Yes, these 61 lawmakers are United States government representatives. Sad but true.
They all signed a letter that was sent to the University of Wisconsin-Madison urging the University to fire an instructor, Kevin Barrett, who has expressed his views that the September 11th attack was an “inside job” orchestrated by the United States government (full story: Teacher under fire for his Cheney-9/11 theory, CNN.com, 21 July 2006).
In a video link in that CNN story, Barrett says that he’s studied the September 11th situation for two and a half years and it leads him to conclude, among other things, that the three buildings that fell in New York City were brought down by controlled demolitions; a position incompatible with the “official” 9-11 Commission Report.
You don’t have to agree with Barrett’s views to support the right of people to express their opinion. In fact, Noam Chomsky has said (paraphrased) that if we don’t support freedom of speech for people whose views we despise, we don’t support freedom of speech at all. I agree with Chomsky on this point.
In Chapter 12 of Chomsky’s Deterring Democracy, he writes:
…it was not until 1964 that the law of seditious libel was struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court finally protected speech apart from ‘incitement to imminent lawless action.’ Two centuries after the revolution, the Court at last adopted the position that had been advocated in 1776 by Jeremy Bentham, who argued that a free goverment must permit ‘malcontents’ to ‘communicate their sentiments, concert their plans, and practice every mode of opposition short of actual revolt, before the executive power can be legally justified in disturbing them.’
In other words, unless our speech is designed to stir up unlawful conduct in others, we’re free to say whatever we please. And if we were to embrace Bentham’s sentiment, we ought not arrest people merely for planning terrorist activities—we would need to catch them in the act of commiting their crime. Think carefully about that for a moment: planning a crime is not, in itself, a crime!
So where do these 9 State Senators and 52 Assembly Representatives get the idea that it’s consistent with American Constitutional ideology to fire a University instructor for his opinion that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were an inside job? Do they not realize that having someone fired for his/her opinion means that they oppose freedom of speech? How much more anti-American and anti-Constitutional could these 61 lawmakers show themselves to be?
In that same chapter, Chomsky also wrote:
With regard to freedom of expression there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it in favor of Stalinist/Fascist standards.
I completely agree with Chomsky’s evaluation.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Pat Farrell supports keeping Barrett as an instructor. I support Barrett as well. I hope you do, too.
2 responses so far ↓
1 chow-stl // Aug 11, 2006 at 9:39 am
Sorry for the late reply richard, I have been in disposed and not able to apply as much time to blog reading as i have in the past. All speech which does not contribute to the assistance to the enemy is to be protected. although the 911 InsideJobConspiracy nutjobs look silly, it is not inciting violence. But I disagree with your assesment that those who ‘plan’ crimes are not criminally liable. Consider this scenario. Suppose the 911 hijackers plan was discovered on 9/10? Would they not be criminally responsible for their actions only becuase they were stopped before they carried out their plot? I dont think so. One of the oft cited criticism of the goverment is the failure to ‘connect the dots’ with regards to the 911 attacks. Now becuase of heightened ability to ‘connect the dots’ folks are making an argument that because the crime was in the planning stage, it is not in, itself, a criminal act. So in order to arrest and prosicute these criminals, we must allow them to commite mayhem before arrest and prosecution? Imaging the political fallout which would ensue when the goverment admits they knew of the plot but were powerless to stop it until it was actually executed.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Best Regards, CHOW
2 Richard // Aug 12, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Hi, chow. Wow, we certainly disagree about a few things here! :-)
No one can tell in advance whether any particular speech may contribute to the enemy for a couple of reasons:
1. We don’t always know who our enemies are.
2. When we do recognize an enemy, we don’t always know what they may be thinking, ergo, we cannot tell whether our speech may contribute to their plans or not.
It could also come about that if the government desired for a certain subject to be censored, they could just manufacture a group that made itself appear to be an enemy and also to be concerned with that subject and–presto!–instant censorship.
I think the 1969 Supreme Court law that protects all speech except that which causes “incitement to imminent lawless action” is a wise one.
As for criminal liability, to me there is no question: a criminal is one who commits a crime. It is no crime to think about committing a crime, nor even to plan to commit a crime; such actions fall into the realm of ‘consideration’ or even ‘fantasy’ if you will.
What shall we do, chow? Hold people criminally liable for thinking and fantasizing? I say ‘no’.
Also consider that in your proposed scenario, where the 9/11 plans are discovered the day before, that information allows law enforcement to identify which planes are to be hijacked… to staff those planes with a s.w.a.t. team or, even better, to wait until those planes have been fully boarded and then simply keep them on the ground.
There are numerous ways to turn discovered plans into advantages in the interest of safety and security without pretending that ‘thinking’ and ‘fantasizing’ are actions for which people may be justly held criminally liable.
So there! :-)
As for the ‘9/11 was an inside job conspiracy’ folks, guess you’d better update your list and count me in. A comment is no place to explore such a vast subject but if you’ve not already watched it, I strongly recommend watching Loose Change, 2nd Edition.
The breadth and depth of information covered, and the sensibility and soundness with which such information is presented, makes it difficult for any reasonably intelligent, open-minded person to deny that something more than what we were told by mainstream media had occurred.
Leave a Comment