EVERYONE agrees that censorship is bad. Six weeks after the terrorist attacks, everyone agrees that suppression of speech is getting out of hand. But what no one can agree on is whose speech is getting suppressed.
Liberals complain that conservatives intimidate and repress speech by throwing around words like "un-American" and "treason." In turn, conservatives claim that liberals are playing loose with terms like "hate speech" and "racism," thus trying to silence professors who speak out against the terrorists. The reality is that both sides are just exaggerating the threat of censorship for their own political gain.
Liberals point out the plight of Bill Maher, comedian and host of "Politically Incorrect." After dubbing American foreign policy to be "cowardly," many advertisers on his show withdrew their support, and White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer called the remarks "terrible." Many liberals argue that in an atmosphere of intense patriotism, it's more difficult to speak out against the United States without being labeled a traitor.
Similarly, conservatives say that many have been silenced by liberals in the name of tolerance, in particular Charles Fairbanks Jr., the director of Johns Hopkins University's Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. During a panel discussion, he said that he'd "bet a Koran" that the United States wouldn't be able to find Osama bin Laden (http://www.tnr.com/102201/trb102201.htm). Later in the discussion, Fairbanks made several conservative remarks, including one denouncing Palestine. He later apologized but was fired from his position.
While liberals and conservatives tout these as examples of a vast suppression of speech, they show no proof that this is an widespread problem. The fact is that censorship isn't rampant, nor is it being ignored by the media. Chambers is the only conservative to have been fired, and his job has since been reinstated. In the meantime, innumerable conservatives and liberals - much of the country, in fact - have asserted their opinions freely on talk shows, in newspapers and even on college campuses all across the country.
This isn't to downplay situations in which people don't feel free to speak their minds. Intimidation of free speech is wrong, and action should not be taken against anyone who speaks their mind. It's healthy to protest in support to those who have been silenced unjustly.
But both left- and right-wing extremists turn defense of censorship into unwarranted attacks on the other side. If you listen to the all the accusations in the media, you'll eventually come to the conclusion that no onein this country supports free speech anymore.
Peter Beinart, editor of the conservative magazine The New Republic, asserts, "What distinguishes leftists from other Americans, then, isn't their commitment to civil liberties but their lack of commitment to the anti-terrorism efforts with which those civil liberties may conflict" ("Talk Show," Oct. 22).
Those on the left make similarly broad claims about their ideological counterparts. In the liberal magazine The American Prospect, Brendan Nyhan claims that "the ranks of principled defenders of free speech and open debate on the right seem thin" ("The Right's Fight for Free(ish) Speech," Oct. 22).
|
These groups assume that anyone who oppose them is against free speech, and in doing so mistake intimidation for censorship. Yelling "un-American" or "racist" may be coercing someone's speech, but it's not the same thing as suppression. If the United States looks like a haven for censorship, maybe taking a look at Afghanistan will clear things up.
In July, the Taliban eliminated access to the Internet in Afghanistan, with the exception of one connection allowed in the Taliban headquarters. In addition, no computer discs, movies, television or satellite dishes are allowed inside the country.
Afghans only are allowed to sing and listen to certain religious songs and chants that praise and glorify the Taliban. Foreign journalists aren't allowed to interview women, and any reporter must have the permission of the Taliban to enter anyone's home.
If censorship is such a major concern for these liberals and conservatives, why haven't they united to help Afghans? Instead, they've used scattered incidents to paint their opponents as haters of free speech.
For groups on either side of the political spectrum, it's tempting to shout out "censorship." The word immediately puts the opposition on the defensive and makes them cautious about what they say.
This amounts to crying wolf politically. Censorship is something a free society must take very seriously. But we shouldn't tolerate the exploitation of such a term by political extremists.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 3 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 3 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 4 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
