Ward Churchill and Free Speech

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights that "expressly prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws...that infringe the freedom of speech" (First 1). Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of cases that have shaped free speech parameters. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., established the "clear and present danger" test, in which spoken words that illustrate a clear and present danger "to bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" are not protected by the First Amendment (First 2). Because of the threat of Communism during the Cold War, in 1940 Congress passed the Smith Act, which "made punishable the advocacy of the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the U.S. by force and violence" (First 2). During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism...Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect" (First 3). While the comments made by University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill may have been insensitive too many Americans and vilely offensive to others, his speech regarding the motives of terrorists responsible for 9/11 are fully protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Related Essays

The FBI's Attacks on the Black Panthers .... the Black Panthers represent what Ward Churchill considers to be .... attempt to thwart freedom of speech and assembly .... ran medical clinics and provided free food to .... (2213 9 )

The Cold War .... world leaders when he refused to allow free elections in .... of East European states, led Winston Churchill to warn in .... program in that country to help ward off the .... (3981 16 )

The European Parliament .... elegant statesman; Boris Yeltsin, the gruff, brave ward healer. .... sister of the oratory of Sir Winston Churchill a third .... II, there has been no war in free Europe .... (8047 32 )

). Yet Hannity and Colmes fail to see that Churchill is merely expressing his belief that actions taken by our own government have been such that they have incited individuals like the 9/11 terrorists to retaliate. He is also expressing the fact that those who support the military-industrial complex, as many who died that day do, can hardly consider themselves innocent when their actions help support the abuses Churchill brings to light. Churchill is not speaking against America or hating the country and its government, nor is he advocating overthrowing the government. If he were, then he might be in violation of the First Amendment protections regarding free speech. However, as Churchill argues, "I am not a 'defender' of the Sept. 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned" (Beaudin 1). Yet some members of Congress have tries to impose moral values against Churchill's right to free speech. One of them is U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Arvada, who maintained of Churchill's speech, "This is way beyond the bounds of moral clarity, of right and wrong, of good and evil" (Beaudin 1). This

Category: Misc - W