Free Speech in Universities and Schools

Posted by Joe Rivett on 01.27.2010

My thoughts on the issues brought up from HBO's documentary: "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech"

Free speech and the First Amendment is a touchy situation because the courts have to draw a line, but we all have a different idea of where the line should be drawn. Oliver Wendell Holms once wrote about shouting fire in a crowded theater would be an overreach of free speech when he stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." We can all agree that premeditated lies can cause someone to sue for liability and defamation of character. However, satire of public officials is acceptable as Jerry Falwell found out when he lost his court case to Larry Flynt despite the emotional distress Falwell claimed.

Last night I watched the free speech documentary on HBO entitled "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech." The first section of the documentary featured our old buddy Ward Churchill. Since 2005, I've been writing for 411 Politics and never once wrote about Mr. Churchill. Churchill wrote an op-ed essay after 9/11 where he wrote of American foreign policy abuses which may have been the cause of 9/11. In addition what got him the majority of the attention was his stance that the victims were not innocent. For 41 straight days the O'Reiley Factor reported on Churchill and conservative watchdog groups pressured the university to fire him. Since they couldn't fire him for writing an op-ed essay, after all it is his opinion; they came up with some charges of exaggeration and plagiarism and fired him. Of course had he never written the essay, he would never have been fired. In 2007 he sued the university and won.

What is unbelievable is that his take on 9/11 isn't that out of line. Ron Paul also blamed American Imperial Foreign Policy on 9/11 and he had a lot of support. On the question of whether or not the victims were innocent, one could argue that in a Democracy, the citizens are responsible for their government's actions since it is a government by the people. Where I disagree with Churchill is that some people who died may have opposed American intervention in other countries and some could have been immigrants that had nothing to do with foreign policy. When a Native American complains about the "white man" taking their land, I remind them that my family did not come to America until the 1920s and they weren't exactly welcomed here either. Nevertheless, he should not have been fired for stating his views just as I should not be fired for commenting on his views.

The other free speech abuse that caught my eye was the student that put tape on a shirt that stated: "Homosexuality is Shameful." He was ordered to remove the shirt because it could have caused a disruption to the other students learning. The student had Court precedent on his side when the Court in the Tinker decision allowed students to wear wristbands protesting the Vietnam War. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the First Amendment doesn't apply to schools. After all, a teacher can tell students to quiet down when the teacher is talking. However, a shirt is expression and it is no different than a student saying homosexuality is a sin during a classroom debate.

We need to protect our First Amendment rights no matter how offensive some speech can be; Nazis and gay bashers have a right to be heard as well as long as they do so peacefully. In the next couple days I will be commenting on the latest controversial 5-4 decision to allow corporations and unions more power to influence campaigns in the name of free speech. This is where I will draw the line in the sand.