Remembering First To Listen

Jessica Suguitan

English 215

RD4

Remembering First To Listen

The first amendment of the Constitution ensures a person’s right to believe what they want, say what they want, print what they want, and peaceably organize a people however seen fit, and if a person disagrees with what their government is doing the first amendment ensures the right to use all of the previously stated first amendment rights to petition the government for a change.  [THESIS] I believe the founders of our nation knew that the ability, the freedom, and the methods to discuss beliefs with one another would be the backbone of creating a nation that could, would, and should be supported by the people.  Regardless of how strongly ignorant, hateful, or subversive a statement may be, a person should have the right to express it, because there the only way to have a functioning democracy is if the voices of the people can be heard in it. [THESIS}

We have all been there.  A friend, a coworker, a family member says something so completely against what you believe that it is difficult for you to take the statement seriously.  If you are a civilized human being you will hear them out and ask them questions to ensure that both of you understand what they are saying.  If you are an uncivilized person you start calling them names at the top of your lungs.

The very concept that a person’s ideas, reasons, and beliefs should be heard instead of ignored was born from the same movement that gave birth to America, the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment’s major contribution to humanity was the philosophy that to find truth one must constantly ask what the truth is, testing their reality in experiments and observations, creating data to be logged and compared. In essence the Enlightenment focused on developing a record that could be pointed to when further explanation was deemed necessary.   America, with great respect for the importance and necessity for reason incorporated the beliefs of the Enlightenment into the very DNA of our nation, the Constitution. 

I currently live in New York City.  Politically, I am a very liberal person.  I support the Occupy Wall Street movement.  I feel strongly about it. I have participated in protests.  Though the movement claims to represent the 99%, a great majority of people, at least where the movement is based in New York City, do not support them.  I found myself recently getting into an argument with one of my coworkers about the movement’s right to protest.  Not only did the first amendment allow the 99% movement to happen, it allowed me to voice my opinion about the movement to my coworker and then in a more public way within the movement.  Participating in the protests allowed me to speak with people more heavily involved as well giving me first hand knowledge of how the movement behaved, in essence what it was really about.  I was able to share this experience with my coworker and by both listening to what he believed and sharing what I believed we were able to understand what the movement was about a little more.  This search for truth, understanding, and compromise (what I like to call reality) within our country is possible because of the first amendment. 

It is integral that we are allowed to speak and hear all the sides of the story, all of the opinions within the masses.  When as a nation and society are constantly calling into question the necessity of this right when we hear a belief that we find offensive.  It is upsetting to discover that a person or persons’ opinions are so far from your own and even more upsetting if that opinion becomes more popular than your own and begins to rule your world, which is the fear.  This is the case with Professor Ward Churchill who scandalously referred to the victims in the WTC 9/11 attacks as “Little Eichmanns” comparing those who worked in the financial trade end of America with Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi officer responsible for organizing much of the ghettoizing and death camp placing of those of Jewish ancestry during 1930’s and 1940s Europe (starting in Germany).  Churchill’s comparison is based on available knowledge that many of the largest corporations, who most stock traders and analysts work for, have their hands in war in some way or another.  All one need to do to discover this is type “war profiteering in America” in a search engine.    

My classmate Michael Siabatta claims that “we should be thankful and treat it with the profound respect that it so rightly deserves.” in regards to hate speech against deceased gay soldiers and the Ward Churchill.  But I firmly believe that a society’s search for what is true and right is a constant process of progress.  It cannot happen unless all voices are heard and addressed.  These people should not keep quiet and let their beliefs fester silently.  A person should be heard and spoken to. The protestors raise a point of view that is still held in America.  Though this point of view is hateful it is one that must be discussed to be understood and overcome.  Censorship will not get us to a place of understanding. Let us not forget that pro homosexual protesting was once considered hateful towards our country, in that it promoted a subversive lifestyle.  A belief will eventually die out if it is not helpful towards humanity. 

My classmate Max Babylon understands the reason behind free speech in the following statement he sums the need for the first amendment in regards to Ward Churchill: “If he can't say what he wants, then other prominent figures of today could not voice their opinions on other issues.”  It is quite simple, it is unfair to grant free speech to one individual and not another.  The first amendment ensures that this simple, yet profound rule is upheld in America’s judicial system. 

It is impossible to designate in a court of law a speech as illegal.  To do so would create a grievous slide toward censorship.  To avoid this we must become a civilized society and be willing to listen to one another, try to understand one another, and hopefully accept one another.  Though this acceptance is difficult to do when one party wishes hate and harm upon another, communication is still the only way to begin to overcome such a travesty of humanity. 

Bibliography

Babylon, Max. "Defend Ward Churchill." 23 11 2011. Laulima English 215. 27 11 2011 <https:/https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e>.

Brians, Paul. "The Enlightenment." 18 May 2000. The Enlightenment. 28 11 2011 <http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html>.

Churchill, Ward. "[Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens ." 11 09 2001. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/w_church.htm>.

Founders of America. "CNN." 5 June 2003. CNN. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/amend1ov.htm>.

Michael, Siabatta. "Attack Ward Churchill." 18 11 2011. Ward Churchill & Westboro Baptist Church: Pushing the Boundaries of Free Speech. 28 11 2011 <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210>.