Is Ward Churchill entitled to his opinions?

[BurtWorm]

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/02/04/911/index.html

Feb. 4, 2005 | AURORA, Colo. (AP) -- University of Colorado administrators Thursday took the first steps toward a possible dismissal of a professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi.

...

The furor erupted last month after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York. Campus officials discovered an essay and follow-up book by Churchill in which he said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were a response to a history of American abuses abroad, particularly against indigenous peoples.

Among other things, he said those killed in the trade center were ``little Eichmanns,'' a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Jews. The college canceled Churchill's appearance, citing death threats and concerns about security.
...

[Silverhair]

1. He has the right to his opinions, and so do those who disagree.

And they have the same rights that we do: to write letters, pickets, send emails, boycott, etc. They do not have the right to violence or the threat of violence.

[K-W]

16. Publically disagreeing.

And getting him fired are two very different things.

You have the right to disagree with your neighbor, you dont have the right to economically punish him for his speech.

[cattleman22]

38. Economic punishment

I do think that people have the right to economically boycott a person because of their speech. I would consider that economically punishing for his speech.

[K-W]

47. Well then you dont believe in the freedom of speech.

Which is too bad.

Where I come from people are supposed to be able to speak their mind without fear of reprival. I thought that was what freedom mean, being free.

but thanks DU for teaching me that as long as its legal, taking away freedom isnt wrong at all.

[cattleman22]

57. That is not taking away any freedom.

If a business owner says that he supports * and other right wing candidates, can't I boycott and cause economic harm to that company because of the owners' expressed opinions?

[K-W]

125. It does take away freedom.

Please see that. Please.

This is a textbook freedom of speach example. Free speach isnt only about governments. Its about whether people in a society can speak thier mind(without unduely burdening the rights of others) without fear of reprisal.

It doesnt matter if that reprisal comes from the government, the church, a corporation or a group of people. If speach isnt free, speach isnt free.

I am not arguing that this isnt a cloudy situation in our government and society. But ethically speaking, if you stand for rights, it is clear cut.

As far as boycotts, that is different. If Professor Churchill suffered a severe loss of invitations to lectures because of this. That would be perfectly fine. Lecturers are chosen because they are wanted, he wouldnt be wanted, its a natural just conseqeuence of his actions.

I think in many cases boycotts qualify as natural just consequences, particularly if what the business owner has done is illegal or unethical. (Ward Churchill violated no law or ethical code)

But how is sending inflamatory emails around the web and broadcasting lies on tv in order to build up irrational public pation so that a group of people could get a man fired for expressing his opinion in a perfectly acceptable forum a natural just consequence?

If a college professor cant speak his mind without losing his job, who can? Is this the society we want to live in?

[Dookus]

60. I don't know where you ever got that idea....

poor civics education, I guess.

There are many forms of speech that have swift and immediate reprisals - I can't threaten the President, I can't joke about a bomb on an airplane, I can't sexually harrass co-workers, I can't slander someone or publish libel against them, I can't tell a judge in a court of law to go fuck himself, I can't phone in fake bomb-threats to a school, I can't publish copyrighted material, and much, much more.

I've never known anyone who believes that Freedom of Speech is absolute. Certainly no society on Earth has ever maintained such a thing.

[K-W]

122. Nothing Ward Churchill said qualifies for exception.

He didnt threaten anyone.
He didnt suggest he was bombing an airplane, or anything.
He didnt sexually harass anyone.
He didnt slander anyone or publish libel about anyone.
He didnt tell a judge in a court of law anything (and to be in a court of law you are detained, meaning there is a burden of proof met against you, this is due process, thus the loss of freedom is just)
He didnt phone in a bomb threat.
He didnt publish copyright material.

Because in those cases his right to speach is leveraged against other peoples rights. You cant speak if it puts people in danger, constitutes fraud, or is a theft.

Yes there are limitations, this was not one of them. Saying something people dont want to hear IS NEVER one of them.

This is the freedom of speech Dookus. This is what the founding fathers were talking about. Having a free society means that you dont lynch your neighbor for saying something you dont like. You dont go get him fired.

You tell him you disagree. You write an editorial, write letters to the editor expressing your opinion. Contributing your point of view.

You dont try to silence them. You thank fate for putting you in a country where professors can say whatever they want. Because that means you can say whatever you want.

That is the right to free speech Dookus, there is a natural tendency amongst governments AND people in general to punish and silence people for expressing themsleves. This is wrong because people should be able to express themselves without fear of reprival.

Its ok to not believe in natural rights. I dont myself. Its ok to not support using them as a basis of ethics and society. I do support that.

But at least understand what rights are.

[purduejake]

139. Those are not expressions of ideas.

They are threats of actions.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

68. sure, you have that right, but it's juvenile

not buying someone's books is one thing, but attacking a professor, whose class you're never going to take, anyway, just because you don't like him is juvenile.

what ever happened to beating someone in debate? now the right skips that and tries to destroy your life - whethe rit's churchill, the dixie chicks, or whoopi goldberg

the GOP is a bunch of fucking brownshirts

[K-W]

126. Its become acceptable on both the right and the left

that free speach is a bit quaint, and we should be able to regulate what people around us say.


And you are wrong, free market justifications for silencing people are intellectually dishonest to the enth degree.

[FreedomAngel82]

78. Exactly

Another guy got fired around the election for jumping into a conversation about the Iraq war and calling it immoral. Instead of giving him a warning or something they fired him. He didn't even say anything bad. Just asked if they were ashamed and the war was immoral. Geez. This guy shouldn't have been fired either. Free speech. He should becareful with his words, but I don't hear him cuss about it or anything.

[Silverhair]

106. Yes, you do have that right.

And if some prof at a major college joined the KKK, you would try to do exactly that. Besides, the college has not fired him, he resigned.

[K-W]

127. No I dont, I believe in freedom, unlike you apparently.

If a professor at a major college joined the KKK I would laugh at him, but I would certainly never try to get him fired unless it was interferring with his job.

Pressuring someone to resign is no more ethical than getting them fired.

Stop looking for ways to get around freedom of speach.

[tx_dem41]

185. Ummm...."Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from...

Ridicule" or even retribution as long as the Government isn't doing it (which in the case of this professor might be his out, since he is an employee of the Government).

[K-W]

187. Yes it does mean freedom from retribution.

Thats exactly what it means.

Do you really think that the government is the only threat to liberty?

[Dookus]

190. so in order to protect Churchill's

freedom of speech, you would restrict the speech of his critics?

[K-W]

195. I never said anything remotely like that.

What are you talking about?

Anyone who wants to can publically disagree with him.

You seem to have totally missed my argument.

I am not arguing that people cant call for his being fired. I am arguing that his being fired would be a horrible injustice and we should fighting to protect the freedom of speach from the tyranny of the masses.

I am also arguing that anyone who thinks he should be fired is arguing against free speach.

I think the ethical situation would be plenty of people saying they disagree with him, and him keeping his job and continuing on with his career.

[Dookus]

199. But there's the problem

there are always going to be expressions of speech (please note the spelling) that are in conflict. Was it anti-free speech of me to email Ann Coulter's syndicator about her article?

[K-W]

206. There is no problem its just complex and nuanced.

look at the specific situations that actually happen, not the generlizations and codes.

Ann Coulter is a columnist. The syndicator picked up her columns because they thought they would attract readers. If her speach, regardless of what it was, led them to rationally conclude that she was becoming less popular, and they dropped her column. I dont see any injustice. And if you urged them to drop her column because you didnt like reading it, I dont see any injustice.

When a professor expresses ideas tha upset people. And he doesnt get book deals, and nobody invites him to lectures, and he just does his job and speaks to the small group of people that want to hear from him, I do not see any injustice. And hey, if his words were spread accurately charecterized by the media, and the whole country sent him a clear public message that they thought he was full of shit, I dont see any injustice.

When the public calls for his being fired from his job. I think that the public is acting out of accordance with justice. I think his personal liberty is being threatned by the tyrannical powers of public pressure. He would be fired solely because of public outcry.

I simply cannot understand how you dont see the destinction.

[tx_dem41]

192. So, if an employee tells me that I am ...

"full of shit", I have no right to fire him due to his freedom of speech????

[K-W]

196. I didnt say that at all.

I said that if your employee gives a lecture on September 11 where he argues that the attackers were justified, you wouldnt fire him if you had any respect for the freedom of speach.

[tx_dem41]

204. I guess that would depend on what his job was. n/t

[K-W]

207. Look im not saying you cant be free with your money.

Im saying that using your vioce to try and silence others voices is fundementally incompatible with the idea of freedom of speach.

[Silverhair]

223. Freedom of speech only means that the gov't can't prosecute you.

Private individuals and private organizations are free to take actions against speech that they object to, as long as those actions don't break other laws such as assault, threats, trespass, etc.

[tx_dem41]

184. So, I have no right to boycott a company that contributes to the

Repubs? Odd, I thought I did.

[K-W]

188. I never said you didnt.

So what are talking about?

I said you couldnt take away someones job for speaking thier mind.

[tx_dem41]

191. No...you said...

I didn't have the right to "economically punish" someone for their speech. I wholeheartedly disagree with that, with the proviso that I am NOT the Government.

[K-W]

197. So you can oprress people as long as they cant vote for you?

Sounds like a beautiful utopia you are painting.

Not giving money to organizations who are using money to do unjust things is not the same as trying to get an individual fired soley because he said something you dont like.

I would hope you can see the destinctions.

[tx_dem41]

203. Economic boycotts result in people getting fired....

quite often the wrong people, unfortunately.

We are talking about two different things. I am talking about the "right" to retribution. You are talking about the morality of that retribution. I would agree with you that the act could be questionable in many (and possibly most) circumstances.

[K-W]

208. There is no right to retribution.

What on earth is a right to retribution?

I am talking about using your speach to punish other people for speaking thier mind, and how doing so makes your right to speach more important than thier right to speach and is unjust.

People can silence others simply through social pressure, that doesnt mean they should.

[tx_dem41]

209. Is it legal or illegal....

that's all I'm asking? Yes or no? Because, that's all I'm arguing.

[K-W]

210. You are arguing that legal = just?

If not we arent even talking about the same thing because I am talking about justice and liberty and stuff, not legality.

[tx_dem41]

214. Where did I ever state that?

Please re-read my post #203, second paragraph.

[K-W]

220. I didnt claim you stated it.

I just didnt quite undrestand your post and was trying to clarify.

Look, legally speaking there is nothing to talk about. There are no laws about this.

What I am trying to say here simply is that if you believe in the freedom of speech you would see this as an injustice and use your free speech to oppose those who would use thier free speech to get someone fired. That is all.

[ThorsHammer]

129. Completely agree

He can say what he wants, but people have the right to boycott, complain, etc. Physical violence/threats are way over the line. IMO, it's similar to boycotting GOP donors, or having Limbaugh fired for his asinine remarks toward McNabb.

[BornaDem]

171. Everyone has the right to his opinion...

no matter how whacky the opinions might be. That's what is great about our country.

[mrbassman03]

2. He has academic freedom...

If you don't like his classes, don't take 'em!

[BurtWorm]

6. Would you feel the same way if he had racist views?

I think most progressives are actually pretty consistent on the issue of academic freedom. I don't recall people urging the ouster of Charles Murray after Bell Curve came out, for instance (of course, he wasn't a member of a faculty other than the Heritage Foundation, I don't think). But I think most progressives can tolerate outrageously right-wing views of tenured professors in their own classrooms, even as they may urge resistance to the spread of right-wing messages paid for by student fees in public lectures. That's my feeling, anyway. I'm a staunch believer in both academic freedom and the first amendment rights of those who are roused to protest the speech of academics.

[Eric J in MN]

67. If a professor has tenure, he shouldn't be fired for

provocative essays, even if they can reasonably be interpretted as racist.

If he doesn't have tenure, and he writes essays which can reasonably be interpretted as racist (and can't reasonably be interrpretted otherwise), then the university should fire him.

[tralfaz]

100. So, there should

be no consequence to whatever a "tenured" professor says? He had freedom of speech, but you have to be able to take the consequences for what you say in public. It is no different than if I told everybody at work that I thought my boss was an a$$hole. I have the right to say that, but there will probably be consequences to me saying that in the long run.

[GinaMaria]

114. No you don't have that right

You do not have free speech rights on someone else's property. There are limits to free speech, this is one of them. Your employer determines what kind of speech is and is not acceptable on his or her property. Think about it this way. Are you violating your neighbor's free speech rights by not allowing him to put a pro-bush sign in your yard? No. He can do as he pleases with his free speech on his property. He has no free speech rights on your property.

Private property vs. public property. You can say what you like on public property or property owned by you.

[tralfaz]

213. No, you are wrong

He made the comments in a public forum and he should be held responsible for his comments because it reflects back on the college. He tried to start a confrontation with his words and that is what he received. It reminds me of the old saying, "be careful of what you wish for because it might come true."

[bryant69]

3. What's the question?

Should he be allowed to his opinions or should his job be protected? Are those different questions or are they the same? What if he had said the opposite (someting like Ann Coulters infamous statement that we should invade their countries kill thier leaders and convert them to christianity), should he be allowed to keep his job them?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

10. From what I understand he's a tenured professor.

But the board of his university is looking into firing him over what he has said. Thus, the real question is about his job. Is he entitled to hold his job despite offending the sensibilities of his employers, or making them feel that he has visited guilt by association with him on them?

[bryant69]

12. I'm not sure that's a question I can have an opinion

What if a bank teller wore a button saying "Republicans are scum" would the bank manager have the right to force him to take it off? Or fire him if he refused to? I'd think he probably would in that case.

[BurtWorm]

15. There's a little principle of academic freedom that makes Churchill's case

complicated. Academic freedom is supposed to protect tenured professors (even non-tenured professors, in principle) from loss of job because of any view they express. It's not a law, but an ethic. Still, I can't think of any instance in my lifetime when it wasn't upheld. The time I remember it being challenged was when Leonard Jeffries at City College walked on the edge of anti-Semitism. I can't recall what the upshot of that furor was, but I think he was brought to the edge of getting his ass fired but didn't actually get tossed over it.

[K-W]

19. Invalid comparison.

You are making this harder to understand than it is.


Now in the case of a college proffessor, he is being attacked for the opinion he expressed, because obviously he was in a forum where expressing an opinion was perfectly acceptable. The girl at the bank cant express any opinion because it isnt appropriate, she is being paid to do a job and expressing an opinion interferes with that job. The proffessor's opinion in no way shape or form intereferred with his job, in fact it was his job. His employer has no leg to stand on from an ethical position.

[Freddie Stubbs]

Tenured professors have been fired for less...

Spanier agrees to fire professor

The tenured professor who taught at Altoona has been terminated.


By Josh Pontrelli
Collegian Staff Writer

Nona Gerard, former associate professor of theatre arts at Penn State Altoona, was fired yesterday after the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure recommended her termination two weeks ago.

Penn State spokesman Steve MacCarthy confirmed that Gerard's termination was approved by Penn State President Graham Spanier yesterday.

"The president has reviewed the case and has concurred with the committee," he said. "The university is confident that the decision was the right decision and has been handled correctly."

MacCarthy said he could not comment further because this was a "personnel matter."

more: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/03/03-02-04tdc/03-02-04dnews-10.asp

[BurtWorm]

65. Your story is not about a tenured professor. It's about one up for tenure.

There's a big difference.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. No, they terminated her tenure. Read the last paragraph:

Gerard, a tenured professor, has worked for the university since 1988.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/03/03-02-04tdc/03-02-04dnews-10.asp

[BurtWorm]

71. What's the background on that story?

They also mention academic freedom and the first amendment. Was it something she said.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. The University created a new academic program and

she advised students that the program was poorly designed and to look at other majors instead.

[K-W]

18. Nothing he said was like Ann Coulter

And no, people shouldnt be subject to mob justice that costs them thier livelyhoods.

[The Magistrate]

4. He Is Entitled To Them, Sir

He is not entitled to expect anyone to refrain from criticizing them, or to expect anyone to take them seriously.

He has little grounds to complain of criticism particularly, as it is quite clear from the piece his intent was to provoke outrage, and so he can hardly complain of having succeeded in his purpose....

"Devil's advocacy should not be attempted by persons who think themselves angels at heart; such people are certain to strike false notes in that key."

[Silverhair]

7. Outstanding post!! Five Stars.

You said, "He has little grounds to complain of criticism particularly, as it is quite clear from the piece his intent was to provoke outrage, and so he can hardly complain of having succeeded in his purpose...."

Great sentence.

[tralfaz]

101. I agree!!!!! n/t

[K-W]

20. But the important question is

Should the jury of public opinion and the judge of an employer be able to punish him for what he said? Isnt that a mockery of the right to free expression and the right to due process?

[The Magistrate]

22. How Is That Such An Important Question, Sir?

The fellow sowed wind, and reaps the whirlwind. He has received precisely the result he intended and hoped to provoke.

"Martyrdom is the only way a man can achieve lasting fame without accomplishing anything."

[BurtWorm]

23. With all due respect, how do you know what he intended to provoke?

[The Magistrate]

24. By The Simple Method, Sir

Of reading the piece in its entirity several times. It stands out in lumps, Sir.

"Never commit a felony when a misdemeanor will do."

[BurtWorm]

25. What specifically did he write that asked UC to throw out the principle

of academic freedom and look for a way to fire him?

[The Magistrate]

28. He Wrote A Piece, Sir

Calculated to inflame passions in ratio to the wideness of the circulation it achieved. He cannot be surprised by the result, though perhaps he is surprised a little by the degree of success he has achieved. He is simply now going through the motions of the pained martyr, though he is nowhere near as good at that as he is at provocatuer. He is simply not a figure who engages my sympathy; the ratio of sense to nonsense in what he wrote was far too small to do that....

[BurtWorm]

29. You're a very talented magistrate, sir

to be able to read Mr. Churchill's mind so thoroughly.

[The Magistrate]

30. His Words Speak For Themselves, Sir

At every moment in writing there is editorial choice, and a coinsistent choice of the more imflammatory construction conveys a meaning. The tactic is, of course, a very old one among people who confuse noteriety and fame....

[BurtWorm]

31. Well, you've certainly earned your sobriquet, sir

You've rendered your judgment. Case closed.

[Hissyspit]

83. All readers can perceive those editorial choices differently...

You perceive his words as provocative. I don't. How do you know he would perceive his words as the "more inflammatory construction." You continue to make all kinds of assumptions. On top of that, the job of a college PROFESSOR (as in: to profess) is, in part, to be provocative.

[The Magistrate]

87. Unfortunately, Mr. Spit

You seem to be laboring under the belief words in English have no generally agreed on meaning. This rather removes the point from debating with you: it is beyond my power to determine whether we are discussing this clearly imflammatory article, or recipies for shortbread, or whether kittens are cute enough to be drop-kicked for points.

What does seem clear enough is that you are in agreement with the views the Professor has expressed, and have difficulty with the idea someone else might not share them, and in fact views them as puerile drivel, mere hard left boiler-plate with no more of truth in them than a Pentagon bulletin. But that is my conclusion, having read the piece several times last week, and by your own lights, you cannot possibly quarrel with anyone expressing an opinion on any matter....

"They could prove everything they believed, and believed nothing they could not prove."

[Hissyspit]

91. As an expert in language

you know that WORDS have connotations, denotations, are put together in groups, in various contexts, carry subtext, and are used to communicate to persons whose perceptions vary based on their own experiences, etc. but the more important point:

No, I don't necessarily agree with him.

You are making assumptions, again, based on information you don't have.

[The Magistrate]

94. Indeed, Mr. Spit

And my judgements of a communicator's intention are generally pretty sound, though of course people are at liberty to disregard them....

If you do not degree with the fellow you are at such pains to defend here, please, if you have the time, tell me what differences you have....

[Hissyspit]

131. I have differences with attacks with attacks on free speech & academic...

freedom, and the enabling of the larger agenda of the right to destroy the last bastion of free thought not controlled by the right wing.

I have differences with ignorance, inability to perceive nuance, intolerance, misrepresentation, automatic valuation of group-think over individual thought, "failure of imagination," attack on critical thought, etc.

[The Magistrate]

138. Well, Mr. Spit

That does not clarify what differences you may have with the views and expression of this fellow you have said above you disagree with. That was the question. Perhaps you understood it as an inquiry regarding how much soda to use in pan breads, and expect me to take your reply as indicating a quarter teaspoon per pound of flour?

My own quarrels tend to be with self-aggrandizing and destructive foolishness, a vice many on the left seem terminally afflicted with, and one which, if not overcome, will maintain the left in a decidely minority position in our nation's political life.

[Darranar]

92. What particular views of his do you think are inaccurate?

Certainly what he says about al-Qaeda's ability to strike the US is greatly exxagerated, and he also greatly overestimates their concern for Americans.

His response to some of his critics I found interesting, chiefly because if it amounts to more than a hasty retreat in the face of criticism, it invalidates one of my arguments against his point of view. He claims that using US military logic, the attacks on 9/11/01 were justified; reversing that, I argued that using his own logic, US military strikes were justified - assuming that he was justifying the 9/11/01 attacks, which he claims not to have been doing.

What he claims to be the "bottom line" of his argument I agree with for the most part, though from what I remember of his essay he exxagerates the complicity of the American public.

[The Magistrate]

96. You Have Seen My Earlier Comments Elsewhere, My Friend

And it does not surprise me that we have some overlap in our view of the matter.

Refreshing my memory of the essay brings several points to mind that strike me as innaccurate, or at the least displaying very poor understanding.

The first is the impact of bombing Iraq and subsequent sanctions. The bombings in the '91 war were not criminal, though there are persons of extreme view who maintain they were. Sanctions are not a favorite policy of mine, for they have little use as a tool to force a regime that already exploits its people to alter its behavior, and so what suffering they do cause is pointless, which to my view constitutes a very great wrong. that said, it has become an article of both faith and fashion to credit very exaggerated claims concernig their toll. Further, a good deal of the suffering, particularly medically related suffering, was indeed created by Hussein's regime for propaganda points: relief workers have, since the fall of that wretch, reported on this very point, describing the deliberate withholding of available medicines by the government.

Another is the presentation of the current state of affairs as a war of the West on Islam begun by the Crusades. The western point of view is as legitimate as any other, and from it, there has been a war of Islam against the West begun shortly after the founding of that religion, and which was certainly as likely to bring victory to Islam as to the West well into the seventeenth century. What has happened since is a combination of roll-back and counter-attack in the longest view; in India, at the eastern continental extremity of Islam, the picture is similar. The refusal to see the world as populated by a multiplicity of actors, each rotten to the core, drips from this analysis, and it is a fundamentally flawed presentation because of it.

In other points, he seems to swallow a good deal of reactionary militia-style nonsense, such as his characterization of Waco. It is a rightist gun-worshipper's idea that the F.B.I. set that compound on fire; the fact is that it was done by Koresh's followers in pursuit of messiaic delusions, and the responsibility for the act lies solely with them. The authorities certainly botched the raid, and displayed some degree of incompetence in pursuing the matter, but that does not absolve the real killers in the incident.

As time presses, and the matter is not really too important anyway, as this fellow really is merely a low-grade demagogue who, unfortunately, will be viewed by many as one of us, that will be all for now upon the matter by me.

A pleasure to see you about the place again, Mr. Darranar! Be well, Sir!

[Darranar]

103. We certainly agree on the second point...

that he fails to see that the matter is two-sided; the fact that US atrocities in fighting its enemies overwhelm those of its enemies in fighting it is more a matter of comparative power at the moment than comparative morality.

There is probably a degree of exaggeration in the higher figures of deaths from the sanctions, and it will probably never be known exactly how many perished; regardless, however, his point in regard to that seems irrelevant to the exact number. Serious consideration of the 9/11/01 strikes should include context, and part of that context is such wrongs as those sanctions. It is quite inaccurate to portray the US - not the people, the state itself - as an innocent victim of unprovoked aggressors who have no greater grievance beyond a deep loathing for freedom, and that I believe is his point.

It is nice to see you as well Magistrate; intelligence and knowledge are always appreciated.

[The Magistrate]

104. That Is Fair Enough, My Friend

Certainly serious consideration of those events must include context, and the view from "the other side of the hill." But serious consideration requires a seriousness of presentation. Shrill atmospherics will never get the points across to those who need to hear them, and it is here it seems to me the fellow we discuss has had his greatest failure, and displayed his greatest incompetence: he has preached to the choir, and spoken to please himself; he has not made a genuine attempt at communication. We are in agreement that the United States, the state, as you say, not the people, is hardly an innocent victim of some unaccountable evil madness: it is a power whose designs and desires some others oppose, for reasons in some cases that are good and in some cases for reasons that are indeed vicious swill. It is communicating that without engaging the defensive mechanisms of people who largely identify with the nation themselves that is the difficulty, and it will not be achieved by this sort of over the top polemic.

[K-W]

36. You clearly have no clue what rights are. EOM

[The Magistrate]

82. Well Then, Sir, Do Explain It To Me

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[K-W]

128. Here goes.

Human beings are born with a natural right to certain freedoms, personal liberties. Amongst those are the right to speak freely.

In application this means I have the ability to speak and I can speak without fear of reprival.

The first ammendment garuntees that the government shall respect this natural right. It doesnt mean that government is the only threat to this right.

If you believe in rights, that is what you believe in. If you support societies built on the idea of rights, this is what you support. People being able to speak thier mind freely. FULL STOP

[The Magistrate]

148. And Yet, Sir

You seem to have some difficulties with persons who speak freely against something another person has said. This difficulty seems to occur when you agree with what one person has said, and disagree with what those speaking against him say. Surely the thing works both ways? If you are genuine in your belief, you must uphold the right of anyone to say anything against this fellow and his views.

Further, it is nonsense to suppose any person can act in any way and expect no consequences to follow from that action. There are always consequences to actions, that is unavoidable, and no appeal to ideal formulations can ever alter it.

Complicating the matter somewhat is that this person is employed by a government institution. This can be construed to mean firing him is a governmental wrong of censorship, that some will certainly be moved to protest, but it can also be construed to mean his receiving a subsidy from the government amounts to a governmental endorsement of his views, that some also will certainly be moved to protest. Of course, were he employed by a private institution, there would be no question either that the subsidy amounted to endorsement, or of the employer's right to terminate his employment for any cause, including bringing disrepute on the institution.

[K-W]

151. Straw man, I never said anything of the sort.

I dont agree that you have the right to try to get someone fired for speaking. I have never claimed that you do not have the right to speak your opinion freely in response.]

I never said expect no consequences, I said expect only JUST consequences.

I hope these are earnest misunderstandings on your part.

[The Magistrate]

162. Actually, Sir

You said "without fear of reprisal," which is close enough to saying without consequences to pass in disputation.

Chants of "Strawman!" impress me no more than other scarecrows....

[K-W]

165. Im sorry that you misunderstood me.

Obviously if the reprisal is just, it is just.

But if it is just I assume due process and legitimate authority were involved?

[oasis]

5. Just so Fox's O'rielly doesn't try to associate him with the Democratic

Party, let him say what the hell he wants.

We're supposed to be fighting for free speech in Iraq.

[Silverhair]

9. He will be associated with the left, and even treated as a spokesperson

of the left. Hannity is doing that right now.

[lindsayg]

11. i had fox news on this morning &...

in a commercial they aired they referred to him as a "liberal professor"

[Just Me]

113. Do we ever see Limbaugh or O'Reilly pick on the National Alliance?

Or, for that matter, anyone who advocates violence or some kind of destruction of others who are different from them?

Oh, I forgot, Limbaugh and O'Reilly ARE advocates of destruction of others unlike them.

[indigobusiness]

8. Not in George Bush's America.

He would have been if America had realized its founding promise. But children today don't even have any use for Constitutional protections. Soon we might as well just toss the Constitution altogether. After all, like Rumsfeld said, it's just a piece of paper.

[denverbill]

13. Right wingers call lefties 'traitors' constantly.

That's only marginally better than calling 9-11 victims 'little Eichmanns'.

I'm willing to let Churchill get the ax if every single right-winger who calls any left-winger a traitor is also fired from whatever job they hold.

[indigobusiness]

14. A true Democracy would INSIST upon supporting the right to opinion.

Mature, or otherwise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Interesting sign of the times that this question should even be asked.

"Congress shall make NO law..abridging the freedom of speech.."

What part of NO is misunderstood? College campuses should be the last to even contemplate banning of free speech.

[Disturbed]

21. Fascism is closer than we think.

Amerika is on the verge of becoming a Fascist Police State.

[gottaB]

26. Yes, and

I agree with all the reported statements of Colorado Senator Peter Groff, who cast the lone no vote on the resolution condmening Churchill. One point Groff argued was that the condemnation focused undue attention on citizen Churchill.

The undue attention (what follows is my take, not Groff's) may be unfair to Mr. Churchill, or it may not. It will predictably have a chilling effect on other citizens' free expression, many of whom are surely less inclined towards public controversy than Mr. Churchill. That would truly be unfair, detrimental to society, and also a setback for the progressive side of the political divide--because this case is undeniably part of an orchestrated campaign against leftist intellectuals.

I stand for the right of citizens to express opinions, idiotic and wise alike, without fear of government reprisal.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

[BurtWorm]

27. Big bold move by the Colorado legislature, patting itself on the back

for its outrage against an academic. Such brave bastards politicians are.

[candle_bright]

32. He's got the right to say what he did

but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to balk at what he said.

I once heard someone say, "You have the right to tell your boss he's an asshole, but don't expect to still have your job." The point is that actions/words have consequences. (I am NOT saying he should lose his job, but he can't complain about any non-violent, lawful backlash that comes his way.)

[BurtWorm]

33. Why can't he complain? He only gets one round of freedom of speech?

[candle_bright]

34. Fair enough

he CAN complain. But if his reputation/career takes a major nose-dive, c'est la vie.

[K-W]

40. I dont think he objects to backlash.

He strikes me as the kind of guy who welcomes a good debate.

I think the objectionable part was the lying and the idea that he should be punished.

You cant punish someone for exercising thier right to expresssion, that is a violation of his rights.

The fact that actions and words have consequences does not give carte blanche to other people to lie and persecute him does it? What about thier actions, do they have consequences? Will there be any consequances for the Colorado legislature that just spat in the face of the constitution? Will there be any consequences for the people spreading lies and the media reporting lies?

Dont talk to me about consequences. Talk to me about just consequences.

[candle_bright]

43. Re-read my post

I specifically said "non-violent, lawful backlash."

[K-W]

45. I dont want lawful, I want just. EOM

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. Everyone is entitlted to thier opinion...

and everyone is also entitled to have an opinion of anyone elses opinion.

[Dookus]

37. Of course he has the right to his opinions...

but that's not to say he should be protected from any consequences arising from expressing them.

[K-W]

41. Do you stand by your statement here?

You believe that if someone says something, they deserve no protection from consequences...

Even if those consequences violate his rights?

[Dookus]

42. I'm not sure what you're asking

The government has, and SHOULD have, no ability to sanction or reward his speech. But that's not to say his employer, or his "market" can't.

Ann Coulter was dropped by her syndicator for some of her outrageous statements - that's well and good. Many a person has lost speaking engagements for saying stupid things... again, all well and good.

There is no loss of rights in that instance. The first amendment does not protect us from the market, from our employers, or any entity other than the government.

[K-W]

44. You understanding of rights is depressing.

Rights are not the bill of rights. The bill of rights is the constitutional protection of your natural rights from government.

That you have a right to speak freely means that you should be able to speak freely, not that everyone can shut your mouth EXCEPT the people you vote for.

The first ammemnment isnt the issue here. Freedom of speech is.

[Dookus]

50. Well I apologize

for any emotional damage my understanding has inflicted on you.

So you maintain that "freedom of speech", as some abstract construct independent of the Bill of Rights, protects us all from any negative consequences of our speech? Do you think it's wrong for a syndicator to drop Ann Coulter over her egregious excesses? Do you think it's wrong for a group to cancel a speaking engagement for someone who has made inflammatory, offensive statements?

I'm not sure we can have much of a discussion on "rights" and disregard the Bill of Rights for the purposes of that discussion. Rights are bestowed by a "controlling legal authority" (to use a popoular term from the 90s). As an atheist, I don't believe rights are god-given.

Is organizing a boycott against a company for its political position a violation of free speech? Should I be compelled to listen to Rush Limbaugh even though I disagree with nearly everything he says?

In fact, isn't voting out a politician for his views a violation of the right of Free Speech in your view? I would disagree - the free marketplace (including that of ideas) is perfectly justified in punishing or rewarding speech as we see fit.

[K-W]

52. Did you just say that rights are bestowed by authority?

Paging Thomas Jefferson.

[Dookus]

54. yes, I did

if our rights don't come from our own society's structure, and for the purposes of this discussion, the US constitution is the main structure, where do they come from?

As I said, I'm an atheist, so God isn't an acceptable answer to me.

I've made my position very clear - now instead of shooting one-liners, will you answer MY questions?

Was it OK for Ann Coulter's syndicator to drop her after she proposed invading all Arab countries, assassinating their leaders and converting the citizenry to christianity? Or should they have been compelled to continue to employ her for eternity?

[gottaB]

58. the first amendment is merely an instrument for securing rights

The rights themselves are inalienable. That is the essential claim of American democracy. I too am an athiest, but I must side with the thiests on the question of inalienable rights. It is enough to say that they are natural. They do not have their source in government, which is but a small part of the world one is born into.

[Dookus]

59. I'll ask for the third time

Was it OK for Ann Coulter's syndicator to drop her after she proposed invading all Arab countries, assassinating their leaders and converting the citizenry to christianity? Or should they have been compelled to continue to employ her for eternity?

[gottaB]

63. Well, Dookus, I was interested in your other point

But since you're asking me, in my view newspapers should be free to make hiring and firing decisions without government interference.

I don't see Coulter's case as exactly analagous to Churchill's. To see Churchill's case for what it is, we would also need to consider the mission of publicly funded universities, and the function of the tenure system.

[Dookus]

64. but the initial

question wasn't about the tenure system. The argument being made by others is that the right to free speech is absolute, and any negative consequences arising from such speech is a violation of that right.

I disagree with that view, as does every court and every government on Earth.

[gottaB]

69. I won't defend those views as stated

I was interested in the point about the origin of rights, which, incidentally, I think does have a bearing on the point of view you're putting forward.

There is certainly no absolute right to be free of the consequences of one's actions. However, one may claim an inalienable right to liberty, the legitimacy of which is beyond question. This would appear to be a contradiction of sorts, but it is not one created by governments. Rather it is intrinsic to the human condition. The proper role of government in such matters is first and foremost to get out of the way. For government to rig the game, as it were, by penalizing the expression of unpopular ideas, would not only constitute an abridgement of one citizen's or one group's right of free expression, it would also represent a critical breach of trust.

[Dookus]

80. a few points

I think rights are neither natural nor inalienable, and calling them such is just a way to prettify what people generally agree is "a pretty damn good idea." Evidence of that is the "inalienable" rights outlined 229 years ago did not recognize those rights for women, 18 year old's or black people. The "inalienable" right of liberty did not apply to slaves until enough people thought it was a pretty damn good idea.

Rights continue to expand as society decides to do expand them - not because we discover new natural rights that were always there. In short, I think rights are just those things we as a free society decide to grant to one another. They are not divine, mystical, eternal or natural.

I also don't think that the writers of the constitution envisioned protecting these rights from all sources of assault - they were to prevent the government from infringing them, not the public, not private entities. They also never envisioned absolute protection of those rights. As pointed out elsewhere, speech has limits. The practice of religion is only protected as far as it doesn't hurt others - a sacred rite of human sacrifice would not receive protection. The right to bear arms does not grant the right for individuals to own nuclear weapons. Freedom of the Press does protect libel or copyright infringement.

[Zensea]

85. Good thing Jefferson isn't around to debate you on that one

I bet he picked every word very carefully and meant inalienable when he wrote inalienable. Period.

[The Magistrate]

89. Well, Sir

Mr. Jefferson, with all due respect, clearly did not pick and choose the words "all men" very carefully and precisely: had he done so, he doubtless would have chosen the phrase "all white men", and possibly added the qualification "who own some property", and made quite clear, too, that "men" was to be read as excluding women rather than including them, as was sometimes the meaning at the time, in political questions, though not religious ones....

[Zensea]

93. he was using the terms in the sense of the time

So unless someone shows that inalienable (or unalienable) had a similar variance of meaning at the time I'm not sure your point applies.
Also the word unalienable was used in the Declaration of Independence.
The caveats you are applying are really more in relation to the Constitution.

[The Magistrate]

98. Beside The Point, Sir

My point is the evident limitation on who these rights were inalienable from, and you have not answered it. Mr. Jefferson's own conduct shows he considered these rights quite alienable from Africans, as he busily engaged in doing so himself. He did not pen those words in a vacuum, after all....

[Zensea]

99. Well I agree he played fast and loose with the definition of men

based on the understood definition of "men" in the political discourse of the time. That's pretty clear.
But I don't think this shows that he didn't mean unalienable in relation to the men he described and meant to use the word seriously, not simply as some nice rhetorical flourish.

Neither of us would really know the answer as to his intention for sure.

Back to my original point, I still think that it's a good thing Jefferson isn't around to debate this with Dookus because I suspect he would say he meant the word in a straightforward sense.

[gottaB]

108. A can of worms

Let us stipulate that Mr. Jefferson held racist views, and that despite his avowed diffidence towards the opinion that blacks are inferior to whites, by his choice of arguments and his actions, he did indeed endorse such a miserable view. However, he also consistently endorsed the view that all men, black and white, are endowed with inalienable rights. (I will leave aside the other half of your argument for the nonce, which would be unfair to the extent that it contains the strongest case in defense of your view.)

No doubt you are aware, sir, of the controversies that have grown up around the primary source materials, principally the Notes on the State of Virginia, and the autobiographical draft, but also in various correspondences, which may be searched through the Library of Congress' digital archives of Thomas Jefferson Papers.

Two secondary sources deserve mention:

• Racism: The Rhetorical Pacifier of Moral Qualms about Slavery by Tania Tatlow, and
  
  
• "'Words Fitly Spoken': Thomas Jefferson, Slavery, and Sally Hemings," by David G. Post (pdf: http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/slavery.PDF ).

I won't dare to pretend that such phrases as are inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial represent the whole truth, but inasmuch as they contain some truth, and perhaps some essential truth, they merit consideration. With that caveat in mind, I offer some excerpts of my own from Jefferson's writings:

In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human nature.

Notes on the State of Virginia: Population


And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him.

Notes on the State of Virginia: Manners


He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

Declaration of Independence, original draft, or

Declaration of Independence, original rough draft

Of all of the revisions and compromises that were accepted into the final draft of the Declaration, the expungement of the aforementioned passage is arguably the most eggregious. And it does have a bearing on how we interpret "all men," because it removes an explicit acknowledgement of the humanity of Africans and their descendents. However, it does not affirmatively restrict the claim of equality and inalienable rights to white men. At worst, it allows for difference of opinion as to whether non-white men have the same inherent rights as white men. The evidence is strong that Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that all men naturally have such rights. So while the charges of racism, hypocrisy and turpitude are warranted in his case, the claim that he didn't choose his words precisely is not. He truly meant to say:

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[The Magistrate]

120. It Is Certainly True, Sir

That Mr. Jefferson may be limned into an ogrish cartoon as easily as into a saintly one, and my brief comments above could certainly be read as the former case, particularly by the gentleman's admirers. That was not my intent, and it is certainly not my view. There is a great deal to admire in Mr. Jefferson, and in many ways he is the most emblematic of the Founders, as he embodies in himself the full range of contradiction our country and its society has been, and still is, marked with.

Still, it seems to me that in a case like this the deed must take precedence over the word, and where the word does not match the deed, perhaps the kindest reconciliation of the contradiction is to impute imprecision in the choice of word, rather than the less wholesome imputations that could readily be summoned for the purpose. In regard to the passage discarded from the Declaration, it seems worth recalling that that was a political document, the writing of which was motivated by desire to cast as much opprobrium as possible on the Crown to justify the extraordinary act of rebellion against what was still then widely considered a sacred office, and in such an endeavor, just about any cudgel handy is likely to be taken up, regardless of its real appropriateness or lack thereof: the mention that the slave trade was one engaged in by "INFIDEL powers" seems to me to give this bit of the game away. Another point to be recalled is that the dirty little secret of agitation against the slave trade, and even much abolition feeling at the time, was that at its bottom in many cases was detestation of the Negro, and the feeling that were the trade halted or slavery excluded or ended, the absence of the Negro could be achieved. As you say, Sir, definitely a can of worms....

[gottaB]

147. It would be wise of me to ponder your words before proceeding

So I will do just that.

I did, however, want to call your attention to an essay by Jack Balkin, who, like Mr. Post, also riffs on Abraham Lincoln's Fragment on the Constitution and Union, as well as the Gettysburg Address and other writings. I present this not by way of continuing my polemic, but merely because I found it insightful and figured you might also enjoy it, if you haven't already had your fill of idealism: The Declaration and the Promise of a Democratic Culture.

[The Magistrate]

150. Thank You, Sir

It has been a pleasure.

A complete works of Mr. Lincoln is among my most treasured possessions. His elevated view of Mr. Jefferson is, to my mind, one of the chief points in favor of that Virginian gentleman.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Every Body With An Ounce Of Cranial Matter Agrees With You...

If words didn't have consqequences, both negative and positive they would cease to be powerful...

[gottaB]

112. Bodies with substantially more than an ounce of cranial matter would not

I didn't respond to Dookus' arguments that touched on the "clear and present danger" standard, because I do not think they apply to Churchill. (Presumably we all agree that explicit death threats are not protected speech.) If you can make a case for applying that standard or some similar recognized test to Churchill's writings, I would be glad to hear it.

[Darranar]

73. Human rights are bestowed by no one...

the question is whether or not they are recognized.

[The Magistrate]

81. That Is A Vexed Point, My Friend

Nature confers no rights whatever. It is impossible to construe any principle of rights from the natural world; all creatures have only what they can maintain by their own efforts against whatever menaces to them impinge upon their existances, and the great majority die in the mouths of others.

The concept of human rights is a wholly artificial one that depends on the agreement of many human beings with the proposed principles embodied in the concept. In the final analysis, the only guarantees of such things are your own right arm and cunning mind, or the power of the state or some other embodiment of the social order, against those who disagree, or would violate the agreement.

[Darranar]

88. It is quite true that exercising such rights requires power...

respect for human rights is, obviously, far from assured on the part of anyone, and so defending them often requires force.

Nevertheless, I view it as a moral obligation for humans to respect others' human rights - an obligation that does not have to be affirmed by the law to be present. Morality itself is rather artificial, but I do not think that invalidates it.

[The Magistrate]

90. Indeed, My Friend

But it is the nature of "moral obligations" that what one views as sacred duty another may view as diabolic abomination, and no means of resolving such disputes short of a stout stick exists. In many societies, for a very long time, absolute rule by an aristocracy was viewed as a moral principle, and rebellion against it viewed as not just criminally illegal, but morally reprehensible and sinful.

My point is not just that defending the agreed upon existance of human rights may require force, but that the very existannce of the concept requires prior agreement by all concerned. This makes it merely one strategy of social organization, and that we both adhere to it ourselves ought not blind us to this fact. Indeed, that seems to me to be one of the brightest flames of humanity, that so many have been moved to treat this artificial idea as if it had some force of nature, for it seems to me indeed to be a good and superior idea, that will eclipse it various competitors.

[Darranar]

95. There we agree. Morality is not absolute...

even with an existing god it would not be, for one could always say, "why should I listen to it?"

[rinsd]

48. Well...

...I don't have an issue with the above in most cases.

Unfortunately, the CO assembly and CO Gov have also called for his firing. I don't like that.

I have had quite a few "spirited" debates on Mr. Chamberlin's essay(long story short, I'm not a big fan) here. If the university fires him, so be it. But the Gov and Assembly should shut their pie holes.

[K-W]

51. Why is injustice ok when it isnt the government doing it?

Im having a very hard time understanding this position.

[Dookus]

53. I think your difficulty

comes from a very basic misunderstanding of where rights come from, and what the Bill of Rights can or cannot do.

The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from punishing or censoring speech. It makes no pretense of granting universal protection from all other entities.

Caroline Kennedy has a very nice, accessible book on the Bill of Rights that I'd recommend. It gives a good layman's view of what the Bill of Rights is and isn't, and how those rights have been applied over time.

[K-W]

130. The bill of rights is not what rights are.

I know what the bill of rights is intimately Dookas, and Unlike you I know why they called it "The Bill of Rights" and not "Restrictions on the Power of Government: Not to be mistaken for rights"

They would have had to qualify it since thier declaration of independence already declared the existance of natural rights. They wouldnt want the name "The Bill of Rights" confuse people into thinking they were adressing the natural rights that they told everyone they believed in.

[Darranar]

72. Out of curiosity...

do you think professors who say racist things should be fired?

Do you think Larry Summers should be removed for his comments regarding women?

Do you think no one should be removed from any post because of things they say?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. Larry Summers Apologized And It's An Interesting Question

I am not qualified to discuss the differences between the female and male brain but relying on common sense I would suspect they aren't great enough to prevent a woman from excelling in math or science as Dr. Summers suggested...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. I Stand By This Statement....

Words have consequences...


If I tell my boss to fuck himself do I have the right or reasonable expectation that I wiil keep my job...


For the record I called my boss a "fucking asshole" after telling me I quit...


I exercised my free speech and enjoying it's pleasures as well as it's liminations...

[cornermouse]

39. He can say it.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

[0rganism]

46. Can I withhold my tax moneys from the killemall USMC general's salary?

The day I can do that is the day Professor Churchill should lose his tenure for voicing an unpopular opinion.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

62. How is that free then?

[Dookus]

66. because free speech

is not absolute, nor are the other rights conferred in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights only prevents governments from violating the enumerated rights.

As somebody said above, I have the right to call my boss an asshole, but I shouldn't expect to have a job the next day.

[0007]

55. Weren't we guaranteed those right of free speech?

[Dookus]

56. Yes

And as far as I can tell, nobody tried to stop him from saying what he said. The government practiced no prior restraint, the book wasn't censored, and no criminal charges were filed against him for saying what he said.

The first amendment protection for Free Speech in no way guarantees that there aren't consequences for one's speech, though.

[Tangledog]

61. Sure, he's got a right to his opinions.

Tenure and academic responsibility: Perhaps Mr. Churchill could show us his research proving that all the people who died in the World Trade Center were part of an Eichmann-like plot for world domination.

Of course, there's no such research. He is wanking around the concept of collective guilt. We're all guilty. The file clerks and the janitors are guilty. It's so vast and so vague that it's unprovable and undiscussable. It's got nothing to do with academic standards. Or with defending the feelings of the oppressed.

The death threats were terrible and unjustifiable by any standards. There are plenty of ways for Hamilton College to back out of a situation that looks like it won't do much for institutional tranquility or reputation. One of them is to get a TA to phone in a death threat.

This seemed to become a story after the college had pulled the plug on Churchill's speaking engagement. Of course, it's possible that the local library (in Clinton, New York; bah, I knew there were liberals involved!) would up with 30 copies of Churchill's books and all the locals know and hate the guy.

[reorg]

76. You also have a right to your opinions, however

I would advise you to exercise restraint in public debates if and when you are clearly out of touch with the issues at hand ...

First, Mr. Churchill never said that ALL "the people who died in the World Trade Center" were like "little Eichmanns" -- he made a specific allegation, which is clear to everyone who has read his original aticle instead of just the media misrepresentations of it.

Second, there was never "an Eichmann-like plot for world domination" -- nor did Mr. Churchill mention any such thing. Such a characterisation on your part makes quite obvious that you have not the slightest idea who Eichmann was, what he did, why he became so infamous -- and why Mr. Churchill mentioned his name.

Third, the "concept of collective guilt" was being cited ironically by Mr. Churchill ("if it was valid then, it is valid now" -- well, it wasn't valid then, of course, nor is it now, but in the minds of the self-described avengers it was, then, and should therefore be valid now).

Last, Mr. Churchill even expressly clarified (for those who may find it hard to grasp complicated sentences and paragraphs written by a professor) that he did NOT speak of the janitors etc.

[Zensea]

86. he didn't say all the people

Have you read the article?

[SuffragetteSal]

74. here in Oregon the Nazis adopted a road with a sign

erected up with the American Nazi Organization written on two signs along the road for all to read as they drive by...

likewise, this professor should be allowed his right to freedom of speech.

[number6]

75. ``little Eichmanns'' weren't in the WTC, there in the

PNAC, AEI, .....

[K-W]

134. You misunderstand the reference.

He was demonstrating the moral and legal principle that perfectly nicely motivated civillian workers whos work supports the wrong are not totally innocent of the wrong.

[ngant17]

77. defending Ward Churchill

Given the fact that he is a native American, I would think he has a right to say anything he wants here. Even if he justifies genocide, because his ancestors were victims of a white-inspired genocide. If you read his books, you can have an idea of this consciousness.

A Jewish professor can publically say that the Nazis should have been wiped out, and there's nothing really sensational about that. It's no different with Prof. Churchill.

Hopefully the sales of his books will keep him going no matter what the white-racist college admin people decide.

[airfoil]

117. Not sure he's in fact Native American

Looks like the Cherokee tribe is stating he's not 1/16 Native American.

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/articles/2005/02/04/news/top_stories/aaaaaaaprof.txt

[ngant17]

201. Ward's natiive Indian geneology

Ward's Indian geneology (or lack of it, rather) would be largely irrevelant for anyone who has a regard for the voluminous material he has written on the native peoples here. 95% of everything he writes is in defense of the American Indian (North, Central and South).

Even if he was white as a lilly, I would say that his defense is still justified based on his record so far, and if he were a white man, then his life could parallel that of the US anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan, a white lawyer who became a self-taught expert in the Native American culture and mores of New York, so much so that in 1847 he was made an adopted member of the Seneca tribe.

Also it depends on your perspective. Someone from Chile could say that 9-11 was all about US terrorism, because on Sept. 11, 1973, that's when everything good and honest was destroyed in their country, financed in no small part by US private and US gov. incentives.

Maybe Ward's statements are referring to the WTC in the context of its symbol of neoliberalism and financial imperialism, so he wasn't actually justifying the killing of innocents per se, only the destruction of a symbol that he could relate also to native american genocide and ecological destruction indirectly.

[Hissyspit]

84. From dictionary.com - professor, as in one who professes

to profess: to affirm openly, to claim; to claim knowledge of; state freely

[K-W]

135. Excellent point.

He had every reason to expect that he could speak without fear of being silenced.

[Dookus]

181. But

who is silencing him?! Nobody is practicing prior restraint on his speech. He is not being gagged, or jailed, or otherwise prevented from speaking his mind.

Consequences are not censorship.

You have not answered the question I asked repeatedly: Was it OK for Ann Coulter's syndicator to release her after she made outrageously offensive statements in her column?

[K-W]

189. Unjust consequences are censorship.

Whether they come from the government or not. Free speach is not about the government, it is about individual liberty.

And in the case of Ann Coulter, she is paid to produce columns, the content of her work and its public appeal are valid concerns for her syndicator. If they dropped her because her content dropped her appeal, I see no problem, just as I see no problem with Ward Churchill not getting book deals or not getting lecture jobs in the future because he hurt his appeal.

Those are the natural consequences of speach, there is nothing wrong with them.

How can you not see that there is something wrong with spreading his words, spun badly around the country to get people inflamed over him to create pressure to try and get him fired from his job as a professor.

How can you not see the injustice.

[Dookus]

193. I don't see it because I honestly

think it's not an injustice. It is neither immoral nor illegal nor unconstitutional to speak out against speech one doesn't like.

If people didn't speak out against Ann Coulter, and organize against her, her syndicator wouldn't have dropped her.

Somehow you think there are natural consequences to speech and "unnatural" consequences, and Ward is suffering from the latter. I disagree.

[K-W]

200. You want to live in a land with no freedom.

And pretend you are free because it is your neighbors control your behavior and not your government.

Fine, have at it. I'll pass though.

You need to get past your obsession with the law. The law is not justice and justice is not the law. The law can be just, but often isnt, and is almost always inherently injust.

If you value the freedom of speach you would never support this man losing his job for speaking.

[Dookus]

205. and you're just wrong

In fact, I value speech so much, I've even taken the time to learn how to spell the word.

AS I said above, this thread is becoming unwieldy, and we just disagree and keep beating the same horse over and over again.

I think it's possible to be a strong proponent of free speech (as I am) and still think it's reasonable to recognize that speech has consequences.

[K-W]

211. How was what I just said wrong?

If we lived in a land where you could only say things that agreed with everyone else or you would lose your job, but the government played no part in it, would you say that we lived in a land where speech was free?

I hope taking shots at my spelling makes you feel special.

[Pork Chop]

97. He's entitled to say what he wants

But other people are equally entitled to express outrage over what he said. It's the beauty of the first amendment.

[jdots]

102. the freedom to speak before thinking ?

works if they aren't rolling tape.This has become a (??) news worthy item to keep people bickering enough to not pay attention to the large pile of poop hitting the fan.It seems to me that his students understand his outspoken way of going over the top to make a point enough to be cuffed and arrested for it.The people who brought you this little story don't seem to be concerned about anything but a pay check.Historically the media has shown little snips of anti war protest in a bad light while it goes out of it's way to make sure that the price of war is never seen.

[K-W]

133. The media lied about him.

Nothing he ACTUALLY said was that different than what gets said on DU every day.

[UdoKier]

105. Just saw the guy on Paula Von Zahn's show. What a jerk.

Yes, he has the right to say what he wants, but he's not going to win many friends with the word games he's playing.

For once, Von Zahn actually treated him fairly, but he still came off like a jerk. I agreed with some of his points about US-sponsored terrorism, but overall, he has a way of making comments that are easily construed as pro-terrorism.

[raggedcompany]

107. Unequivocally, yes!

I support Ward Churchill--not just his right to free speech, but also his actual speech. In honor of all the whining, crying critics he's won recently, I have purchased an extra copy of his excellent book "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present." Let the press continue to give him attention because of this insipid, howling echo-chamber of complaint, and he'll sell more books than ever.

[baldguy]

115. You can only be an ass if you're a Republican?

[slackmaster]

116. I chose the 'persecute' option

Bill O'Reilly is entitled to have and to express his opinion too.

[GetTheRightVote]

118. This is American yet, we still have freedom of speech, don't we ??

:kick:

[Dookus]

119. well

this whole thread is about what that term means. Some people seem to think it means that we should all be protected from any negative consequences of our speech.

That is not the constitutional or legal definition, though.

[K-W]

132. No it is the ACTUAL definition.

Dookus, you dont support the idea of rights. Which is fine, but dont pretend you do.

[Dookus]

182. It's usually

a mistake to tell others what they believe.

I believe, as does every single thinking person above the age of 4, that rights are not absolute.

You will be hard-pressed to find a greater defender of the Bill of Rights than me. Just because I don't believe these rights were created at the time of the Big Bang and hang suspended in space/time for us to read doesn't mean I don't recognize the rights. I just don't believe they come from nature or god. They come from us.

[K-W]

194. We arent talking abour rights being absolute.

You are completely misunderstanding the concept of rights.

You didnt say that rights come from us, you said they come from authority.

Rights being not absolute refers to situations where there is a conflict between your rights and the rights of others. You cant exercise your right where your intereference with other peoples freedoms outweighs the importance of your freedom to express your views.

That does not apply to this situation in the slightest. His speach did not endanger anyone. His speach did not harm anyone. All his speach did was upset people. And that is so far from a justifaction it is silly.

That is exactly the point of freedom of speach. Other people cant regulate what I say because they dont like what I am saying.

[Dookus]

202. ok

we're just going round and round, and the thread is becoming unwieldy.

I maintain that it's perfect normal and acceptable for people to bear the consequences of their speech, and it is possible to speak out against other people's opinions without violating their rights.

We just disagree. You see somebody who you think is being unfairly attacked; I see somebody who made deliberately provocative statements and is paying the expected price. I felt the same way about Ann Coulter. My position on this issue is entirely independent of the political persuasion of the person under discussion.

Speech has consequences. In fact, speech MUST have consequences if it is to mean anything.

[K-W]

212. Stop spinning everything.

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT THEIER SHOULDNT BE CONSEQUENCES

Your continuing inferences that I am are intellecutally dishonest.

You think that you can call for someone to lose thier job because you disagree with them and still call yourself an advocate of free speech.

Im not saying that bookburners dont have the right to burn books, im just saying that if they do, they dont advocate free expression.

[Dangerman]

121. Mr. Churchill has the right...

To say whatever he believes in.

If you had change our foreign policy back in 1990, 9/11 would have not happen.

I agree with him (that 9/11 was a retaliation of our foreign policies for the past decade and a half.)

[Dookus]

186. I agree entirely

he has the right to say what he wants. So far nobody has shown me any attempt to silence him.

As to whether his employer wants to keep paying him, that's a different matter. But as long as pen and paper, or the internet, exist, he will continue to be able to freely spout whatever sort of nonsense he chooses.

[K-W]

222. Yah having a job doesnt effect your life at all.

How could I be so silly as to think that an attempt to destroy his career to punish him for his opinion was an attempt to silence him.

[ulysses]

123. anyone have a link to the actual essay?

I'd like to read the entire thing - from the snippets I've seen, I think he's spot on.

[The Magistrate]

124. One May Be Found Here, My Friend

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=30995&mesg_id=31103&page=

[ulysses]

136. thank you, Magistrate. It's interesting that

I haven't seen anyone mention Churchill's Native American heritage (although I may have just missed it), something I think gives him perhaps a different view of American imperialism than the mainstream perspective.

I have quite a bit more to read of the essay, but I agree with what I've skimmed over so far. Some people do, in fact, push back and well they might.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name – indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it – mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Now they do.

I've said very similar things here before, as have others. The US hasn't had a full-blown war on its soil since 1865, and I think we've become very complacent over that time about the suffering war causes. Is saying that condoning the 9/11 attacks? No, but it is necessary, it seems to me, to achieve a greater understanding of how the US has operated in the world for generations in order to keep such attacks from happening again.

A further note - while the Eichmann thing was certainly over the top, I think many folks have realized for years that our actions abroad have helped to create situations quite similar to the one under which Hitler arose in Germany. Desperate people will flock to a leader, murderous though he may be, who promises to poke the international bully in the eye and lead their people to greatness. Thus Hitler after Versailles, thus bin Laden after all our adventures in the developing Middle East.

[K-W]

137. The eichman thing was NOT over the top.

He used the historical reference perfectly appropriately.

The point of Eichman is that good people doing normal work to support the organization committing the atrocities are not completely innocent. I think most people on DU agree with that.

Most of the moral and ethical and international legal thought in the 20th century revolves around nazi germany, thats where we have examples of these kinds of situations, and thats what people have written most about. It is european history for goodness sake.

[The Magistrate]

142. In Other Words, Sir

You consider Eichmann a good person doing normal work?

[K-W]

144. Heh, sorry, that definately didnt come out right.

I meant ordinary person. But normal work I stand by, the point is that he was doing the administrational work. He was filing papers he wasnt doing the actual deeds.

Thus someone who works in the US filing papers so that we can committ atrocities, even if they just work 9-5 in an office building arent innocent of any atrocities committed.

[The Magistrate]

157. Still, Sir

He knew the explicit purpose of the paperwork; he approved of and intended openly the purpose of the paperwork. He knew he was killing and intended to kill by the paperwork. That is the important element of the case. The logic you have embraced, Sir, can be pushed so far as to state that a fellow who sells snacks in the parking lot of a plant making screws used to bolt together machine-tools that fabricate a brake link in a truck that is used to transport to assembly components of another machine-tool that finishes the cylinders of a hydraulic actuators in the landing flaps of an F-16 that drops a bomb over some town has made a clear and necessary contribution to the deaths of three children, and ought to pay for it in full, whether before an international tribunal or at the muzzle of a righteously wielded pistol in a masked man's hand.

[K-W]

158. Why would think I meant that?

I am talking only about actions that contribute to the atrocity directly, and they know what they are doing, like eichman, they dont think it is wrong.

[The Magistrate]

164. But That Is A Direct Contribution, Sir

That the logic employed seems absurd at its furthest limits is the fault of the logic employed, and resides nowhere else.

The persons this fellow described as "little Eichman's" lack evry qualification you have stated above. They do not contribute directly to atrocity; they do not act in full knowledge they are creating atrocity; and they are not intended to create atrocity.

[K-W]

167. What is a direct contribution?

Yes, if you stretch my logic past what it actually is, it seems silly, color me suprprised.

You seem to have misread chamberlain, he argued that there were people in those buildings who were contributing directly with the knowledge of what they were contributing to.

[The Magistrate]

173. His Stating It, Sir, Does Not Make It So

[K-W]

176. Nobody claimed it did.

Disagreeing with his premise is not an excuse to dishonestly spin his argument.

[The Magistrate]

183. Nonesense, Sir

You are going round in circles, and the quicker you do so, the less sense is conveyed.

You stated above, in reply to my differentiation of those pesons from Eichmann, that the fellow stated they acted knowingly in drawing that likeness. My comment that his saying so did not make it so you replied to by the statement no one said his stating it made it so. Yet, you seem to be expecting me to take it as so, because you claim that it is "dishonestly spinning his arguement" to point out that that these persons did not act knowingly, as he alleged they did. His likening them to Eichmann is based on the premise that they did act knowingly, and if that premise is a false one, it is hardly dishonest to disagree with it. Indeed, it would seem dishonest to uphold it, and to base an argument on it.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

[K-W]

216. ignore

ignore

[ulysses]

143. I agree with you here.

The point of Eichman is that good people doing normal work to support the organization committing the atrocities are not completely innocent.

No, they're (we're) not innocent at all, but Eichmann I think represents a very different level of moral being.

[K-W]

146. Yah, that wasnt entirely right.

But I think Churchill is still right to make the comparison. It isnt entirely fair, but it isnt entirely unfair either, and within the framework of his argument it didnt strike me as too flagrant, but obviously I saw how it would look to most people.

The thing is, even if it was flagrant. He has every right to say it without becoming a national target of scorn and being forced out of his job.

[ulysses]

149. he had to know

that he would become a target of that scorn - such is the environment in which we live post-9/11 and he's a perceptive man. I agree that CU should absolutely not fire him, and that if they do they are a bunch of chickenshit cowards who represent the death of independent thought in America.

[K-W]

153. And protestors know they risk arrest. Do peaceful protestors deserve it?

Yes, he used an example sure to arouse peoples emotions.

Im just really annoyed that everyone on this thread feals the need to excuse what is a blatent example of the tyranny of the masses. Just because he could have avoided being silenced doesnt mean it is ok to silence him. You seem to agree with that so that isnt targetted to you but I wish people would be brave liberals here and not try to qualify thier support of his right to speak freely.

[ulysses]

161. deserve? of course not, at least to my mind.

Churchill doesn't *deserve* to be raked over the coals for this either, but others have their right to speech as well, much as they may not value that right for others.

[K-W]

163. That is contradictory though.

You dont have the right to subvert other people's freedom of speach.

We are talking about an organized attempt to arouse anger about him so as to force him out of his job. That is not an exercise of free speech, that is an exercise in persecution.

[The Magistrate]

140. Indeed, Sir

Well concealed within the excessive and intemperate rhetoric, and the distortions and exaggerations of fact, there are the germs of a genuine critique, and one that people need to hear more widely. My view of this matter consists in maintaining that this piece was not meant to seriously communicate a serious point, but more to posture in display of radical plumage, and so the thing is seriously and irretrievable flawed, being counter-productive in the extreme, and profoundly frivolous.

[K-W]

141. Did he run over your dog or something?

If I think a professor is full of shit I dont listen to him.

But if he comes under fire for speaking his mind I back him up because I am a liberal.

[The Magistrate]

155. At Northwestern University Not Far From My Home, Sir

There was an engineering professor some years ago who came under a good deal of fire for a work purporting to prove there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Any comments in defense of his right to free speech would doubtless be appreciated by the wretch....

[K-W]

156. Im sorry that you dont agree with the freedom of speach.

I do. I will support anyones right to say anything as long as it doesnt unduely burden anyone elses rights.

[The Magistrate]

166. Doubtless, Sir

It will be possible to bear up under the burden of having caused you sorrow....

[K-W]

168. Your emotions dont get to subjigate others' freedoms.

Being disurbed by speach is not a justification to silence it.

[The Magistrate]

170. This High Dudgeon, Sir, Grows Tiresome

No one is silencing the fellow. He will speak as loudly and foolishly as he chooses in future, and we both know that. He is not being arrested, he is not being sent down country to muck out pig-styes, he is not being set upon by a club-wielding mob. He has made a number of people angry with his posturing as The Great And Terrible Radical, and some of them are shouting at him. It may be that the government of Colorado ceases to employ him. That is all.

[K-W]

174. Wow the same logic we use to justify torture.

Well as long as the pain isnt too bad...

Your defense of persecution because of your emotional reaction to this man is inexcusable and short sighted. Just because the man hasnt been run out of town on a rail doesnt mean he hasnt suffered unjustly.

[The Magistrate]

180. Suffered, Sir?

He has won the Lottery, rather. And been introduced to big world outside to boot....

[K-W]

217. If you think this is good for his career, than obviously

you dont think his rights were violated. And in that situation neither would I.

[ulysses]

145. disagreed.

If anything, I think the intemperate language serves to actually get the message noticed. Who on earth had even heard of Ward Churchill before the invite and subsequent unearthing of this essay? Much the same functional purpose of Malcolm X during the civil rights movement, seems to me.

[The Magistrate]

152. Well, My Friend

That seems to me rather like the case of mistaking noteriety for fame. The thing is indeed noticed, but the reaction, and most particularly the reaction among those who most need to hear the genuine point, is one of angry rejection, not one of willingness to consider the point.

[K-W]

154. If nobody ever pushed the limits,

where would we be now?

You disagree with the man, fine, but that is completely irrelevent to what is happening. Every liberal professor in the country now feels the pressure to not arouse the ire of the media.

We should be defending his rights tooth and nail. Our agreement with what he said is utterly irrelevent and always has been on the issue of free speech.

[The Magistrate]

159. We Are Persons Of Different Temperament, Sir

And so view many matters in different lights. To me this fellow is a liability who has done some damage by his posturings and frivolity, things that do not seem to me worth defending.

[K-W]

169. This isnt about his words, its about his right to say them.

This fellow could be a liability.
He could have done damage by his posturings and frivolity.
His words may not be worth defending.

But his right to speak freely IS worth defending because if he doesnt have it, neither do you. Are you sure you couldnt say anyithing that someone else might find disturbing?

[The Magistrate]

172. It Is Also A Right, Sir

To freely and loudly call him a damned fool, and on a variety of grounds.

[K-W]

177. Nobody is talking about calling him a fool.

We are talking about organized groups of people lying about him and spreading his words to create a national public outcry against him to try and push him out of his job and intimidate liberal college professors accross the country.

I have not heard a single person anywhere suggest that people dont have the right to call him a fool, so why on earth do you think you are arguing that?

[ulysses]

160. but the reaction to hearing what needs to be said in this case,

for the forseeable future, will either be angry rejection or willful ignorance no matter how it's stated. Now that the idea is out there, perhaps it can be discussed.

It's also worth noting that no public figure, at least to my knowledge, has been making this point in any more moderate a manner.

[IronLionZion]

175. of course he's entitled to his opinions,

the line is drawn once he incites violence or some other kind of hateful act.

The people who disagree with him have the right also, and private organization can fire him for that if they want.

[K-W]

178. So you think we have a free society

when if you say something that you should have every right to say, you lose your job?

[IronLionZion]

179. That's something you have to think about before you say something

and write books on it, and give speeches on it. You have to admit what this guy did was very offensive.

[K-W]

218. fine, dont buy his books, dont go to his speeches

but dont try and get him fired from his job.

dont use your speech to try and punish him for how he used his, use it to disagree with him with respect for his right to express even the craziest of views.

I dont find it offensive, I think it was a bad comparison, I think it was stupid to use that comparison, but im not offended by it. But that isnt the point. Offending me is no reason for me to try and get someone fired.

[bush_is_wacko]

198. Yes and here is a link to the entire essay...

Honestly, I read this shortly after 911 and cannot remember having such a visceral reaction like the thugs at CU! Here is the link to the original essay. Make sure you read the ENTIRE essay and not just the parts that the thugs are so postal about!

The essay is entitiled "Some People Push Back"

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html


I would also encourage people to go to this DU thread and let CU Boulder know how you feel about the return of McCarthy-ism to our fine educational institutions! I am committed to a not one thin dime campaign against them. CU openly drug their feet on the prosecution of REAL criminal behavior. Allegations of rape, coaches that condoned the rape and made attempts to minimize it in the media and who hired prostitutes and gave alcohol to underage football players, were last years scandal.

Now they want to fire a VERY well informed and, as it turns out VERY well loved and respected tenured professor. CU Boulder needs a priority adjustment and the only thing they respond to is the withdrawl of funds. If I or my children were currently attending this University we would immediately withdraw our registrations!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3059044&mesg_id=3059044

[amazona]

215. it was a mean thing to say but he's entitled to say it

Hard to picture how some poor waiter in WIndows on the World was a little Eichmann, though.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[K-W]

219. He clarified that a tiny bit.

He explained he was only referring to some of the people in the building as little eichmans. And that the rest were what the US would call collaterall damage.

The legitimate problem with his comparison is that Eichman was a very passionate nazi, so the comparison brakes down there and throws a very negative insinuation about the people.

But I cant help but get the feeling reading it that he is more pointing out that Americans are much more complicit than we think and are ignoring the obvious evidence that our government and corporations are doing horrible things.

I think he used a dicey comparison to make a true point. I could be wrong he may have made a false point. Either way I dont think he should lose his job over it.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

221. Yes he does. His oppenents have the same right too!

[bemildred]

224. Other: Hell Yes!

He can say whatever the hell he likes.
So can we all.