FD4 Remembering First To Listen

Jessica Suguitan

English 215

FD4

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.  If a person disagrees with their government’s actions the first amendment ensures the right to use all of the previously stated first amendment rights to petition the government for a change. I believe the founders of America knew that the ability, the freedom, and the methods to discuss beliefs with one another would be the foundation of creating a nation that could, would, and should be supported by the people. [THESIS]  The only way for a democracy to function is when the voices of the people can be heard; therefore, regardless of how strongly ignorant, hateful, or subversive a statement may be, a person should have the right to express it. [THESIS]

We have all been there.  A friend, a coworker, or a family member says something so completely against what you believe that it is difficult to take the statement seriously.  If you are a civilized human being you will hear them out and ask questions to ensure that both of you understand what they are saying.  If you are an uncivilized person you will call them insulting 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. 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 of reason, incorporated the beliefs of the Enlightenment into the 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 where the movement is based in New York City, do not support them.  I recently found myself getting into an argument with one of my coworkers about the movement’s right to protest.  Already within this situation the first amendment has been used many times, my coworker was free to express his point of view to me, it allowed for the 99% movement to happen, it allowed me to voice my opinion about the movement to my coworker, and finally in a more public way within the movement.  Participating in the protests allowed me to speak with people who were heavily involved with the OWS movement, giving me first hand knowledge of how the movement behaved.  As a result of all of this I felt that I understood more of what the movement was really about.  I was able to share this experience with my coworker and by listening to what he believed and sharing what I believed we were able to understand a little more of what the movement was about.  This search for truth, understanding, and compromise (what I like to call reality) within our country is made possible with 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; this is the gift of the first amendment.  As a nation and society we often call into question the necessity of this right when we hear a belief that we find offensive.  It is upsetting to find that a person or persons’ opinions are far from your own, it is even more upsetting when that opinion becomes more popular than your own and you find that you must comply with something with which you disagree.  We all want to help shape the world in which we live and when we see that world changing into something we fear it is extremely unsettling.

Our first defense against our fears becoming reality is having discussions within our community and media.  This is why there is such a strong reaction whenever hate speech becomes prevalent.  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” into a search engine. 

My classmate Michael Sabetta states, “we should be thankful and treat it with the profound respect that it so rightly deserves” (Sabetta) in regards to the first amendment.  But giving the first amendment the respect it deserves includes allowing hateful speech, such as the anti-gay sentiments spouted at the funerals of dead Iraqi soldiers by the Westboro Baptist Church. I firmly believe that a society’s search for what is true and right is a constant process.  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, in order for it to be understood and eventually overcome we must discuss it as a community and society. 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.  It is my opinion that a  belief will eventually die out if it is not helpful towards building a better community and creating a more extensive understanding of humanity. 

My classmate Max Babylon understands the accepted reasoning 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.” (Babylon)  It is unfair to grant free speech to one individual and not another.  To grant one individual the right to speak and not another is a power that cannot be entrusted to anyone.  The power of speech is far too great to be regulated and also remain fair and equal. 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.  This is the protection of the first amendment.  However it is not illegal for private companies to impose speech restrictions on their employees.  There are many reasons for this, perhaps the information needs to remain private, maybe the companies desire to have a certain public image, also the reason Ward Churchill was removed from his position as chairmen: the desire to not influence the public in a potentially subversive way because of the company’s (in this case school’s) influence.  There have been at least two journalists who have been fired from their jobs for participating in events relating to the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Both journalists’ participations in the protests became part of some discussions within the media.  The employers of the two journalists claimed that the credibility of the journalists was now questionable, because they could no longer be viewed as objective in the public eye.  This is concerning because more and more institutions that were once public are becoming private.  Not only are these institutions (such as our once public educational system) becoming private, private companies are more and more becoming part of large conglomerates.  It is rational to see the potential of how this could effect the first amendment in a very negative way.  Currently the censorship imposed by companies and institutions has not been challenged in the Supreme Court, however if it were allowed it would create a grievous slide towards not only censorship but also fascism.  

To avoid our society from plummeting into the depths of fascism we must become a civilized society.  In order to do this we should be willing to listen to one another, to try to understand one another, and hopefully accept one another.  The first amendment ensures that the right to free speech will be protected within a court of law.  This is reassuring but in today’s corrupt world the violation of the first amendment by private companies and institutions is becoming accepted.  Hate speech, subversive speech, all of the speech that creates a volcanic atmosphere around the first amendment must be respected and discussed.  Just like how volcanoes create new land, free speech creates new perceptions, and eventually new societies. 

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>.