As an opinion columnist, I'm accustomed to getting my share of e-mails in response to what I write. Most often, responses are from one Anonymous who, it has to be said, is really all over the issues, in addition to being all over the Internet.
That's why it was a real treat for me when University of Wisconsin professor Carl Grant invited me to discuss one of my articles as a guest at the Multicultural Student Center Wednesday.
The article in question was one I had written in January about the United Nations' international day of commemoration for Holocaust victims. I noted that because the Holocaust is such a sensitive topic, I had to be careful in choosing my words. Our group discussion soon moved from sensitive topics to offensive topics, with the inevitable mention of the Danish cartoons that have caused such a stir worldwide. From there, I found myself in the middle of an animated discussion about freedom of the press.
The MSC students raised a long list of hot questions.
If newspaper and magazine editors have the ultimate say in what gets published, then how do they decide what's appropriate? Does freedom of the press cover the right to publish extremely offensive views? Does publishing an offensive view mean that you condone it? If you publish a controversial piece, are you responsible for the actions of others who read that piece? How powerful are printed words and images? What is the difference between factuality and objectivity?
Ultimately, the true test of your belief in freedom of the press and free speech is your willingness to print or hear views that you disagree with — maybe even views that make your blood boil. In a country where people can SAY anything they want (not DO anything they want), you will always find some people expressing despicable views.
One concern I sensed among the students was that if a well-known, influential newspaper publishes a hateful or derogatory viewpoint, this might in turn incite others into hateful or derogatory action. Some European countries have placed limited restrictions on freedom of speech. In France, for instance, it is actually illegal to express pro-Nazi views. That's France's way of trying to ensure the Holocaust was a one-time deal. Similarly, a British author was just arrested in Austria and sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust.
It's a tough call. I regularly read editorials that I disagree with, and the only action they lead me to is throwing my hands up in disgust. But if you're going to start saying some opinions shouldn't be published, how do you decide which opinions those are? There's a real danger in censorship. Simply the fact that some people find a particular view offensive is not reason enough to silence the person expressing that view. The American system assumes that there are so many competing sources of information — from newspapers and magazines to television, radio and the Internet — that no single objectionable piece could wield that much influence.
The United States has a secular government. Thus, Americans can and do get away with making highly insensitive remarks when it comes to religion. They can also criticize government officials, mock public figures and make any politically incorrect statements they please — all at the risk of knowingly offending an individual or group.
Mark Twain observed: "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
Free speech is more broadly protected in the United States than elsewhere. Slavery ravaged the families of African-Americans, but once slavery ended, the suffering didn't. Lynching and the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African-American families nationwide. Today, there remains a "lost cause" faction that waves the Confederate flag and denies the inhumanity of slavery and segregation.
Two major televangelists commenting on Sept. 11 agreed that God may have allowed the attacks because of moral decay and listed the American Civil Liberties Union, abortionists, feminists, gays and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame.
And while many U.S. newspapers voluntarily refused to publish the inflammatory Danish cartoon, Americans can easily access it online through Wikipedia.
America's melting-pot society strives to be open to people from all walks of life, but it also demands that everyone grow a thick skin.
Cynthia Martens ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in Italian and European studies.
