Free Speech isn’t really free. Just as there’s no free lunch, there often comes an invoice with Free Speech: You may sometimes have to listen to something you dislike, or disagree with, or otherwise don’t want to hear. Awwwww!
These thoughts came to me last week after hearing that Rabbi Avi Weiss, a respected, often-extremist (well, compared to me, anyway) NYC religious leader, said that allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a scheduled event at Columbia University is “a perversion of free speech.” Uhhh, no, Avi! Actually, that’s EXACTLY free speech. The perversion is saying that the right to speak freely – or the right to hear, unimpeded, someone else speaking freely, can and should be controlled. Free speech has two components. You must be allowed to speak and be allowed to listen. If you don’t like what the speaker has to say, don’t listen – or craft a response with your own point of view. Kind of like I am doing right now. Not only is that allowed, it’s almost a civic duty.
In an earlier era, our Supreme Court held that – unless someone were to go into a crowded, darkened theatre and falsely yell, “Fire!” abridging speech was a slippery slope (Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing in Schenck v. United States, 1919). Fifty years later, Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), with the Court holding that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action” (like, say a riot). Even in the unlikely event (in jaded NYC) that Ahmadinejad’s words had caused a riot, it would be tough to argue that it was “directed” at doing so.
Happily, in the case of Ahmadinejad and Columbia, the university said it would not call off the speech by Iran's president, despite pressure from various critics, as it had folded, regrettably, on a previous occasion. City Council speaker Christine Quinn fumed, "The idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers." She also said that Ahmadinejad was coming to New York "for one reason -- to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage." His appearance at Columbia also was denounced by some Jewish groups -- the Jewish Defense Organization called Ahmadinejad "the Hitler of Iran." To which John Coatsworth, a Dean at Columbia, responded that – if he were in town -- they would invite Hitler to speak there. See? Even a university can learn a lesson about Free Speech.
Dr. Coatsworth was right. Not only was it important for us to be allowed to hear what he had to say, it was doubly important for Ahmadinejad to experience the uniquely American give-and-take that such a venue provided. Nothing like that at home, that’s for sure. And the protestors and demonstrators that convened concurrently at the school have surely broadened his education about what it means to be American.
In the same vein, I was amazed that several candidates for this nation’s highest office have come out against the dapper Iranian on another issue. Prior to his visit to NYC, Ahmadinejad had made it known that he wanted to visit Ground Zero. Giuliani fairly screamed, “Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero -- hallowed ground for all Americans -- is outrageous." Mitt Romney said, “It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero… Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him." And our own ambitious Senator, Hillary Clinton, weighed in with “It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history." It’s funny how demagoguery is contagious. But it WAS nice to see Rudy and Hillary agree on something, I guess.
Listen! Free Speech is the reason I can write and disseminate my thoughts – and is why you can read my words today. You can also, if you choose, freely read Ann Coulter’s words, or Norman Podhoretz’s words, or Al Franken’s words. Or Dick Cheney’s words. Of course, if the latter party had his way, this field would be much circumscribed. And that, of course, is the point. For all that a corrupt administration like the one currently in power (I mean ours, not Iran’s) strives mightily to suppress the free expression of dissent, that dissent somehow, eventually, manages to find its way to the light.
Ahmadinejad, who is no dummy, probably knows this as well as anyone. After all, back when his country was ruled by the American-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Ayatollah Khomeini was in exile in France. But his destabilizing, revolutionary rhetoric was successfully spread back home -- and the Shah’s regime was ultimately brought down -- by a weapon called the tape player. If that hadn’t happened, Ahmadinejad wouldn’t be where he is today.
I say, Let Ahmadinejad see Ground Zero, even lay a wreath. Perhaps, as some savvy columnists have noted, he’ll learn something. Maybe we’ll learn something, too, watching him. Remember that when the towers fell, four years before he took office, Iran was among the first nations out there to express its sympathy and support of its erstwhile enemy, the Great Satan, the United States. Let me take this further: foreign heads of state should be brought to Ground Zero as a matter of course – maybe we can arrange a few busloads while the UN is in-session. Why? To remind them all that – in early September, 2001, we were all on the same page. On 9/12, every world leader had the same thought, the same fear: What would happen if terrorists did something like that in MY country. It wasn’t until later that they came to worry more about the actions of the United States than the threat of terrorism.
Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow and outspoken activist, writes on Huffington Post, “So far not one presidential candidate has seized the opportunity to do something ‘out of the box’ and important on Iran -- like actually meeting Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero and challenging him to a real dialogue. Can you get the visual? Extending hands like an olive branch -- saying to the world that it is high time for Iran and the U.S. to join together to end terrorism, root out rogue extremist groups, and combat the injustice that nurtures them? That would be bold action, not cheap, tough talk. It would show the world that we are strong and confident enough to deal directly and squarely with our enemies, inviting them to join these common battles. Imagine Rudy or Hillary actually engaging Ahmadinejad in a dialogue at Ground Zero, asking him tough questions about what his real intentions are, explaining the pain that Ground Zero represents to Americans, and why we all must work together to root out terrorism.” In other words, she says, this is yet-another blown opportunity for real statesmanship.
Last week, our castrated Congress, unable to do any meaningful work on important issues these days, managed to join together to pass a resolution condemning an ad by MoveOn.org, which called Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us.” Ahhhh, cut it out, will you? If you hold a national office, your sworn oaths are all about protecting and supporting the Constitution, not subverting it. You can better uphold that oath by commencing impeachment proceedings than by condemning a friggin’ ad. What are we paying you for, anyway? Stop wasting your time, and our patience. Everyone in this country who writes… everyone who reads – Hell, everyone who thinks! – should be concerned about the growing, spreading assault on the First Amendment. The insults start at the top and slither their way down to the street.
At least a resolution isn’t legislation. Or corporal punishment. Guess we still have that to be thankful for. At least, nobody “tasered” MoveOn.org for exercising its First Amendment rights, and questioning one of our nation’s leaders. Tasers were invented to be non-lethal weapons to get control over violent offenders – they were not meant to be used to stifle legitimate discourse in the national interest. Those over-zealous campus cops – and their employers at the University of Florida -- should take a lesson from Columbia.
Here, the fiery Iranian engineer spoke freely and, after a fashion, answered some pointed questions. Did he answer them directly or completely, or to the satisfaction of his interlocutors? Of course not. He is, after all, a politician. He did, however, clarify some of the statements that have been attributed to him. Sort of. But he was not the bad actor here. I watched in surprised dismay as Columbia President Lee Bollinger tore into him, insulting him and berating him in a ten-minute harangue that, as an American, embarrassed me no end. Even in America, but certainly throughout the Mideast, it is bad manners to so insult someone you have invited over for a conversation -- and that while you’re supposed to be introducing him, for God’s sake. Yet, Ahmadinejad stood his ground, commented on Bollinger acting badly, and went right into his prepared remarks, then took the questions he knew were coming. An impressive performance. I tried to imagine our own leaders walking so knowingly into this hornet’s nest and responding so well. Go on, YOU try imagining our own President or Vice-President in the Iranian’s place, being expected to answer for all the words now returned to haunt him… Yeah, I couldn’t either.
These thoughts came to me last week after hearing that Rabbi Avi Weiss, a respected, often-extremist (well, compared to me, anyway) NYC religious leader, said that allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a scheduled event at Columbia University is “a perversion of free speech.” Uhhh, no, Avi! Actually, that’s EXACTLY free speech. The perversion is saying that the right to speak freely – or the right to hear, unimpeded, someone else speaking freely, can and should be controlled. Free speech has two components. You must be allowed to speak and be allowed to listen. If you don’t like what the speaker has to say, don’t listen – or craft a response with your own point of view. Kind of like I am doing right now. Not only is that allowed, it’s almost a civic duty.
In an earlier era, our Supreme Court held that – unless someone were to go into a crowded, darkened theatre and falsely yell, “Fire!” abridging speech was a slippery slope (Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing in Schenck v. United States, 1919). Fifty years later, Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), with the Court holding that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action” (like, say a riot). Even in the unlikely event (in jaded NYC) that Ahmadinejad’s words had caused a riot, it would be tough to argue that it was “directed” at doing so.
Happily, in the case of Ahmadinejad and Columbia, the university said it would not call off the speech by Iran's president, despite pressure from various critics, as it had folded, regrettably, on a previous occasion. City Council speaker Christine Quinn fumed, "The idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers." She also said that Ahmadinejad was coming to New York "for one reason -- to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage." His appearance at Columbia also was denounced by some Jewish groups -- the Jewish Defense Organization called Ahmadinejad "the Hitler of Iran." To which John Coatsworth, a Dean at Columbia, responded that – if he were in town -- they would invite Hitler to speak there. See? Even a university can learn a lesson about Free Speech.
Dr. Coatsworth was right. Not only was it important for us to be allowed to hear what he had to say, it was doubly important for Ahmadinejad to experience the uniquely American give-and-take that such a venue provided. Nothing like that at home, that’s for sure. And the protestors and demonstrators that convened concurrently at the school have surely broadened his education about what it means to be American.
In the same vein, I was amazed that several candidates for this nation’s highest office have come out against the dapper Iranian on another issue. Prior to his visit to NYC, Ahmadinejad had made it known that he wanted to visit Ground Zero. Giuliani fairly screamed, “Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero -- hallowed ground for all Americans -- is outrageous." Mitt Romney said, “It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero… Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him." And our own ambitious Senator, Hillary Clinton, weighed in with “It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history." It’s funny how demagoguery is contagious. But it WAS nice to see Rudy and Hillary agree on something, I guess.
Listen! Free Speech is the reason I can write and disseminate my thoughts – and is why you can read my words today. You can also, if you choose, freely read Ann Coulter’s words, or Norman Podhoretz’s words, or Al Franken’s words. Or Dick Cheney’s words. Of course, if the latter party had his way, this field would be much circumscribed. And that, of course, is the point. For all that a corrupt administration like the one currently in power (I mean ours, not Iran’s) strives mightily to suppress the free expression of dissent, that dissent somehow, eventually, manages to find its way to the light.
Ahmadinejad, who is no dummy, probably knows this as well as anyone. After all, back when his country was ruled by the American-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Ayatollah Khomeini was in exile in France. But his destabilizing, revolutionary rhetoric was successfully spread back home -- and the Shah’s regime was ultimately brought down -- by a weapon called the tape player. If that hadn’t happened, Ahmadinejad wouldn’t be where he is today.
I say, Let Ahmadinejad see Ground Zero, even lay a wreath. Perhaps, as some savvy columnists have noted, he’ll learn something. Maybe we’ll learn something, too, watching him. Remember that when the towers fell, four years before he took office, Iran was among the first nations out there to express its sympathy and support of its erstwhile enemy, the Great Satan, the United States. Let me take this further: foreign heads of state should be brought to Ground Zero as a matter of course – maybe we can arrange a few busloads while the UN is in-session. Why? To remind them all that – in early September, 2001, we were all on the same page. On 9/12, every world leader had the same thought, the same fear: What would happen if terrorists did something like that in MY country. It wasn’t until later that they came to worry more about the actions of the United States than the threat of terrorism.
Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow and outspoken activist, writes on Huffington Post, “So far not one presidential candidate has seized the opportunity to do something ‘out of the box’ and important on Iran -- like actually meeting Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero and challenging him to a real dialogue. Can you get the visual? Extending hands like an olive branch -- saying to the world that it is high time for Iran and the U.S. to join together to end terrorism, root out rogue extremist groups, and combat the injustice that nurtures them? That would be bold action, not cheap, tough talk. It would show the world that we are strong and confident enough to deal directly and squarely with our enemies, inviting them to join these common battles. Imagine Rudy or Hillary actually engaging Ahmadinejad in a dialogue at Ground Zero, asking him tough questions about what his real intentions are, explaining the pain that Ground Zero represents to Americans, and why we all must work together to root out terrorism.” In other words, she says, this is yet-another blown opportunity for real statesmanship.
Last week, our castrated Congress, unable to do any meaningful work on important issues these days, managed to join together to pass a resolution condemning an ad by MoveOn.org, which called Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us.” Ahhhh, cut it out, will you? If you hold a national office, your sworn oaths are all about protecting and supporting the Constitution, not subverting it. You can better uphold that oath by commencing impeachment proceedings than by condemning a friggin’ ad. What are we paying you for, anyway? Stop wasting your time, and our patience. Everyone in this country who writes… everyone who reads – Hell, everyone who thinks! – should be concerned about the growing, spreading assault on the First Amendment. The insults start at the top and slither their way down to the street.
At least a resolution isn’t legislation. Or corporal punishment. Guess we still have that to be thankful for. At least, nobody “tasered” MoveOn.org for exercising its First Amendment rights, and questioning one of our nation’s leaders. Tasers were invented to be non-lethal weapons to get control over violent offenders – they were not meant to be used to stifle legitimate discourse in the national interest. Those over-zealous campus cops – and their employers at the University of Florida -- should take a lesson from Columbia.
Here, the fiery Iranian engineer spoke freely and, after a fashion, answered some pointed questions. Did he answer them directly or completely, or to the satisfaction of his interlocutors? Of course not. He is, after all, a politician. He did, however, clarify some of the statements that have been attributed to him. Sort of. But he was not the bad actor here. I watched in surprised dismay as Columbia President Lee Bollinger tore into him, insulting him and berating him in a ten-minute harangue that, as an American, embarrassed me no end. Even in America, but certainly throughout the Mideast, it is bad manners to so insult someone you have invited over for a conversation -- and that while you’re supposed to be introducing him, for God’s sake. Yet, Ahmadinejad stood his ground, commented on Bollinger acting badly, and went right into his prepared remarks, then took the questions he knew were coming. An impressive performance. I tried to imagine our own leaders walking so knowingly into this hornet’s nest and responding so well. Go on, YOU try imagining our own President or Vice-President in the Iranian’s place, being expected to answer for all the words now returned to haunt him… Yeah, I couldn’t either.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment