Are we really talking about freedom of speech and expression?

When I was growing up in the Bronx, at a very early age, I learned that what makes this country special is that we honor one’s right to free speech. But I also learned that one could not say what you want to, when you want to, and where you want to.

For example, one could not enter a crowded theater and yell fire. Why? Because it might result in panic and possible serious injury or death to the people in the theater. What if, as a teacher, I taught my students about the need to overthrow the government. Would I be teaching much longer? What if, as a member of the New Black Panther Party, I spoke about the need to arm ourselves as a defense against the racists who are willing to harm us? Would I live much longer?

It was clear that freedom of speech is not meant as an absolute but must be seen in context. Therefore, if one’s speech might result in harm or threat to others, or members of the power structure, one might no longer exercise that right.

Recently, we became aware of a controversy regarding “The Interview,” a film about two Americans who, under the CIA’s direction, plan and execute an assassination of Kim Jung-un, president of North Korea.

Predictably, North Korea did not react well to this film and was subsequently implicated in the hacking into Sony’s (the producer)corporate files and threatening to reveal the corporation’s private files if the film was released. Sony decided to delay the release of the film.

The argument about freedom of speech and expression assumed center stage with most people enraged that Sony would succumb to the alleged threats by the North Koreans. “Who are they to tell us what we can see or hear?”

Films like this, in which heads of state are assassinated, is not a new theme. However, the heads of state and the countries they represent are usually fictitious characterizations. What makes “The Interview” different is the decision of the producers to target a living, presiding head of state of a country with which the U.S. has a hostile relationship and one where we have placed 40,000 troops along it’s border.

Although we honor the notion of freedom of speech and expression, no one supported North Korea’s expression when they supposedly initiated a cyber attack on the company that produced this inciteful and insulting film. FYI, North Korea has consistently denied involvement in this cyber attack on Sony and has the support of many computer nerds.

Now we are hearing the same arguments about freedom of speech and expression in response to the killing of 12 people in the offices of the satirical weekly magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

The publication has, in the past, as well as in current publications, portrayed the Prophet Mohammad as a cartoon character and has shown him in a sexual context. The suspects in this slaughter are two Islamic French citizens, Cherif and his brother, Said, Kouachi who are reported to have said that their actions were actions of vengeance for the publication’s insults to Mohammad. I’m sure we all agree that these two brothers did not have the right to exercise their free speech by killing 12 people no matter how angry and insulted they felt about this publication.

Once again, we have the freedom of speech and expression highlighting our news coverage. People are insisting that, although the publication’s characterizations are insulting, they have a right to express them. The last time Charlie Hebdo published insulting images of Mohammad, there were demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.

The handwriting was on the wall. It was clear that Muslims were enraged and would not respond well to these characterizations just as Christians would not respond well to denigrating images of Jesus.

In November 2011, the Brooklyn Museum was planning on showing a video of the Crucifixion titled, “Fire in My Belly.” in which ants were crawling on the image of the crucified Christ. The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, sent a letter to the museum asking that the video not be shown. The letter included the following statement, “Certainly we don’t think this would be tolerated if this was the image of the Prophet Mohammad or any other religious symbol.”

I am of the old school where freedom of speech includes responsibilities for how this freedom is utilized. If it creates a danger and threat to any individual or group’s safety, you forfeit that right.

We are living in a time when most Western countries suffer from Islamophobia, where all Muslims are potential terrorists and are, therefore, suspect. States have also taken biased actions against Muslims by passing legislation aimed at Muslims. In France, a ban was imposed on the population stating that head scarves and veils worn in public are illegal. Guess who that ruling was targeting.

These cartoons of Mohammad have a context, one that not only insults their God, but one which could inflame further acts against the Muslim population.

In 1977, the American Nazi Party wanted to organize a march through Skokie, Illinois. The community was predominantly Jewish and one of every six people were Holocaust survivors. This march was clearly a provocation which might have resulted in riots, injuries, and deaths. Do we still honor their right to free speech?

Quite honestly, my personal reaction to this planned march was to figure out how I could bring a baseball bat with me and do some damage. Millions of people were killed in WW2 and we are concerned about the right of Nazis to have a forum where they could rub our noses in it?

What if the KKK decided to organize a march in Harlem? Could we not anticipate a riot and threat to human safety? Should their free speech rights trump the rights of the people who live in that community not to have their communities invaded by racists?

I have spent most of my adult life speaking out against organized religion and the continuous as well as historical struggles, conflicts, and deaths that have resulted from this institution. All groups want to be God’s chosen people and the true religion. This has allowed us to dehumanize the others.

As a Jew, I am particularly sensitive to anti-Semitism and support the right of people to pray, not prey, and worship what and how they wish as long as they do not impose their views and rituals on me or use their religious beliefs to justify the degradation of others.

I am also unwilling to accept the notion of a Jewish state (Zionism) whose citizenship is based upon one’s religious affiliation. I am not referring specifically to a Jewish state but to any state that requires specific religious identity for citizenship and human rights.

I wish to make clear that I am not supporting organized religion but am concerned about how we define free speech.

The notion of free speech continues to be unclearly defined. Our Supreme Court has decided that money is speech and corporations are people and, as a result, the wealthy can contribute as much money as they wish to support political candidates. Since they have much more money than the rest of us, their speech appears to be freer than the rest of ours.

What happens to my free speech when I am drowned out by these wealthy contributors and cannot be heard?

What happens to the free speech of political candidates whose views do not support the agenda of the elite and whose voices are eliminated from the discussions and debates that the country will hear?

Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney are prime examples. Both were Democrats whose free speech allowed them to challenge much of the official mutterings inside the political sanctuary of Washington, DC. Kucinich served in Congress from 1997 to 2013 and was one of the more progressive congressmen in the House. In both 2004 and 2008, Kucinich was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

His was a voice that was not popular in the Democratic Party. How did they handle his candidacy? They marginalized him and with the help of the media, no one heard what he envisioned for this country. People often asked who I supported and I would reply, “Dennis Kucinich” and their response would inevitably be, “Dennis who?”

The media aided and abetted by ignoring him. When they listed candidates who attended debates, they would often omit, not only his message, but his name as well.

Then, there’s Cynthia McKinney who, as a Democrat, served six terms in the House of Representatives. In 2008, disenchanted, she left the Democratic Party and became a candidate for president on the Green Party slate. Do I need to explain how she became persona non grata. Very few of us heard her message.

Free speech has little value in the political arena when those in power can ensure that when you speak, no one can hear you. Our so-called democracy is no longer a process of the exchange of ideas, it’s only about how much money a candidate can raise. The more money, the more exposure. The more exposure, the greater the chance of being elected.

What happens to freedom of speech and expression when it goes against the official political agenda? That question was again answered this summer when Professor Steven Salaita expressed his critical views, on Twitter, of Israel and especially its slaughter of the people in Gaza. Professor Salaita had just been hired to teach at the University of Illinois. But because of these views, he was fired before he even began teaching. He had the chutzpah to speak out against Israel’s apartheid policies.

Professor Steven Jones was a physicist, teaching at Brigham Young University. After 9-11, Dr. Jones became involved with the 9-11 Truth Movement. He claimed that mere airplane crashes and fires could not have resulted in so rapid and complete a fall of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 (which was not hit by a plane). Dr. Jones, in researching the 9-11 event found evidence of explosive material in the dust that collected in the lower Manhattan area when the Towers collapsed. In 2006, Dr. Jones was placed on paid leave by the administrators of BYU and, in effect, forced to retire.

The supporters of the film, “The Interview,” and the publication, “Charlie Hebdo,” are referring to free speech as an absolute. But there are many limitations on free speech because of the damage it may do to the public at large as well as the political agenda that permeates our lives and our institutions. We must look at this right in a more comprehensive way and decide where do we want to draw the lines because there are many lines that already exist. Our knee jerk response, claiming free speech, often directs our attention away from more pertinent issues. To look at the above-mentioned events in a narrow free speech context, misses the point. Our Islamic neighbors have been the victims of racism for many decades and, as a people, are seen as terrorists, while the North Koreans are demonized as evil and are under military threat from the U.S.

Could we not anticipate that by pouring fuel on the fire, there would be some level of hostile and angry responses?

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.