Censorship

Ward Churchill, the self-proclaimed Indian more famous for his comments about the 9/11 attacks than his expertise in Indian oppression, recently made an appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. His visit rekindled the ongoing debate about his views, at least locally. Many who have been offended by his "Some People Push Back" essay have opposed his public appearances, both at UW-Whitewater and Hamilton College, demanding that the invitation for him to speak be revoked. (These opponents succeeded at Hamilton.) Naturally, such demands trigger claims that Churchill is being censored for his views, and that such censorship is a violation of Churchill's freedom of speech.

Does Churchill have a right to hold his own views and express them freely? Absolutely. That's a fundamental right in any free society. The irony of any debate over his freedom of speech is that no one is denying his freedom of speech. The only reason this debate is even raging is that Churchill was free to publish his essay in the first place. If his rights were being challenged, the essay would have been suppressed and he would have been gagged in some way, and there would be no controversy. So freedom of speech is alive and well in the Ward Churchill saga, even though many continue to defend his right to speak his mind.

But those who disagree with Churchill have just as much a right to express their disagreement and even revulsion to his views. That is also freedom of speech. Opinions have consequences, something people in the spotlight often forget. A few years ago, Natalie Mains from the Dixie Chicks expressed a negative view of President Bush at a concert in London. The Chicks are a country band, and country fans, generally speaking, are more conservative, so many listeners were quite put out by Ms. Mains' views. Many radio stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs. At that, the media began portraying Mains as a victim, as a woman denied her freedom of speech. It was ridiculous. She had the freedom to express herself, and did so. But the fans have the right to express themselves, too, and they did so. Freedom of speech does not mean I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have to sit there and quietly listen with no response whatsoever short of total agreement. The choice to express one's views has consequences. It is not a violation of free speech to disagree and express that disagreement. If you don't want to face the possible consequences, then keep your mouth shut.

Now, is it censorship? Many would answer no, on the grounds that the government is not suppressing Churchill. Webster defines the verb "to censor" as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." Nothing in this definition is immediately understood to be restricted to a government. Ted Rall says, "A censor can be an editor, producer or high school principal." The difference between editing and censoring, Rall writes, is motivation. If the motivation for rejecting inclusion of a newspaper article is to conform to physical space restrictions on the page, that's editing. If it is because the article is offensive, that's censorship. This, then, leads one to conclude Hamilton College was censoring Churchill, because they revoked his invitation to speak because they disliked his essay. This line of reasoning leads to some pretty absurd conclusions. With this reasoning, Hamilton would be forced to accept any speaker, so long as they were competent in the areas on which they spoke in some objective way. Are you a violent racist, but able to give reasonable arguments to support your views? Then you have to be allowed to speak from my stage and publish your letters in my newspaper. Otherwise, I would be censoring you.

Rall continues by saying,

The First Amendment was written to protect free expression that causes discomfort, even rage, by the majority. Both the censor and the civil libertarian will probably disagree with Churchill's assessment of American collective guilt, but the true defender of free speech recognizes his own revulsion as further reason to err on the side of open discussion over silence.

But, again, who is being suppressed here? Certainly not Churchill. His essay is getting more readership now than ever. He's been transformed from obscure professor to national figure. The journal that published his essay is now nationally known. It's awfully hard to argue that anyone has suppressed Churchill's views or his expression thereof.

Therefore, going back to the question of whether or not revoking Churchill's invitation to speak is censorship, we must conclude it is not. Churchill's views are not being suppressed in any way whatsoever. The leadership of Hamilton College merely expressed their rights in deciding to not allow him to speak. Furthermore, to respond to Rall's generalization of censorship, we must realize that only a government can suppress. A newspaper cannot, because the newspaper cannot prevent some other publication from publishing a controversial piece. A college administrator cannot for the same reason. A government, on the other hand, can prevent anyone from publishing or publicly speaking.