The Right Only Exists in a Community.

Hyorim Kim
May 14, 2010
FD4

The Right Only Exists in a Community.

Human beings never live without others because humans are social animals that require close relationship with other people. Therefore, we have constructed communities throughout various networks. To generate smooth and active communities, we need to have communication with other including expressing and sharing his or her own 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 Right. Although, the freedom of speech is a democratic principle that must be protected to the utmost, its limitation is necessary 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 the freedom, we are not supposed to misuse our right. [THESIS]


The extent of how much our society allows or limits the freedom of speech is an ambiguous and controversial topic. In other words, 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 limitation and liberty have an antipathy, ironically the freedom of 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. Moreover, one who gave such speeches cannot be protected under the First Amendment Right and will have a responsibility what he or she said.


I think when we express our ideas to someone and especially throughout public, the ideas must be based on credibility and responsibility. If his or her speech falls one of these components, it would cause social problems. 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 a 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, has made a comment about victims 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 his 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 feelings could prevail wrong information and concept to students. Sometime information from an unreliable source could create bad rumors and effect on people negatively.


I remember when my favorite Korean president, 16th South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, died in 2009. He was renowned for the president who lived frugally and honestly. Therefore, president Noh was respected by commoners in Korea. However, when new president was elected and new government came out, some politicians who have animosity toward Noh’ former government brought a bad supposition about Noh’ morality throughout public. The rumor is that Noh was taking huge secret money for personal wealth. He was under investigation by the prosecution. During the investigation, he committed suicide because all media described him as a liar and cheater. He might feel disgrace on himself. After his death, he could be cleared of his false charge. However, the rumor has had irreversible impact on society and his family. Whole country including me mourned together after the loss of a great leader by an undefined rumor. However, people who published the undefined rumor as a reality, such as politicians and journalists, wanted to be protected by the right of free speech.


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.” However, in my opinion, he has been enjoying his right of 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 became even more famous than before. Moreover, he had a number of chances to give his speech about the controversial topic throughout publics.


The concept of the freedom of speech is different from other freedom of actions. For instance, if government planned to forbidden drinking Coca-Cola, the government would shut down Coca-Cola factory legally. In other words, if the United States or his society really did not respect his right of free speech, not only he could not make speech anymore but also his publications about the controversial topic would be vanished on the earth. Since human beings become a member of society, the society gives us various legal authorities, such as the First Amendment which is very thankful gift for us. Ward Churchill must realize that his community provides his right of free speech and if he is not in a community he could not express any his ideas and enjoy interactions with others. He must consider people’s feelings in the same community with him and if he hurts others by his authority, he would be responsible because the right to free speech only exists in a community.

WORKS CITED

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

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]

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]

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



Log of Completed Activities


X Apr. 6t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)


X Apr. 12M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)


X Apr. 16F- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill


X Apr. 21W- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill


L Apr. 26M- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)


X Apr. 30F- RD4 reviews due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)


X May 5W-14F- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)