ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights Of Ward Churchill

[Itsthetruth]

ACLU of Colorado Supports Free Speech Rights of University Professor Ward Churchill

February 7, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Statement of Cathryn Hazouri, Executive Director, ACLU of Colorado

DENVER -- The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution protects University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's right to speak or write his opinions and it protects the rights of his detractors to say they do not like what he wrote or said. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado stands firmly for these rights of free speech.

The ACLU of Colorado calls upon the university Regents, legislators and the Governor to stop threatening Mr. Churchill's job because of the content of his opinions. This governmental interference with the content of Mr. Churchill's constitutionally protected opinions tramples on fundamental American values.

The Regents should take care that the Chancellor's investigation of Mr. Churchill's competence is not a fishing expedition to find something -- anything -- to use as an excuse to fire him. If that happens, their action will be subjected to a high level of scrutiny to determine if it is really a guise to fire him for the content of his writing. As Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech."

Free speech means we may hear something we do not want to hear. However, that does not give anyone the right to stifle dissent, especially on a university campus. After World War I, when the United States was gripped with fear over the first "Red" scare, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes urged Americans to tolerate even opinions "that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." It is understandable that people found Mr. Churchill's comment offensive. His language was harsh and he pointed his finger of blame for the attacks at the U.S. government, not at the zealots who flew the planes.

Death threats, canceling speaking engagements and threats of losing his job are not appropriate responses to Ward Churchill's opinions, even if you believe they are outrageous. Those threats are not expressions of American values. The ACLU of Colorado agrees with Adlai Stevenson, Jr. when he said in 1952, "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17445&c=42

[Moderate Dem]

1. Of course this cockroach has the right to free speech...

Just like Nazis, racists and anti-semites. I just wish so-called "progressives" would stop acting like this nutjob is some kind of hero.

Standing up in a Democratic forum for someone who equates 9/11 victims to Nazis? Wow, d'ya think we'll lose elections for the next 20 years with promo like that?

[KharmaTrain]

3. Agree To Disagree, He Has The Right To Speak

I heard him speak on C-SPAN the other night and saw some of his writings and there's lots of very good material in what he writes. Yes, some is over the top...and his comparison with 9/11 and Nazis has been overblown...especially by the right wingnuts.

A CU trustee member all but shut Paula Zahkneepads down tonight explaining the liabilities in this case and how Churchill's right to speak on public topics is protected. Owens & his cabal are framing this guy, along with the right wing/hate media, to divert attention away from their other scandals and to play martyr.

Churchill's not a member of the Democratic party nor is running for a public office, so I don't see how his statements hurt Democrats. Disagree with the man, but he has the right to speak and if he's shut down, then whose next?

As the CU trustee pointed out...there's another bigger issue here...and that's the relentless attacks by the right wing on our higher education system...attempting to dictate circulums and intimidate teachers. Let them take Churchill down and they've set a precedence to "clean house" at campuses across the country...especially in red states. Now if that's what you want, then support the attacks on this man.

[Moderate Dem]

6. You are absolutely right...

But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

It's not whether we agree with nutjobs or not, it's how mainstream America PERCIEVES us. I've said this before, but how come Michael Moore got all of that horrible press before the election, but Judge Roy Moore, who's is a truly scary whacko, got virtually none? Because we got outplayed, that's why, and stuff like this will guarantee that we get outplayed AGAIN!

Ask yourself this: How come the right wing kooks like Hannity and Rush are almost considered mainstream these days by millions of people, but Susan Sarandon is considered to be an extremist by those very same millions of people?

It's not her fault (although I wish she'd have realized that she was gonna get ambushed), it's because the right wing has outplayed us at EVERY TURN. They make those on the far left out to be traitors, and they menage to make Rush Limbaugh into a cuddly Teddy Bear. THAT'S why we're losing!

We (and especially celebrities, etc. on our side) have to remember this whenever an issue like Churchill comes up the right will somehow find a way to make it look like Churchill's a card-carrying Democrat.

Sorry about the rant, I just feel like this is critically important...

[KharmaTrain]

7. I'm A "Moderate"

...and I believe "mainstream America" (whatever that is) doesn't subscribe or pay heed to the more radical views. Hopefully we have enough educated people in this country to understand the nuances of life and politics.

I've been flamed on this board since I felt gays bit into Rove's DOMA trap...making it a bigger issue than it should have been. That was an image that, while many here rejoiced at the marriages in Frisco and Boston, I knew this was going to be blown up as a major issue...and it was. Now that it's been used, so is the talk about DOMA.

The right wing has gotten very good at demonizing anyone who doesn't drink their kool-aid and a very effective media machine that echos that distortion 24/7 for days on end. Churchill is just the latest piece of meat being thrown into that grinder.

If anything, there are a lot of "moderates" (I still consider myself very much a Progressive) who are getting fed up with the bias of the media and the attacks on our civil liberties. Someone has to take a stand...and I admire Prof. Churchill for doing just that.

I appreciate your rant and in no way am flaming...just as frustrated as you are as to how sad things have gotten in this country and I'm ready to grab the pitchfork and torch and march toward Frankenstein's castle.

[Moderate Dem]

8. I'm glad that we are both seeing this...

I think that if we could find our own "Karl Rove", we might start winning again.

I think that in many ways we make it worse when we nitpick every idea coming from the Administration. It makes us look petty. I would rather we debate and vote our conscience, and save the real artillary for issues that that can make Americans really come down on our side.

For example, I understand the anger about Gonzalez, but I don't think the fight was worth it. He was always going to get confirmed, and frankly, he's such an improvement over John Ashcroft...

I think we'd be better off highlighting Bush cutting veteran's benefits and education, issues that will fire Americans up.

But the main point to me is, we've got to get a Karl Rove of our own. I mean, are our big players THAT stupid to lose this war for America's minds THAT badly?

Again, thanks for allowing yet another rant...

[KharmaTrain]

9. There's Too Much Anger

Yes, I see a lot of mis-directed anger around here. Much of it based on naivety and the still lingering concept that the government can't be all that bad. Being here, they're witnessing it daily and it's easy to get it caught up in things.

I wish there could be more focus and coordination among Democrats...develop the discipline to win elections first and then push for common agendas, not the other way around. Right now if we don't win elections...especially in purple and red states, we're looking at a Veto Proof House & Senate and then our worst nightmares really will come true.

The problem is a lack of common voices...a place to counter the spin and deceptions this regime puts out daily through their network of hate and christian radio station. Liberals, Progressives and others tried to ignore and downplay this media and it's come back to hurt us as their voices have drowned out all kinds of reason and any accomodation between political factions in this country.

Thanks for letting me vent as well. Here's hoping that this regime will so overplay it's hand it collapses on its own hubris...right now without a real Democratic networking, that's the best we can expect.

Cheers!

[EFerrari]

10. Have you read any of his work? It doesn't sound like it. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

11. But I agree with him: On the point that Bill Owens should go fuck himself

That's all I get out of this. The entertainment value of another asshole politician trying to launch a presidential campaign.

[K-W]

13. Ward Churchill's basic views are shared by much of Democratic Underground

So I wonder exactly what you believe.

[Itsthetruth]

15. Your Repeating Right-Wing Lies

"Standing up in a Democratic forum for someone who equates 9/11 victims to Nazis?" That's the political line and propaganda of the right-wingers your repeating.

He isn't doing that. So before you line up with rightists be sure you have your facts right. Don't just except their propaganda out of fear. That's no way to stand up to them. Here's his statement yesterday on the workers who were victims of 9/11 and response to the right-wing Republican charge that he advocates the death by terrorists of millions of Americans.



CNN Transcript
February 9, 2005

WARD CHURCHILL: The people who perform the technical functions that results in the impoverishment, immiseration and ultimately the deaths of millions in order to maximize profit. and I don't believe that there is any reasonable definition by which food service workers, firemen, janitors, children, random passerby fit that definition. And it is clearly articulated. You just read it.


PAULA ZAHN: Well, let me just say this. Tonight, I think you're more clearly laying out what you in your judgment constitute victims on 9/11. Do you think you owe an apology to the families who read the same essay...

PAULA ZAHN: ... I read who thought that you were referring to their loved ones, the waiters in restaurants, the janitors in the building, as somehow being responsible for kind of fueling the military industrial complex?

WARD CHURCHILL: I don't believe I owe them an apology, because I don't believe I included their families, the people you're talking about, in. I think some other people have very conscientiously attempted to put those words in my mouth. And I think it may be that quite a number of people who have been impugning things to me that I didn't actually say could well and truly owe an apology. Media sources that have me calling for the deaths of millions of Americans. Nowhere in there do I do that.

My object is to figure out if we're going to solve this problem, how to go about it. And first thing is to understand the nature of the response. And my thesis basically was that any people subjected to the kind of degradation, devaluation and dehumanization, say the Iraqis, or say the Palestinians, will either respond in kind, or people will respond in their name in kind. And it doesn't matter whether they're Arabs or they're Americans.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/09/pzn.01.h...

[not systems]

23. Go mainstream yourself straight to hell...

what he said was quite clear and you apparently don't
understand it. Or maybe you do and he scares you.

I would rather lose elections than "coalition" with a
person who calls an interesting and clear speaker like
Ward a "cockroach".

[Moderate Dem]

24. Then keep on losing elections then...

I'll stick with Democrats that want to win.

Or is anyone who doesn't think that ANYONE in the towers was necessarily a Nazi not a "real" Democrat now?

As a matter of fact, how do you think a Democratic Presidential candidate would do if he called Churchill an interesting and clear speaker? He wouldn't get 5% of the vote. Is this your "progressive" strategy?

[K-W]

26. Lets run Jeb Bush in 2008!

We'll be sure to win!

You didnt understand Churchill.
The only reason this is even the news is because the right wing is using it as ammo to hurt US.

[Moderate Dem]

28. You don't understand...

My point wasn't even about Churchill. It was about "the right wing is using it as ammo to hurt US", just as you said.

It's all well and good to support everyone's right to free speech, but I think that the more threads about this, the more the right will tie him to Democrats. Can't you see the downside in that?

[K-W]

29. You are playing into the rights' hands.

They didnt pick Churchill randomly. They picked him becaues they knew few people will defend him. He is an easy liberal professor to pick off because people like you will hesitate to defend him for fear of implicating yourself.

We must stand for freedom of speech ESPECIALLY when its something we dont agree with. The right is going to lie viciously about us no matter what we do,shouldnt we at least try to do the right thing?

If we accept that the right gets to define us, weve already lost.

[Moderate Dem]

30. I've been railing about that for months...

That our media guys suck compared to their media guys. Since the election the right doesn't even talk about issues anymore, all they talk about is "the scary liberals are coming, and they're going to force your kids to turn gay!".

Why do we let Hannity and Limbaugh off the hook when they lie? They sure as hell don't let liberals off the hook. Why can't we find people who will convince America that "the scary conservatives are coming, and they're going to control your life"?

As far as Churchill though, I will defend his right to speak, but not enthusiastically, and especially not in a Democratic forum. We're giving the right plenty of ammunition already, and I don't want to give them any more.

[K-W]

31. I personally cant not defend speech.

But I respect your position.

[Moderate Dem]

32. Thanks...

I DO defend his right to free speech, I just don't want to link his name to Democrats in any way, shape or form.

And I respect your position as well.

[not systems]

27. What he said...

was that the WTC housed CIA command and control and
was as legitimate a target as the ones we bomb around
the world.

It did and we do so the death of all the innocent
people in the WTC would be called collateral damage
by our own standards.

In pointing this out he did not endorse the attack
but rather condemned the callous way we dismiss the
deaths of innocents as necessary in our own military
strikes.

This would probable get about 5% of the vote but is
logical and clearly true.

I don't doubt that you are a "real" Democrat but calling him a
"cockroach" for speaking a uncomfortable truth is bullshit.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. That is not what Church stated but how it is twisted

All he was trying to come out with is that this country behind all their ugliness in the world should have been expecting an attack when this country has created so much ugliness in the countries around us.

Though I was filled with sorrow over the lost of such citizens it late in the day that we feel the pain of the world so that we understand the sorrow we spread with wars like the one in Iraq.

We have been the bully so long that many in the world have had it with us not listening to them. I believe now we are listening though * is not acting right towards them even today. I hope we will one day so that we can reflect that we are not the country of monsters that * has made as appear to be.

We are only one country in a much larger world. It may have taken 9/11 to make us realize it unforunately.

:kick:

[G_j]

4. "Churchill rant has some truth"

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,36~155~,00.html

Churchill rant has some truth

By Reggie Rivers

February 04, 2005, Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,36~155~,00.htm...

It's easy to attack University of Colorado professor Ward
Churchill. He went too far in his essay "Some People Push
Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." He made
overstatements, praised the Sept. 11 terrorists as noble
heroes and labeled their victims as criminals who deserved
what they got.

The essay is not a scholarly document. It's not subtle,
reasonable or balanced. In fact, Churchill states in the
addendum that it's more of a "stream-of-consciousness
interpretive reaction to the Sept. 11 counterattack than a
finished topic on the piece." I'd say that's a fair
assessment.

I can only assume that in a true scholarly work, Churchill
wouldn't describe former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright as "a malignant toad" or "Jaba (sic) the Hutt." I
assume that he wouldn't call President Bush the "Scoundrel-
in-Chief," or refer to the FBI as "a carnival of clowns."

But while it's easy to attack Churchill's inflammatory words,
it's harder to deny the core argument of his essay. It is a
critique of U.S. policies around the globe, particularly the
12 years of sanctions in Iraq that former U.N. Assistant
Secretary General Denis Halladay denounced as "a systematic
program ... of deliberate genocide."

..more..

[bloom]

5. Seems like that's the main issue

- people not wanting to face up to the truth about what the US is doing.



And there is the other issue of political speech suppression.

[Pushed To The Left]

12. As much as I dislike

what Churchill had to say, I applaud the ACLU for standing up for his right to say it! Unfortunately, the right-wing talk show hosts will use this as an excuse to smear the ACLU and try to lump them together with Churchill. The great thing about the ACLU (and what the right wing hates about them) is that they are not politicians, so the right wing can't vote them out! No matter how much the right wing smears them, or how many hardcore conservatives there are, the ACLU will continue to survive and defend the Bill of Rights!

[K-W]

14. ignore

im not getting into this again.
but I assure you did not understand his point

[Pushed To The Left]

17. His dismissive attitude towards the 9/11 victims

is what rubbed me the wrong way. He could have made the points that you mentioned in a much more productive way.

[K-W]

18. He wasnt in the slightest bit dismissive.

He just didnt give them priority over dead Iraqi's.

I think Ward Churchill cares more about human suffering that most Americans.

[gatorboy]

16. Geez! Are the Conservative talk show nuts always this slow?

Considering Churchill wrote that essay everyone is in a tizzy over, in 2001. I have to ask, what took so long? Why the sudden fuss? It just goes to show that these guys have run out of things to bitch about. I mean c'mon! They run everything! The Media, the government....there's nothing to whine about....except those professors!!! They're the REAL threat!

[K-W]

19. Because he made comments about it more recently.

Someone big on the right saw it and decided to do some leftist bashing.

[gatorboy]

20. Did he actually make the same comments again?

I was under the impression that someone that saw him speak simply looked up some of his stuff online and found it that way.

[K-W]

21. I'm not certain.

You could be right. Either way someone with power on the right got thier hands on it and decided it was good ammunition.

[gatorboy]

22. Okay it was bugging me a bit.

So I had to look up again if he had actually used the same comments again and this is what I found:

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Feb/20050208News010.asp

The essay, "Some People Push Back," attracted little notice until last month, after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton, a private liberal arts school.

Hamilton Professor Theodore Eismeier said he found the essay on the Internet during what he called "a casual effort to learn more about Churchill."

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Eismeier said he was alarmed by the "outlandish and odious rhetoric" and urged administrators to withdraw Churchill’s invitation. When they did not, he alerted Ian Mandel, the editor of Hamilton’s student newspaper, who published a story about Churchill’s writings Jan. 21.

I'm just still amazed that people are still crying about this like it was a recent incident. If they were so worried about this man, they should dug this up years ago.

[K-W]

25. Its not like he just became a radical.

Its why they cant possibly justify firing him.