Posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:21 PM PST by rw4site
ROBERT Jensen is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, but if a gaggle of irate Texans get their way, he won't be for long. He's one of a handful of academics who are protesting the war in Afghanistan and have been denouncing it loudly at campus rallies. He's gone so far as to call the United States a terrorist nation ("U.S. just as guilty of committing own violent acts," Outlook, Sept. 14) and to opine that our conflict abroad is a "war of lies, the culmination of a decade of U.S. aggression."
As Gregg Easterbrook reported recently in the Wall Street Journal, a letter-writing campaign is calling for the university to fire Jensen. Other campuses are similarly aflame. New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser recently denounced the City College of New York as "a breeding ground for idiots" after several faculty members voiced similar anti-American opinions.
Conservative pundits have pounced on this issue with a vengeance, arguing that while the First Amendment gives professors such as Jensen the right to say what they like, it doesn't shield them from the consequences of saying it.
This is true sometimes but not always. What really matters is whether the consequences are incidental or severe.
Incidental consequences are often unpleasant; the kinds of reactions you can expect when you say something asinine or unpopular in public. People ostracize you, write letters denouncing you, call you an idiot, as Peyser did the New York professors. This is fair play. After all, the critic has a right to free speech as well.
Severe consequences are something else altogether. They include things such as putting a gun to the speaker's head or threatening the speaker's livelihood. Firing professors such as Jensen for things they say at anti-war rallies falls into this category. You can fire a professor because he's a bad or unqualified teacher, but you shouldn't be able to fire him because he expresses unpopular views. Otherwise, the First Amendment would be meaningless. After all, how free can your speech be if your job is in peril if you say the wrong thing?
Yanking advertisements from network television shows should also be unconstitutional. This happened recently to Bill Maher, host of the late-night talk show Politically Incorrect, after he said a few politically incorrect things about the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack.
Why do I believe that rescinding ad revenue constitutes censorship? Don't advertisers have the right to advertise when and where they please?
Because Maher's show depends on advertising money for its survival, the advertisers were not just registering their discontent (they could have done that in a written statement), they were knowingly jeopardizing the show and thereby attempting to silence the speaker by forcing him off the air.
Of course, there is no law that prevents advertisers from revoking their support for shows. But if we are going to remain true to the spirit of the First Amendment, we should pass one.
A show's livelihood should not depend on its purveyance of correct speech, even when we're at war.
Advertisers should be forced, by contract, to commit their advertisements for a specified amount of time, regardless of what happens on a show. Either that or the networks should use a small portion of all advertising revenues for an insurance fund to cover pullouts. Otherwise Madison Avenue is, in effect, playing Big Brother.
Denouncing someone for his views is kosher. But intimidation and coercion -- including the kind of economic coercion that threatens jobs and livelihoods -- are censorship, however you spin it.
Amazing how this is so clear to your here, but escapes your notice elsewhere.
Perhaps we ought to require your precious and beloved pornography industry (you are an award-winning producer or technician of pornographic fims, are you not?) to give equal time to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to break into the film action every four or five minutes with a plea for the souls of the viewers. If they ask for that right and you say "No," that would be a denial of their First Amendment rights according to your standards, would it not?
It reminds me an old Soviet joke from the Radio Yerevan series:
Question:
"Is it true that in Soviet Union we have absolute freedom of the speech?"
Answer:
"Yes, it is true that we have the absolute freedom of the speech, but not AFTER the speech"
Payback is a bitch.
Not amazing that you never bother to read anything carefully enough to know what you're talking about.
I have never advocated anything less than the robust exchange of views as well as the right of a private employer to hire and fire as he wishes. E.g., I have resisted the efforts of gay activists to shut Laura Schlesinger down by boycotts, but never have I suggested they were in the wrong for using boycotts for that purpose.
It is the mush-brained libertarians who cannot draw essential distinctions between message and method, between person and perversion.
Don't blame me for errors that arise in in your mind due to your own faulty eyesight.
We have the right to "chose" where our money should go. Any law such as the one he proposes to prevent advertiser pull out would violate the free speech of everyone. Boycott and protest is the way we ordinary citizens influence the country almost as much as our vote. (Sometimes more)
Not every one has a platform like the author's. He would use his advantage to weaken our small advantage.
The professor is free to think and say anything he damned well pleases. However, he should not be allowed to speak thusly using a tax-payer supported soap box.
If you limit tenure the professors will become as conformist as journalists are. Better is to suffer the wrong speech (including leftist) than to abolish it altogether. The tenure is in place for a good reason and it is one of the key stones protecting the freedom. This institution predates United States and derives from Europe. Do not tinker with it .
I'm sure Nora Vincent would feel the same way about a a UT professor organizing an Aryan Nations rally on campus, where he gives a speech denying the Holocaust. Or if ABC cancelled "Politically Incorrect with Fred Phelps."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.