Chavez Had a Right to Call Bush the Devil

[Elliot D. Cohen]

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.: Chavez Had a Right to Call Bush the Devil - And Pelosi, Rangel and other Dems Should Have Said So

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 09/23/2006 - 6:57am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

In his famous essay, "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill made plain the danger of censoring the opinions of others. "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion," he said, "is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

In our democracy, freedom of speech also means the right of Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups to express their views. The point is not that these groups speak the truth and are therefore entitled to speak openly. Rather, we tolerate the expression of these views because the danger of silencing the opinions of others with whom society or government disagrees means that any view -- no matter how credible -- may end up on the chopping block.

As Mill also recognized, the danger of being cocksure of oneself is that one takes no pains to subject one's views to the court of public opinion. Witness the recent remarks of Donald Rumsfeld in which he likens those who disagree with the Bush administration's stand on the Iraq war to Nazi supporters. And witness the President's own recent accusation that a media that questions his Iraq policy is aiding the terrorists -- and thus by implication is on their side.

In a true democracy, the formidable power of the state should be checked by an almost absolute right of political free speech -- so long, said Mill, as the speech in question does not place anyone in imminent danger.

It is therefore ironic that some of the most ardent opponents of the Bush administration have elected to place themselves on the very side of the government regime they so ardently oppose. I am referring here to Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel.

In addressing the United Nations, Hugo Chavez made no bones about his scorn for the President of the United States when he referred to him as "The Devil." No term of endearment, this gesture of ill-will is likely to prove abundantly less "incendiary" and dangerous than the President's own demonizing denouncement of entire nations as members of "The Axis of Evil." Just how incendiary the President's remark is perceived to be obviously depends on what side of the axis you are on. The point is not that this damning rating of nations such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (and more pointedly, of their leaders) was degrading, provocative, and foolish -- it was all that. The point is rather that ours is supposed to be a nation that embraces freedom of speech, and if a President is entitled to indiscretions without censor, then, lest we face the fact that we live under a totalitarian regime, so too are others so entitled.

About Chavez's remark, Nancy Pelosi stated, "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations"; and Charlie Rangel stated, "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president." He told Chavez that he shouldn't "think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

For such "champions of democracy" to gloss over the distinction between indiscretion and offensiveness, on the one hand, and the right to free speech on the other, is not unlike a President who condemns the media for disagreeing with his war policy. The fact that Chavez's remark came in the form of a personal attack is irrelevant from the perspective of freedom of speech. In a democracy no federal government authority -- Democrat or Republican -- has the right to hold itself out as the arbiter of what etiquette freedom of speech must embrace. In the United States, there are civil courts that exist for such purposes. If Chavez or anyone else who rightfully has the bully pulpit wants to get up in front of a distinguished body of statesmen or a crowd at a rock concert and proclaim the President of the United States a devil, that is surely their prerogative. If the speaker demeans himself or his nation -- as Pelosi said of Chavez -- that is clearly the speaker's problem. It is the nation's problem only if this indiscretion is censored. From Mill's perspective, we are then prevented from "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

To be credible, Democrats like Pelosi and Rangel need to stand firm against a government that likens those who dissent to its policies to Nazis and terrorists. In order to do so, they need to stand firm for freedom of speech. The main issue was not that Chavez was right or wrong; discrete or indiscrete. The important point is that he was exercising free speech -- and they (all of us) should support the right to do so, even if this means recognizing the right of another (even a foreign leader such as Chavez) to call the President of the United States The Devil.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Elliot D. Cohen is a media ethicist and author of many books and articles on the media and other areas of applied ethics. He is the 2006 first-place recipient of the Project Censored Award for his Buzzflash article, Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, and Why Corporate News Censored the Story.

[unhappycamper]

1. Excellent post.

Welcome to DU; I look forward to reading more of your work.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I agree with that, for the most part. But by extension...

just as Chavez had every right to call Bush the devil, so Democratic leaders have every right to say he was wrong in doing so. I think some Democrats went about it the wrong way -- by saying that Chavez should never have said that -- and instead should have repudiated the merit of Chavez's words themselves, not the propriety of his saying them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. The problem with that is it would leave them in the position of

trying to repudiate the merit of Chavez's words - IOW, how do you prove that * is NOT the devil? Evidence his compassion (Karla Faye Tucker, New Orleans)? His pacifism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran)? His generous, giving nature (restricted to the defense industry and top 1% of the population)?

Can YOU prove he's not the devil?

[babylonsister]

3. Thank you for this, Elliot D. Cohen, and welcome to DU!

I too hope you post here more.

[Totallybushed]

5. I'm sort of a

free speech purist. Most certainly I agree with what Chavez said. But how does Pelosi, Rangel et al saying that he shouldn't have said it constitute an interference with, or violation of, his right to free speech? They are simply exercising their own, as they should and must. The right of dissent makes America

[RangerSmith]

7. agreed

and the fact that dubya's dissenters aren't in jail is of note as well.

[Elliot D. Cohen]

8. Beware Dems who support the GOP

You are correct that dissent makes America but there is a
difference between disagreeing with what a person is saying
and disagreeing with their right to say it.  The Dems I cited
appear to have been claiming the latter, not the former. 
Consider Bush's attack on the media and Rumsfeld's
condemnation of those who speak out against Bush's Iraq
policy.  Do Bush and Rumsfeld have the right to make such
accusations?  Maybe, but it is chilling when the government
thinks we should be muzzled.  Such disagreement is idealogical
disagreement; it is about whether or not we should have
freedom of speech in the first place. This is dangerous,
especially coming from those who hold the reigns of
government. If the Dems are going to have a consistent stance
against the totalitarian tendencies of the Bush
administration, then they need to stand firm for free
speech,even if they disagree with the content of what is
freely expressed. Otherwise they risk becoming accomplices to
the GOP--Government that Oppresses People! 

Thanks for your post.

Elliot

[Matilda]

10. Within the UN, which is an international forum,

I can't see that Rangel or anyone else has a right to demand respect for THEIR territory, THEIR
district, THEIR President. No member country of that forum owes any allegiance to the United
States or their elected officials, presidential or otherwise.

That's where I think Pelosi and Rangel were wrong; they claimed jurisdiction over Chavez and his
right to speak his mind as if he were an American citizen. I don't know what the legal definition
of the UN is, but it must surely be a neutral territory, just as embassies are considered to be
part of their native territory, and not part of the country they're situated in.

[Totallybushed]

12. I don't think

disagreeing with Chavez is the same thing as exercising jurisdiction over him. Free speech is for everybody, including Rangel & Pelosi.

Chavez has a right to speak, and to crticize *, and the rest of us have the right to agree or disagree and to criticize Chavez for saying it.

Criticism is the heart of free speech.

[Totallybushed]

11. I respectfully disagree.

Saying that someone "shouldn't have said it" it not saying that they don't have the right to say it. It's saying that perhaps they should have been more discreet. It's saying perhaps that they were stupid and dead wrong. At any event, it's a legitimate expression of their own free speech. Even calling for cesnorship is, unfortunately, a legitimate expression of free speech.

As long as actual governmental power is not used to suppress speech, it is not cenosrship or a violation of free speech.

Which means you can say I wrong, if you want to, but you know I'm right.

[katsy]

6. Excellent!

Thank you and welcome to DU.

[bhikkhu]

9. The master architect of Guantanamo and other soul-extinguishing

prisons we only have rumors of deserves no other name...el diablo is alive and well.

[patriot38]

13. Freedom of speech myth.

"The right of free speech, is not the right of the uncivilized to speak, but the right of the civilized to edify the entire culture." George Washington.