FD4 - Free Speech: A richer global community

Reece Frazier

13 May 2010

FD4

FD4 - Free Speech: A richer global community

Censorship dates back to the beginning of ruling bodies of power. Limiting free speech was, and is, often a venue for controlling a population. By limiting the flow of information, a government was able to paint a picture – propaganda – for their citizens in whatever light they chose. In America, most individuals view propaganda as being unacceptable. However, such a viewpoint is not always shared. In ancient times, and even today, the restriction of information and ideas was considered to be a public service, for the sake of, “shaping the character of people.” This was considered essential to proper governance. Countries, like China and North Korea, continue to practice an extreme interpretation of this idea today, limiting virtually all free speech and controlling every avenue of information. On the other hand, there are other countries which implement varied levels of prohibited speech. The United States of America, from its very foundation, remains one of the few countries with the wholesome right to free speech. Although an individual or organization may hold true to mainstream dissenting ideas, they are allowed (in the U.S.), and even encouraged, to share their beliefs. With the flow and exchange of information, comes the spurring of new ideas, ultimately allowing for a richer global community. [THESIS] Access to free speech is essential to the growth, diversity and culture of Earth’s interdependent societies. [THESIS]


Dating back to beginnings of modern political revolution, writers and political theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and even Benjamin Franklin shared ideas which caused some sort of dissidence toward the government in place. Quite often, these “free thinkers” were repressed in sharing their ideas with the widespread population, for, the rulers believed, if their ideas were circulated there would be anti-government pandemics – and frankly, they were right.


The American Revolution began in the mid-late eighteenth century. The colonists who inhabited North America had been ruled by foreign power since their home countries had sent them to explore and settle the newly discovered lands. These “foreign powers” levied taxes and dictated law which made many of the colonists unhappy. The recently inventing printing press allowed a means for mass production of the circulation of ideas. Prior to this revolutionary invention, ideas were exchanged through word of mouth and handwritten memoranda which was extremely limiting.


In present times, there are individuals who, like at the time of the colonial revolution who have extremeist perspectives that do not always sit well with the majority of the population. A commonly referenced individual is Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill share’s his ideas with a very minute proportion of the population (keep in mind, our current population is approximately 309,151,303 versus 3,893,635 in 1790 – so a “minute” proportion greatly varies). Although the vast majority of individuals in the United States tend to disagree with Mr. Churchill’s ideas, our country’s foundation is based upon this very idea – the idea that he be allowed to share such dissenting ideas.


Our countries forefathers felt that it was quintessential that our right to speak freely be preserved throughout time and subsequently enacted the First Amendment. The amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law [ . . . ] abridging the freedom of speech [ . . .].” Although it is plausible that its placement be merely incidental, it would seem that the importance of the matter correlates its position within the Bill of Rights.

On September 11, 2001, a group of religious extremists attacked the United States by hijacking commercial aircraft and plunging them into national icons. Some argue (amongst them being Mr. Churchill) that it was indeed the United States’ own fault for what had happened – exclaiming that our capitalistic nature induced such a catastrophe. Although this idea may seem outlandish to most, Mr. Churchill’s discourse, may indeed be beneficial for society as a whole.

We live in an empire where our ideals, it seems, are what the rest of the world also has to enjoy. Unfortunately, outside these fifty states lies a much different world where the luxuries of running water, electricity, clothing, food, iPhones, computers, schools, and other items, which we deem a “necessity,” are hard to come by. There are those on the outside who seem to believe that our success is caused by their demise. While that is not particularly the issue at hand, this conviction, similar to that which Mr. Churchill follows, could allow for an unsuspecting individual to allow some thought into the matter. One could argue that we do indeed live in a global community and the riches of a few should ideally be shared with another – outside of one’s own nation. Exploiting those who are less fortunate, to get to the top, is not always appropriate. The preservation of Mr. Churchill’s right to speak freely, and share his ideas which are dangerously controversial, allow for such out-of-the-box thinking to exist; it is such extremist thinking that founded the United States of America. Without discord change is inhibited.

Opponents of free speech often argue that such rhetoric (like that of Mr. Churchill) is demoralizing for society and stains the names of people who died in vain. Although this may be true, the idea behind allowing the freedom to express one’s self does not question the validity or soundness of an idea, but rather, enforces that the person is allowed to speak at all. Classmate Kimberly Malott has commented that, “Ward Churchill is a character that does not seem to present any validity in any of his arguments [ . . . ] People with views should have evidence to fully support their claims prior to arguing with others that they should try to see their point first before viewing the actual valid evidence.” While Mr. Churchill tactical arguments may not deserve merit, his ideas spur thought, discussion, and even a few seconds of thought for those who have fallen.

Selecting which types of speech to regulate and not regulate would completely undermine the principle behind free speech. In 2005, the University of Hawaii invited Ward Churchill to speak. This caused a widespread uproar in allowing funds, public and private, to be used on someone who, according to Star-Bulletin journalist Craig Gima, “compared some Sept. 11, 2001 victims to a Nazi war criminal.”

Hawaii Senator Fred Hemmingway felt that the very idea of an individual with such ideas be allowed to speak at a University would ultimately lower private funding and discredit the University of Hawaii. Senator Hemmingway’s public disapproval of the University’s invitation solicited a very insightful response from then University President David McClain. McClain responded to the Sentor’s public outcry by reminding him, “Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.”

When our country was founded, over three hundred years ago, the movers and shakers of the Revolution were outlaws – essentially committing treason. Their ideas, in of themselves, were criminal (although, in present day, the exchange of ideas is legal, however an attempt to overthrow the government not). With the right to freedom of speech and “extremist thought” comes the ability to share this with the government and speak freely about the things which (one feels) needs to change. This exchange of ideas will eventually bring change and new ideas.

Furthermore, those who wish to limit speech have attacked, time and again, ideas (such as Mr. Churchill’s) which make any demographic uncomfortable. Such a limitation is unfair, and would restrict progressive thought ultimately leaving society in the dark ages. Whenever change comes about, whether it be in women’s rights, the government’s ability to levy taxes, Wall Street legislation, or cuts to social services, someone is guaranteed to be uncomfortable or unwilling to change.

Classmate Natalie Choe shared her thoughts on the matter exclaiming that, "We are entitled to our own opinions. One of our most controversial freedoms is our freedom of speech, yet this same freedom often causes disagreements between people who hold opposing views. Although we are entitled to say whatever we want, Ward Churchill takes this freedom to the extreme." This argument is suspicious.

Indeed we are entitled to our own opinions, and yes, the first amendment is often the center to controversy and ultimately causes disagreements between people. Calling Ward Churchill's opinions an "extreme" use of this freedom is a questionable statement. This idea of an "extreme" can be applied to any use of the freedom. Individuals who disagreed with Mr. Churchill's statements may think that his speech was an "extreme," however, those who believed in what Mr. Churchill had to say could say the same about those who thought otherwise. The exercise of the right to freedom of speech cannot be granted only in part.

The exchange of new (or rather, "different") ideas and unpopular beliefs brings about new ideas, compassion, and dialogue about problems currently in place. Take the ideas of two extremists and blend them together – your product is essentially a balance between two ends of a spectrum. While this example is extremely idealized, a limitation on either end of the scale would produce a half-hearted and incomplete product. By the open sharing of ideas between people, the desires of our diverse global community can be met with compassion and compromise.

In the spirit of free speech, one must wonder –in countries where speech is been limited, and the culture submits to governmental control, who then is “right?” Would the cultural allowance to prohibit the flow of information be considered permissible? How does the impact of the ideas of Western societies, specifically the freedom of speech, affect third world countries. Are such “rights” actually “right?” We have developed over a few hundred year and concluded that out “god given right” is to be able to speak freely. However, China, with its expansive censorship, is in much better financial condition than the United States. Are we really on the right track?

Developing countries around the world have begun to accept the idea that in order to have a successful global community, one needs to open their ears to ideas outside of the norm. Free thinkers have made the world what it is today, and without the exchange of such outlandish perspective, the world would be stagnant and growth would be limited.

Works Cited

Natalie Choe. "Attacking Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 18 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 13 May 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].

Malott, Kimberly. "Attack Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 16 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 24 April 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].

Newth, Mette. "The Long History of Censorship." Beacon for Freedom of Expression. 2001 July. 24 April 2010. [http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html]

"U.S. POPClock Projection." The United States Government. 2009 August 31. 24 April 2010. [http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html]

The United States Census Bureau. 24 April 2010. [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf]

Log of Completed Activities
X Apr. 6t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 12M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 16F- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
X Apr. 21W- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
X Apr. 26M- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 30F- RD4 reviews due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X May 5W-14F- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)