Lady Liberty
Speaking Out
September 1, 2009

How many of you can remember the free speech zones outside the Democrat and Republican National Conventions in 2004? Ostensibly a part of stringent security measures in a post-9/11 world, those who protested war in the Middle East, George W. Bush in general, or anything else in particular were confined to fenced areas well away from those they were protesting. I saw pictures of these free speech zones and was horrified by chain link fences and razor wire; I actually viewed in person one of these so-called zones, and I can tell you first hand that the pictures didn't do justice to the scene.

Along with the First Amendment guarantee that we're able to speak up without reprisals from the government, we're also supposed to be able to protest directly to the government about the government. And by corralling protesters well out of view of the 2004 Democratic Natioal Convention at the Fleet Center in Boston, the very officials that protesters intended to see their protests never saw or heard anything. Later that same year in New York City, the scene of that year's Republican National Convention, things were even less freedom friendly. Numerous reports referenced a "Guantanamo on the Hudson" where protesters were rounded up and held under less than ideal conditions.

"Free speech zones" aren't something created for the advent of the new millenium though they gained popularity among some of the powers that be during that time frame. And although it's true that establishing free speech zones in connection with political events may have received the most news coverage and garnered the most widespread outrage, the fact is that many colleges and universities had adopted policies that confined free speech only to certain areas on campus years ago.

Fortunately, free speech zones provide a physical construct we can all look at and condemn as the need arises. Some colleges have reversed their policies thanks in part to negative publicity and counter demonstrations. The political arena has been slower to recognize that the freedom of political speech means it cannot be shunted aside (protesters at a recent presidential town hall meeting in Montana were kept well away from the meeting site), but free speech zones seem neither as draconian nor as common as they once were.

Far more insideous—and becoming sadly common—is the idea that some speech must be quashed because some people find it troublesome or disagreeable. Barack Obama himself gave a stunningly overt example of this attitude when he suggested that those opposed to health care reform were those who "got us into this mess in the first place," and that they should keep quiet and get out of the way so that he and his cronies could get on with the business at hand. Some politicians, not happy with the reception (read "disagreement") their colleagues received on visits home, have declined to meet with constituents, at least in group settings. And some (Senator Baucus D-MT, for example) are outright lying about what was said or what happened in meetings with constituents when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Radio and television talker Glenn Beck is in the midst of a firestorm over something he said on his show. He suggested that Barack Obama behaves the way he does because he's a racist, and he doesn't like white people. As it happens, I believe Beck has quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to support that statement, and I've been saying the same thing for quite awhile now albeit to a far smaller audience. But even if Beck had no grounds whatsoever for his comment, he was simply expressing an opinion on a show that features—surprise!—opinions. That he said he thought someone else is a racist doesn't make him one, either. Yet he's now being targeted by an advertiser boycott organized by a black political action group which accuses him of being just that. And the use of the "R" word, particularly under the Obama administration (ironic, isn't it?), is one that's rarely taken lightly as long as the fingers are pointed in the right—the white—direction.

Political correctness, of course, remains one-sidedly rampant. Refer to Congress or the President as Nazis (why do so few remember that the Nazis were socialists?), and feelings are wounded and politicians defensive. Yet Nancy Pelosi can refer to people as Nazis or un-American, and that's somehow acceptable. Frankly, although I agree with the former and loathe the latter, they've both got every right to speak their mind. Call somebody a racist because they disagree with Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan, and it must be true; call somebody a racist because they won't criticize a black president, and you risk your life. Don't they both also have the right to say what they think whether somebody else finds their rhetoric offensive or not?

I grant you that free speech has its problems. Freedom of speech means we must endure offensive words or ideas, conspiracy theories, and the propaganda of which the Obama administration is so currently so enamored. We get the truth to be sure, but we also get more than our share of lies. Yet I'm happy to pay that price because the alternative is to control speech. I can't imagine that anyone really wants that. Yet there are those on both sides of any debate who say they happily endorse freedom of speech on a wholesale basis—except when that speech disagrees with whatever it is on their own agenda.

Where free speech zones are involved, the zones usually engendered protests of their own. Those on the left opposed the political free speech zones. I agreed with them in no small part because the entire political process is supposed to be dependent on the free expression of opinions from all comers, not confined to one party line or another. Colleges are supposed to be exchanges of ideas, not suppression of them, but ironically many of those on the left supported those zones and left it to the right end of the political spectrum to argue against them. And in that case, I agreed with the right.

This hypocrisy is sadly not limited to free speech zones. It is, unfortunately, where we stand today. But those on all sides need to remember that to protect our own free speech, we must protect the rights of others with just as much fervor. However distasteful some words might prove to be to any of us, the alternative is unthinkable, and the repercussions unfathomable.