OPINION & EDITORIAL
Free speech a doubled-edged sword
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Allison Nelson:
Related Stories:
- Barrett: Free speech hypocrite (October 24, 2007)
- Whitewashing free speech (February 13, 2002)
- Horowitz visit proves UW's free-speech maturity (December 11, 2001)
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Defining discourse (October 6, 2003)
by Allison Nelson
Friday, September 21, 2007
I believe that the majority of students on this campus, no matter what their political beliefs are, would agree that the First Amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing every citizen of this country freedom of speech, is a fundamental part of what makes the United States a great and unique country. It is also wonderful that the interpretation of the term "speech" has been expanded to include an individual's actions, such as protesting. While it is in their constitutional rights to express their feelings about Halliburton and great that they have gone to great lengths to educate the University of Wisconsin campus about certain things the company has done, the members of the Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) need to realize that there are at least two sides and opinions in every situation. While their demonstration Thursday helped contribute to what makes America great, the fact that they did, or at least intended to, physically block students from accessing the Halliburton table is undemocratic and un-American.
In a democracy, freedom of speech assures that your message will be sent, but not necessarily that your message will be received. The only thing CAN can do is help students make educated decisions. However, by blocking the table they are going too far and trying to make the decision for students. Not allowing someone to make a decision that opposes their own views is not part of the democratic or American ideologies. In fact, it is tyrannical. It takes away an individual's freedom of speech, and that is un-American!
Liberals throughout United States often criticize conservatives for being judgmental of or biased against groups of people who are not white, heterosexual, male or part of the corporate world. Not only is it un-American for protesters to make a decision for the UW campus, it is also hypocritical of liberals and other anti-war supporters to claim it would be unethical for an individual to want to work for Halliburton. Whereas liberals wonder who gave conservatives the right to claim homosexuality is immoral, I am wondering, who gave people the right to claim that working for Halliburton is unethical?
There are still many people on this campus and in this country who believe in this war and in defending the freedoms of American life. Just because they may be in the minority now does not mean they should be stopped from standing up and voicing their beliefs. Living in a democracy and being American means every voice has a chance to be heard.
Allison Nelson
UW junior, political science
awnelson@wisc.edu
Ryan Stibbe (September 21, 2007 @ 10:12am):
Although I am a liberal and I do agree with CAN protesting Halliburton being on our campus, and do agree here with Allison. Freedom of speech entails that everyone has the freedom to express their beliefs and desires in a non-harmful way. If someone's desire is to at the very least learn about Halliburton from the company itself, then they should not be barred from approaching that company wherever its representatives may be, even if they representatives are on a campus where there exists strong feelings about them not being there. Those who were actually blocking the table from those who wished to approach it were being tyrannical.
Allison, although we probably don't agree on most issues, I applaud your Letter to the Editor and I agree with its message completely.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 10:50am):
What a silly thing to write. So we should be agnostic on whether it is immoral to serve troops water with fecal matter in it? If this is the kind of issue you find to be such a Gordian knot of ethics that taking a stand is premature, I'm truly amazed you succeed every day at the stupendously complex task of choosing which socks to wear.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 11:45am):
"There are still many people on this campus and in this country who believe in this war and in defending the freedoms of American life."
People who believe 2+2=5 should not be corrected, because this is America and we can be as dumb as we want.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 11:57am):
Excellent article Allison!
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 1:04pm):
and that freedom to be as dumb as we want doesn't come without a price, biatch.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 3:30pm):
Frankly, not all of us were blocking the table. I was on the staircase holding a sign and those who were at the career fair to network had a rather wide berth around me of approximately 4-5 feet.
I am somewhat ashamed that some of my fellow protesters were actually blocking the table (although I saw most of the blocking was actually done by correspondents of media channels). Voice your opinion, but don't prevent others from voicing their own.
The 'believe in this war' and 'defend the freedoms of American life' bit, though, really makes me wonder if you're bringing a little bit of bias into this article. I would have to say that this war does not defend the freedoms of American life, because I believe this administration does not know what they are, but that is another explanation for another time.
I protested Halliburton's presence because of the fact that it stands out from other profiteers by its recent history of severe ethical problems - distributing feces-contaminated water to soldiers when it could have spent a little extra money drilling in clean areas, destroying food and supplies, and its heinous financial frauds. I am aware that there were other profiteers there - Boeing, Dow, etc. - but which of the others of them has been guilty of abuse to the level that Halliburton has? None. I know Halliburton isn't a partner of KBR anymore. Does that make it any less guilty of what it's already done and make me any more trusting in their ability to be ethically sound in the future? (Reference the NSPE code of ethics!) No.
Not all of us up there were uninformed hippies. I'm a neuroscience major, myself, and some of the things that Halliburton did had to do with topics that have been part of my education so far. Before you start throwing accusations, please do what you exhort so many of us to do and gather the facts.
- one of the protesters
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 5:41pm):
Very good piece, Allison. Freedom of speech doesn't give hecklers the right to silence others' freedom of speech. This very obvious point is lost on a large portion (not all, I might add) of the Campus Antiwar Network -- and certainly lost on anybody who surrounded the Halliburton booth recently to prevent anybody from accessing the information being provided.
It's not a picky First Amendment point, either, to say that the UW Police would have been completely within their rights to escort any protesters from Engineering Hall. The engineering fair is a "limited public forum," meaning that it is taking place on public property which has been set aside for a specific, exclusive purpose: in this case, to allow major corporations to set up tables and give information to potential student employees. For protesters to be inside the building at all, instead of outside on the sidewalk, violates the spirit of the limited public forum.
See United States v. Kokinda (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a local Democratic Party organization could not set up a booth on the sidewalk of a public post office, because the sidewalk was public property set aside for a very specific purpose -- namely, leaving and entering the post office.
Kokinda does not deal specifically with a simple vocal protest, but it certainly indicates that Campus Antiwar Network violated constitutional law when they intruded upon the engineering fair and created an obvious disruption.
At any rate, C.A.N has claimed for itself a "heckler's veto" which is not permissible under the First Amendment. Free speech does not mean the right to shout somebody down or otherwise prevent somebody from communicating their message, as Allison points out. The justice of your cause makes no difference here. Halliburton, no matter how shameless you think they are, has the same First Amendment rights as the Campus Antiwar Network. (And the American Nazi Party has the same rights as the Catholic League.) If representatives from Halliburton marched into the next C.A.N. meeting and began singing songs or chanting pro-war slogans, this would not be permissible either.
It is contemptible that the Madison police were more concerned that the C.A.N. protest began and ended relatively smoothly than with protecting the rights of the Halliburton representatives to present information without harassment. Such coddling is no different than telling Halliburton "These people are here, but that's too bad, and you're on your own." Shame on that kind of mentality. The time will come when the protesters (read: hecklers) of today will want desperately to share their message, against those who would deny them that right. Will they be on their own too?
Eric S.
Anonymous (September 22, 2007 @ 6:29pm):
"Whereas liberals wonder who gave conservatives the right to claim homosexuality is immoral, I am wondering, who gave people the right to claim that working for Halliburton is unethical?"
Yes, of course, once again the stupid conservative has to resort to dragging oppressed minorities, who have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue under discussion, through the mud.
You people never miss a chance to spout bigotry toward gays, no matter what entirely unrelated topic you pretend to be talking about.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
