The Right Only Exists in Community.

Hyorim Kim
24 April 2010
RD4 Draft


The Right Only Exists in Community.

Humans being never live without others because humans are social animals that require close relationships with other people. Therefore, we have constructed communities through various networks. To generate smooth and active communities, we need to have communication with other including expressing and sharing his or her ideas, and understanding each other. In the 20th century, the freedom of speech is considered as one of fundamental human rights as the First Amendment. Although the freedom of speech is a democratic principle that must be protected to the utmost. However, it need to have a certain limitation because the freedom of speech exists within a community. [THESIS] Therefore, the right has a limitation for community’s order and balance, which means under the name of freedom, we are not supposed to misuse our right. [THESIS]

The extent of how much our society allows the freedom of speech is ambiguous and controversial topic. In other word, giving a distinct boundary to the freedom of speech is really hard actually because of liberty. Liberty is a concept that each individual can act in certain way according to his or her own will. Although boundary or limitation and liberty have a antipathy to each other, ironically the freedom in speech must have certain limitations for our community. Especially speeches considered as only one person’s purpose without credibility and harming community must be limited and one who gave such speeches can not be protected under the First Amendment and will have a responsibility what he or she said.



I think when we express our ideas to someone and especially public, the ideas must be based on credibility and responsibility. If his or her speech falls one of these components, it would cause social problem. In 2001 on September 11, terrorists attacked the twin tower of world trade center and a number of people died for no reason. It was very tragic affair in America. While Americans were overwhelmed with grief, a person comment made them angry. Ward Churchill, a former ethic professor at the University of Colorado, have made a comment about victim as “little Eichmann’s,” the Nazi war criminal, it is an ongoing debate whether his speech protected according to the freedom of speech or not. Remington Taum states “Not only does it show Churchill in a bad light later on, but it's a comment that shows Churchill had no respect towards Americans.” I believe that Churchill misused and misunderstood the basic idea of the freedom of speech. As a member of community, he needs to respect others’ feeling. I want to ask him that if one of his family members was a victim of 9/11, would he say what he said before. Definitely not, his comment is just careless and the result of abuse in free speech.

In addition, as a professor, he fell to transmit truth and reality to his students. In 2006 during an argument with David Horowitz, Author of "THE PROFESSORS," Churchill said “The purpose of a professor is to profess, not simply to impart sterile information. You can go to a trade school to get simply the delivery of the technical data.” He defends his comment by the freedom of speech and the purpose of education as well. Information were instituted by professor has to be clear and objective and then how perceive the information is students’ share. However, his personal feeling idea could prevail wrong information and concept to students. Sometime information from an unreliable source could be a rumor and effect on people negatively.

Ward Churchill and his supporters have been insisting that Ward Churchill’s right of free speech has been violated. Edward Lee who defends Ward Churchill states that “His freedom of speech is one of the very foundation in which America was built upon and imposing on his freedom of speech would mean imposing on the constitution” to support Churchill’s right. However, in my opinion, he has been enjoy his right to free speech by the First Amendment. The content of the First Amendment, it is clearly specified that “The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.” Since publicizing his idea about the victims of 9/11, he become even more famous than before. Moreover, he had a number of chances to give his speech about the controversial topic in publics.

The concept of the freedom in speech is different from other freedom in actions. For instance, if government plans to forbidden drinking Coca-Cola, they would shut down Coca-Cola factory legally. In other word, if the United States or his society really does not respect his right of freedom, not only he could not make any speech but also his publications about the controversial topic would be vanished.

WORKS CITED

"Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz." _FoxNews.com_ 7 Apr. 2006. 26 Apr 2010. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html].

Taum Remington. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 19 Apr 2010. Laulima Discussion. 26 Apr 2010.[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f]

Lee Edward."Defend Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 19 Apr 2010. Laulima Discussion 26 Apr 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f]

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html.]