Free Speech

Ward Churchill has been fired. Who's that? He is a professor from the University of Colorado who, after the Sep. 11 attack, wrote an essay calling some of the victims of the attack "little Eichmanns", a reference to one of Hitler's officers who orchestrated the Holocaust. Churchill's essay brought outrage and now they've fired him.

Of course, Churchill is firing back. He says that the fact that he is accused of plagiarism and research misconduct is a smoke screen. He says that he was fired for having unpopular views. The real issue here, according to Churchill, is free speech. He believes he has the right to publish his opinions on the university's dime because he has the right to free speech.

This isn't an uncommon claim. If an Internet forum blocks certain inputs, there is the "free speech" cry. If a blogger refuses to publish certain types of comments, there is the "free speech" cry. Then there's this whole "Fairness Doctrine" thing, where some are trying revive the requirement that television and radio outlets provide equal time for opposing viewpoints -- "free speech".

Me, personally? I don't get it. No one has told Churchill, "You are not allowed to think that" or even "you are not allowed to say that." No one is being arrested for speaking their mind on controversial subjects. Bloggers do not have the right or even the capability to prevent someone from speaking out against their perspective. They simply have the right to prevent it from occurring on their blog. And that's the key issue.

Does free speech require that those with opposing viewpoints have the right to mandate that others endure their speech? Does a university have to pay for someone to say whatever they want to say? Do privately-owned businesses like television or radio outlets have a legal obligation -- nay, even a moral obligation -- to pay for people to speak on their programming? If not, does that eliminate free speech?

I don't think so. When certain speech is made illegal, free speech is impinged. When people are arrested for making statements, free speech is impinged. This last April Don Imus was fired by NBC for making racial statements about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. NBC did not deny Don Imus's right to say what he pleased. They simply refused to pay for him to do it on their network. That's the difference.

Too often the rights that we believe we have in this country can be used as hammers to beat people over the head instead of the tools for positive values for which they were intended. Americans have the guaranteed right to say what they want. We call it "free speech", and we enjoy it. We do not have the right to exercise it wherever and whenever we want regardless of who pays for it. That's called "totalitarianism". Mr. Churchill has the right to his views, and he has the right to express them freely. He does not have the right to require that the university support him in doing so. That is not one of the rights protected by our constitution.