Freedom of speech

[Thomas Anessi]

Dear Seelangers,

I'd like to bring up a fewpoints of comparison about Freedom of the
Press in the U.S. and Russia.

"The Nation", which does describe the Bush admin. as a bunch of
murderers, is available at any New York newsstand. Moreover,
stories from the magazine appear on my Yahoo home page, where I
have requested stories on 'national issues', the sources of which
are chosen by Yahoo gatekeepers.  'Nation' writers and editors
appear on CNN and other television news outlets regularly, though
perhaps not frequently.

If we add the Internet and blogs, the spectrum of opinion in the U.S
 media (including new media) is indeed very broad. The oft bemoaned
'decline' of mass media news coverage here is largely a result of
moves towards making news entertainment and changes in the
structure of the industry. Government's potential role here would
be to increase competition by reigning in the monopolistic
structures responsible, which it has chosen not to do.  Is this
inaction (in the face of anti-trust laws) also a form of government
interference?

My second point of comparison concerns Alina's quite understandable
dislike of the KKK. But I find her suggestion that the ACLU is at
fault for protecting their speech to be problematic.  Most white
power groups, including the KKK, have adapted their message to
avoid running afoul of anti-hate laws.  The dominant paradigm (as I
see it) among these groups is that whites need to organize like
Latinos and other ethnic/racial groups to protect their interests.
If their articles and speech do not explicitly promote violence or
violations of civil rights, what can the government do?  Perhaps it
can ban the organization based on its history.

I think a good analogy here is that of the American Communist Party.
 A key aspect of its core ideology was support for the revolutionary
overthrow of the U.S. government.  It confirmed this through its
support of Communist revolutions around the world, as well as with
its slogans.  Article IV of the Constitution specifically addresses
the government’s right to defend our republican form of government.
Was making the Communist party illegal a good solution in light of
this?

I agree that acts of hate and articles promoting violence should be
prosecutable, but I also believe that they currently are.  Perhaps
it is a distraction to bring the ACLU issue to this forum, but to
me it is a perfect example of how many Americans would rather have
the government take action regardless of the Constitution.  But it
is not the defense of hate speech that raises the ire of most
Americans against the ACLU. It is their annoying habit of defending
atheists against publicly funded celebrations of Christmas.

I believe that Alina's specific concern about hate speech is legally
(and especially morally!) defensible, but I'm not sure I want to
face a good constituional lawyer in court on the issue.
The way the ACLU often finds itself 'in the crosshairs' is
indicative of how hard it is to defend free speech as an abstract
concept.

Best,

Thomas Anessi
Columbia University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------