is hardly the first time I've disagreed with the sentiments of those who have spoken at our university, and it will not be the last. Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy (Creamer)."  

When one looks at the arguments against Ward Churchill there are some interesting things to note. The most prevalent that jumped out at me was that is seems to be a very one sided opposition to Churchill. That is, that it seems that it is mainly conservative, right-wingers, or republicans who attack Churchill. To me this begs the question whether or not the attacks on Churchill are politically motivated and really have nothing to do with freedom of speech. I think many Americans are offended by the notion that we are in some way implicit in what happened on September 11. This goes against our patriotic feelings and our “justifiable” crusade to globalize the world and spread our culture, swallowing up all those weaker and opposing to our own.  Conservative opinion news show host Sean Hannity is a perfect example of this blind American “do no harm” attitude. In his debate with Churchill he states “We freed the people of Iraq. And now we're beating back the forces of terrorism in our time, evil in our time. Your twisted world, you have it backwards. You think that the liberators are somehow guilty. You hate your own country. You insult innocent people. And you get away with it on a college campus.” That America is somehow the liberator and destroyer of evil in the world and that anyone who opposes or mentions the consequences of our campaign for globalization is somehow labeled a traitor and unpatriotic is the reason I think so many on right jumped on Ward Churchill. 

When I read what my classmates wrote when attacking Churchill, some common arguments and issues were prevalent.  I found a similar repulsion to Churchill’s supposed “anti-American” rhetoric from the majority of my peers.  Chereen Pires writes “Ward Churchill should not be allowed to give his point of views at government run functions or property.  He should keep his views to himself as some people may consider them to be unpatriotic.  It is unfortunate that he publicly makes negative statements that seem like he is siding with other countries that are plotting against us.  He may argue that he is a citizen and is entitled to freedom of speech.  However, he should use his freedom to further strengthen the USA showing that we stand together.” It also seems that many of my classmates are not concerned with the issue of freedom of speech; as most acknowledge Churchill’s right to freedom to of speech. Most also agree that freedom of speech is a good thing that we all deserve.  Another common argument of my classmates is that Churchill is an ignorant idiot, who has no business speaking against our country. Thomas Uehara writes “Churchill is a prime example of someone who will use his intellect to twist and abuse the amendment to publicly insult his own government. Sure it is in my constitution that he is free to say what he wants but that does not justify the insensitive things he said. It may be of good intention but his statement was a very ignorant thing to say. If he was so smart, he shouldn't be trying to find ways to exploit the laws that are set to protect citizens and try to use his wisdom to better it and help protect our nation from harm.” I found it fascinating that my classmates had such visceral responses to Ward Churchill’s essay.  

While I disagree with some of Churchill’s statements, I do think the overall theme of the essay as to the causation of the 9/11 attacks had some very good points. Clearly he should have left the Nazi’s out of the debate as these statements are designed to inflame and provoke and overall weaken his argument. I also have two areas of disagreement with Churchill. The first is the notion that the workers at the trade center were somehow implicit in the 9/11 attacks. While some of the companies working at the center may have been involved in the spread of globalization, a personalized attack and correlation is not appropriate. Churchill also seems to have jumped to conclusion that religion played no part in the attacks. However, now that time has passed we now know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind of 9/11 had religion, which played some role in his fundamental Islamic militancy. It is unlikely, that if the hijackers did not believe in the 72 virgins whom they were receiving upon arrival in heaven, that they would have flown those planes on a suicide mission. To insult the intelligence of Churchill is where many of classmates lose their validity. He actually knows a fair deal about the conflict in Iraq and the history of America’s involvement. When I was discussing this issue with some of my friends I was surprised that none of them knew that America has had sanctions imposed on Iraq since the first gulf war. The poverty and death of children as a result of these sanctions has contributed to the anti- American sentiment around the Middle East. As American’s we have to realize that our foreign policy has impacts across the globe and the horrific terrorist attacks that have occurred are at least somewhat causally link to it. 

Whether or not you agree with Churchill or even some of the things I have written in this paper, it is freedom of speech which is at issue here. It is what makes our country great and free and a place where we can all live together as equals. Although there will be statements that can cause hurt or cause added grief, we must rise above this insensitivity and look towards our true ideals. If we begin curtailing the values this country was founded on, we will find ourselves in a society much like ones we traverse around the world to liberate.  We need to challenge those we disagree with, call them on their fallacies, and ignore their clamor for controversy; but to silence them would indeed be a travesty. 

Works Cited

Creamer, Beverly. "UH Takes Heat Over Visit by Professor." HonoluluAdvertiser.com 19 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 <http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/19/ln/ln22p.html>.]

["Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz." _FoxNews.com_ 7 Apr. 2006. 14 Nov. 2006 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html>.]

Pires, Chereen. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 15 April 2011. Laulima Discussion. 15 April 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756]

Uehara, Thomas. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 15 April 2011. Laulima Discussion. 15 April 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756]