Notes On Freedom Of Speech
By Prem Panicker
Exclusive to Peace and Freedom
July 26, 2006
News that the Indian
government had blocked various blog sites
in the wake of the
7/11 serial bomb blasts in Mumbai came as a
shock. Our freedoms, including that of lawful speech, were not lightly won – and
for precisely that reason, they cannot be lightly surrendered.
One stated reason for the ban – that a particular blog post had contained
material that could inflame the passions of the followers of Islam – is
disingenuous. If Islamic ire were to be roused by material on blog sites, there
is already enough up there to trigger Armageddon.
The other stated reason – that subversive elements thought to be linked to the
blasts were
communicating through blogs – is ludicrous.
Any intelligence agency worth the word ‘intelligence’ on its brass nameplate
will, on cracking the enemy’s means of communication, instantly do two things:
Throw a celebratory party, and devote enormous resources to monitoring that
channel 24/7. What it will not do is tip the enemy off that it is being
eavesdropped on.
Neither reason advanced for the blog blockade works. No reason used to justify
such acts ever does, because there is no reason compelling enough to take away
from us inalienable right to free speech.
Ironically, in that same week I also found this
story in the Advocate, out of Baton Rouge:
“And FEMA rules make it hard for reporters to talk freely to the few park
residents about life there. During an interview in one trailer, a security guard
knocked on the door, ordered the reporter out and eventually called police,
saying residents aren’t allowed to talk to the media in the park.”
And again: “Rodi (FEMA spokesperson Rachel Rodi) wouldn’t say whether the
actions of the security guards in Morgan City and Davant complied with FEMA
policy, saying the matter was being reviewed. But she confirmed that FEMA does
not allow the media to speak alone to residents in their trailers.
‘If a resident invites the media to the trailer, they have to be escorted by a
FEMA representative who sits in on the interview,’ Rodi said. ‘That’s just a
policy’.”
No it isn’t, Rachel Rodi – flat out unconstitutional is what it is; untenable is
what it is; illegal is what it is.
The dog, though, did not bark at midnight. And I find this lack of concerted
outcry against the FEMA action, in the media and among the public, both sad and
scary.
Sad, because this is the United States – the country that enshrines the right to
free speech in its Constitution; and scary, because the lack of protest is
myopic. Today, FEMA does not want you to know how it is screwing up relief
efforts in Louisiana. Tomorrow, I could be the victim of a disaster natural or
man made and so could you – what if, then, officialdom does not want the word of
how I and you are suffering to get out?
In Freedoms 101, they teach you that freedom comes to you in one of two ways:
Either the government is enlightened enough to realize that it is the foundation
of all progress and grant it of their own volition, or the people are
enlightened enough to know that they will never be complete without it, they
will never be safe and secure without it, and demand it of their governments.
In a bid to snuff out an impending conflagration, Louis XVI of France famously
summoned the Estates General to meet at Versailles. As constituted, it comprised
three branches: 300 members of the nobility, 300 clergy, and 600 Joe Citizens.
Democracy in action, you would think – only, it didn’t work, because there was
no mechanism to act as referee. Years later, long after the Bastille had fallen,
British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke once looked up, from the floor of the House
of Commons, into the gallery housing the press and said, ‘And there sits the
Fourth Estate – the most powerful of them all.’
The media has the power to be the eyes and ears and voice for those of us people
who can not be everywhere, see everything. The media has the power to hold the
government’s feet to the fire, to ensure that it does what it is supposed to –
namely, make your life and mine that little bit better.
There is a line beloved of those who take a narrow, jingoistic approach to
patriotism: ‘My country right or wrong!’
Way back in 1872, Senator Carl Schurz put that bit of intemperate flag-waving in
perspective when he said, ‘My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept
right; and if wrong, to be set right.’
In a speech later that year, Senator Schurz elaborated on that, in a speech that
is even more relevant today: ‘I confidently trust that the American people will
prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous
ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that
deceptive cry of mock patriotism: Our country, right or wrong!
They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the
peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure
only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: Our country—when right to
be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’
That’s the trick, right there. We grow great as people, as a country, when we
have the will to admire, revere, all that is good about our country but more,
when we have the courage to know when it is going wrong, and haul it back onto
the right path by the scruff of its neck.
To know when we are collectively going wrong, so we can apply the corrective, we
need the media to be our eyes and ears, because we cannot be everywhere. Every
act that erodes that function – the blocking of blogs in India, the banning of
reporters in Baton Rouge – ultimately impacts on the wellbeing of us all.
There’s a joke from the Cold War era that tells of this American and Russian who
were discussing freedom. ‘We are free,’ said the American. ‘If I wish to, I can
walk up the steps of the White House and call my President an idiot!’ ‘Big
deal,’ replied the Russian, ‘I too can walk up the steps of the White House and
call your President an idiot!’
Stop laughing for a second and ask yourself this: When did we forfeit the
ability to walk up the steps of the White House and say the President is an
idiot, that FEMA is bungling, that American needs to be put right, kept right?
Indian born Prem Panicker writes fabulous commentary on the Indian cricket
team's outings. His countrymen call his web site on cricket “cricket on
steroids.” He is managing editor
rediff.com and editor of India
Abroad, the New York-based newspaper for the Indian American community.
Editor's Note: At the opening of the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, Carl Schurz
told immigrants from Germany how he expected them to fit into American society.
The term “melting pot” had not yet been coined, but Carl Schurz fully subscribed
to the idea. “ I have always been in favor of a healthy Americanization, but
that does not mean a complete disavowal of our German heritage,” Schurz told the
immigrants. “Our character should take on the best of that which is American,
and combine it with the best of that which is German. By doing this, we can best
serve the American people and their civilization.” Pretty good advice to
immigrants today. JEC
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/