Amendment 1.1 Censored

Lisa Rodrigues

28 November 2011

RD4

Amendment 1.1 censored

Freedom of speech is our birthright from the moment we Americans are born. Growing, we were encouraged to speak and to speak up. The First Amendment gives us the right to speak freely whatever, whenever and wherever in the United States we want without Government censorship.  [Thesis] However, I believe there should be a censorship placed on unpatriotic statements made such as those made by Ward Churchill.  [Thesis]

As American’s we have so much more freedom than other countries.  However, we take that freedom for granted and do hurtful things to each other.  Ward Churchill was a professor of Ethnic Studies at UC Bolder.  He eventually became Chair of the department in 2002.  On September 12, 2001 the day after the World Trade Center attacks, Churchill wrote a short essay titled “Some People Push Back:  On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”.  This essay has struck many people as unpatriotic.  It suggests the people killed in the twin towers were not innocent citizens.  Citizens’ yes, but they were part of the American greed.  They were at the heart of America’s financial global empire.  The very empire that helped fund the military who in turn genocide the Middle East.  It was this action of the United States that led to the attack on the Twin Towers.  His essay is very ambiguous and has led many to verbally attack him.  His thoughts were an expression of his freedom of speech.  However, he did not take into account the feeling of the families of the victims.  In summary, what he said in his essay was in poor taste.  It is a bad reflection on our Country.  The families were going through a loss, instead of words of condolences, he gave words of hate.  During a time such as 911, we should show solidarity and cohesiveness.  In 2007, Churchill was elected by the board to be fired.  Their claim for firing him was academic misconduct and plagiarism.  Churchill is suing to get his job back claiming he was fired due to the essay and the University violated his freedom of speech.  Mr. Churchill needs to look at his record.  If the University was against his essay, they wouldn’t have promoted him to Chair of Ethnic Studies.  His promotion was given after the essay was published. 

In our society today, television stations censor bad words that are uttered on air, radio stations censor bad words in songs and newspapers have the option to print letters to the editors or not, they also have the capability to edit a news piece before it gets published.  Many people today use Facebook, they have a policy in their safety section “You will not post content that is: hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”  Even with our first amendment, users of Facebook are restricted from posting hateful things.  It’s not necessarily the Government but it still monitors and restricts users.  Personally I think it’s a good policy.  Violation of the policy means removal of your account.  If you can’t be a good sport about, then you shouldn’t be able to participate.  The First Amendment is a good thing.  I believe there is a time and place for us to speak freely like rallies and appealing to law makers.  A mature person knows when to not to speak.  Imagine posting ranting blog or article for everyone to see.  A few years go by and your stance may change, you apply for a job.  The employer does an internet search on you and the article or blog pops up.  The first thing on the employer’s mind would be hiring you may not be such a good thing; I may have problems with this person.  This also applies to promotions, what you say, may affect your ability to advance higher in the company.  Nobody wants a manager that shoots at the hips and has the potential to bring down morale.  So while we are entitled to speak our minds, most of us are mindful of what and how we say it.  Words are the most powerful tool we have.  We can either build up a person or take them down.

In an article written by Linda Campbell, “So What does it do for me?”  she states “51 percent of high school students believing government should vet stories going into the newspaper.”  Vet’s definition is “ to make prior examination and critical appraisal of (a person, document, scheme, etc)”  Her article goes on to say “our nation’s high schools are failing their students when it comes to instilling in them appreciation for the First Amendment.”  Maybe so, but think about this for a moment, we teach our children respect.  If a child is out of line and says something disrespectful to an adult or authority figure, they get punished.  But whatever they’ve said, good or bad falls under the First Amendment.  If we truly instill in children the First Amendment, we will have even more disrespectful children running around expecting we don’t discipline them for their words. These children may eventually be our future leaders.  That would be a horrible thought. 

Sen. Fred Hemmings tried to block Ward Churchill from a speaking engagement at the University of Hawaii.  In the article entitled “UH President McClain upholds the visitor’s freedom to express an unpopular opinion.”  “He said McClain has the freedom and responsibility to deny Mr. Churchill access to the University of Hawaii as a forum for his evil.  Failure to do so will dishonor your institution and maybe even jeopardize funding from the private sector”.  Sen. Hemmings made a valid point.  The private sector may not want to be associated with someone that says unpatriotic things.  Most people try to stay away from conflict as they don’t want their name or company name associated.

I have two children; they are both entitled to use the First Amendment.  However, as long as they live with my husband and I, and we support them, there is no First Amendment for them in our house.  They need to be respectful.  They are not allowed to cuss at us or talk back.  Expressing themselves in a sassy manner will get them punished.  Unbeknownst to us they may do it outside of our home (we wouldn’t know) but they are not allowed to do that in our home.  However, we expect that they don’t do it outside of the house to their teachers and people of authority as that is not the way we raise them. 

Max Bablyon believes “The (sic) first amendment of the constitution gives anyone in this country the freedom of speech.  This is protected by the government but there is also a level of ethics and lines that should not be crossed by a person.  Anytime a person is commenting on innocent lives and people of whom they have no idea who they are, bad words should not be spoken”.    However, Oliver Wong states “Our (sic) freedom of speech is one of the greatest amendments that we have in our country as it allows us to be ourselves rather then censored and by allowing Churchill to voice his opinion, it only shows how blessed we are in our country that we have such a right”.  I disagree with Oliver in the sense that there are censors in place for television, radio and internet. 

The First Amendment is a great concept.  There are people that abuse it and will say and do hurtful things about people, race, religion and country.  The First Amendment doesn’t make it alright for people to do such things.  There should be censorship on what is published whether is besmirches a person and our country. 

Works Cited:

Bablyon, Max – “Attack Churchill (11/18) 5 Dec. 2011

https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e

Campbell, Linda. "So What Does It Do for Me?" Star-Telegram.com 3 Feb. 2005. 2 Dec. 2011 <http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/linda_campbell/10805866.htm?1c>

Facebook, 26 Apr. 2011

2 Dec. 2011 http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Gima, Craig. "Lawmaker Wants Speaker Blocked." Starbulletin.com 19 Feb. 2005. 2 Dec. 2011 <http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/19/news/index3.html>

Vuong, Oliver – “Defend Churchill”  5 Dec. 2011 https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e