Questions of Liberty...

Response to Chapter 6, Provocations to Anger and Words that Wound as well as the website “The Nuremberg Files.”

Our class discussion on ‘The Nuremberg Files’ has really stuck with me throughout the quarter as being one of the highlighting issues into what exactly free speech encompasses and how that could possibly be damaging to an individuals rights. In other cases, such as juicycampus.com we see an issue of free speech presented in that what you present online could in fact damage a reputation and lead to personal issues later on. Here, this same idea is taken to a whole new extreme. On one hand, we cannot limit free speech by infringing on the rights to having lists of abortion doctors posted, yet on the other we see links to murder related to what is posted on these sites. As its name relates directly back to the Nazi’s in Germany, the assumptions the site makes are very strong. Though this site does not directly encourage murder, it is assumed. Can we limit speech based off assumption? Where do we draw the line?

Investigating this further, I was able to read an article by John Fitzpatrick in an Issues and Views post about how he felt about censoring such sites. In 1999 an Oregon jury in a civil cases awarded two women’s clinics and four abortion providers $109 million against anti-abortionists and the ‘Nuremberg Files’ website was closed. In Fitzpatrick’s opinion he states that, “The threat to free speech often comes from governments and courts, but others too. It comes from those who demand protection from being “offended”, and from those with such a poor opinion of their fellows that they insist on having the poor things sheltered from all manner of incitement and corruption. It also comes from those who, having failed to convince other people of their views, resort to violence. Anybody who cares about freedom of speech should condemn the anti-abortionists in the “Nuremberg Files” case – not for their views on abortion, but for polluting free debate with the aura of violence and for degrading the very principles which lie behind the idea of freedom of speech in the first place.” Fitzpatrick argues that by pushing their opponents into submission, and this taints the public debate forum.
Question one: In this context, what exactly constitutes a threat of imminent harm? With such protected practices as picketing, do you see any correlation? Further, do you believe that this decision perhaps could strike a blow at political rhetoric and do you think there should/can be a difference between promoting something and actually doing it?

In the ongoing debate regarding controls upon and limitations of free speech as it is protected by the first amendment, the United States Supreme Court has determined that there are in fact boundaries by which free speech can be curtailed if the expression is injurious, inflammatory, or disruptive to the peace of the greater community. According to chapter 6 (p.169), in 1938, Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness incited two Catholic men, whom they were attempting to convert, by playing anti-Catholic rhetoric on their phonograph, which in turn led to a verbal altercation on the part of the Catholic men. Cantwell, promptly gathered his belongings and left the scene. State courts later ruled that Cantwell was not protected by the first amendment due to the fact that the he had intentionally incited the men. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that Cantwell’s actions were not threatening or abusive because the men agreed to expose themselves to the presentation, and Cantwell did not intend to insult the listeners. His actions did not beach the peace of the community, and the ruling was overturned.Later in 1942, Walter Chaplinski, another Jehovah’s Witness, incited a group of listeners he had attracted by calling organized religion a racket, and by claiming that he alone was presenting the true word of the bible. Upon being arrested hey threw insulting epithets at the arresting officer, which were later deemed to be inflammatory, and incendiary, charges that the Supreme Court ultimately, and unanimously agreed with. They determined that Chaplinski’s display, crossed the line of being protected by the first amendment, when he entered into the heated verbal exchange with the arresting officer, in which he disrupted the peace, and blatantly insulted the arresting officer, using fighting words that he meant to be injurious. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court determined that free speech can be curtailed if it is deemed injurious, inflammatory, and disruptive to its audience.
Question 2: Due to the fact that all individuals have differing tolerances for what they will personally allow in terms of inflammatory remarks, or injurious verbiage, how can there be legislation and morality base on a broad scale that determines what can an can’t be said to all persons, and still be protected by the first amendment. Should society play to the lowest common denominator, and set precedent based upon what the weakest and most intolerable members of society are willing to withstand?

The case regarding Arthur Terminiello the anti-Semitic racist Catholic priest from Alabama who was on suspension by his bishop was invited to speak to a group calling themselves the Christian Veterans of America. As his speech brought about protestors and supporters as he condemned the “communistic Zionistic” Jews of America as his listeners responded with cries of “Kill the Jews.” Ultimately, Terminiello was arrested and charged with an ordinance describing that “assisting in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace or diversion tending to a breach of peace”. Upon appeal the Supreme Court reversed his conviction saying that the ruling was overly broad way to define “breaching the peace.” Further, Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the court which stated, “the vitality of civil and political institutions depends on free discussion… that it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is affected. (p.172)”
Question 3: While, I think there is little doubt about this notion, it calls into question the idea of forum and where it is in fact appropriate to exchange these very ideas. In terms of political debate, do you EVER think it appropriate to allow racist remarks? Or, do you think that by dispelling those remarks through addressing them, it only eliminates racist tension by brining it to light? With such comedies as South Park, do you think this type of racists speech is ok to address when it is proposed in a forum of comedy or is it never ok?