Applying the Freedom of Speech

The Harvard Seminar we watched in class this week showed how difficult it can be to apply the freedom speech and determine its limits. In the fictional case, a college student meets with other students in his dorm room to discuss racist, sexist ideas. Even though these ideas are generally frowned upon, all the panel members at the seminar agreed that this student has a right to declare his opinions. As the case continued, we learned that the student’s group, Aryan Truth, wanted to hold a meeting in the school’s auditorium. At this meeting, students began protesting the club and disrupting the meeting. The panel had to decide how to react to this protest. I thought the administrators should let the protestors express their opinions, but I know I only believe this because I disagree with what the club supports. This is what’s hard about applying the freedom of speech; unpopular opinions can’t be prohibited simply because they’re unpopular, but sometimes it seems like one opinion is flat-out wrong. Today racism and sexism are not as tolerated as they have been in the past, so it’s instinctual for a person to declare these ideas as wrong and intolerable. But racism and sexism are still concepts that people believe in, so theoretically they should have the right to express these beliefs. It’s easy to strike down someone else’s opinion as wrong and say that they should not be able to declare their beliefs, but what happens when you’re the one with the unpopular opinion? I have some beliefs about religion that most people would dislike, but I still retain the right to express my opinions. With this topic, I’m in the same situation as the members of Aryan Truth. I know my beliefs are unpopular and go against what most people are taught and believe in, but I still think I should have the right to express these opinions. It’s natural to judge others’ beliefs and clearly distinguish between right and wrong, so it’s extremely difficult to allow every sort of speech to continue. I think fighting words should be protected by the First Amendment because of this. Fighting words are defined as words that cause distress or incite violence. Causing distress just means that someone is offended by the words, and it’s unreasonable to banish all speech that might bother another person. Words themselves don’t incite violence; it’s the decision of the listener whether or not to react in a physical way. The violent responder should be blamed for the violence, not the words being spoken. Even though I think racism and sexism are wrong, I think hate speech should be legal because again, declaring an unpopular opinion illegal is unconstitutional. Who’s to decide which opinions are correct and which are wrong? In order to protect my own speech and ideas, I know I have to accept that people I disagree with have a right to express their opinions as well.

Entry 9

I chose to read Larry Heinemann’s story because he’s a Vietnam veteran and after completing the project about Vietnam I wanted to hear a veteran’s perspective. Larry said, “I went there scared and came back bitter. Everybody knows it was a waste.” This was interesting because the veteran who talked to our class said he thinks the US was right to be fighting in the war, but Larry disagrees and thinks the war was pointless. Larry went on to say the American people and the soldiers didn’t understand why they were fighting, which also differs from what our class speaker said. When I first heard the speaker’s opinion I thought all soldiers might also feel like the war was worth fighting, but Larry’s disapproval showed me that there were different views among the soldiers. Larry even said that he was sorry he didn’t get involved with any antiwar movement. If a soldier who had seen the war in Vietnam first-hand opposed it, then I think there’s a strong case against the war. Usually war veterans are welcomed home by Americans and are proud to have fought, but Larry came out of the war opposing it. This shows how different the Vietnam War was from other wars fought by America. Larry said, “Vietnam veterans took a lot of shit from World War Two people.” Even past veterans didn’t approve of what Vietnam veterans did. Many Americans, including veterans, didn’t believe in the war or the things the US was fighting for. In the textbook it said that this war started an era of cynicism, and it’s easy to understand why, considering how many people didn’t want the Vietnam War to occur. From what I’ve learned about the Vietnam War, I don’t think the US should have entered it, and a veteran makes me more certain of my opinion.
I read Joseph Lattimore’s story because I wanted to learn the views of an African American person because it’s hard to analyze civil rights issues as a white person. Joseph said when he was young, “I didn’t know one white from another.” This was interesting because when we read about the opinions of white people during the civil rights movement, they all saw people of different races as a group, rather than as individuals. Joseph said that it was the same way for him, so everyone tended to generalize and view other people based solely on their race. Joseph reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr. when he said, “Why should I go and fight for something that I don’t have on my own?” MLK also pointed out the irony of the situation in which Americans had to fight for freedom that they couldn’t even enjoy. I disagreed with something else Joseph said, though. He said, “It’s kind of like Jews being made to celebrate Hitler. That’s the way black people have to celebrate slaveowners of our past.” I understand why he might feel some resentment towards slaveowners, but I found this comparison to be untrue and somewhat offensive.

Entry #8

Mike Lefevre, a steelworker, said about his work that, “You’re mass producing things and you never see the end result of it. I worked for a trucker one time. And I got this tiny satisfaction when I loaded a truck. At least I could see the truck depart loaded. In a steel mill, forget it. You don’t see where nothing goes” (319). I understand Mike’s attitude because students often feel that way. They don’t see the point to what they’re doing so they don’t take pride in their schoolwork. When people don’t see their hard work paying off they don’t become motivated. Mike also said, “If you can’t improve yourself, you improve your posterity” (321). Americans have always tried to make life for the next generation better; they want to make a lasting impact for the future. Mike knew that his life would stay difficult, but he could work to improve his children’s lives by sending them to college and building a better future for them. I admired Mike’s honesty when he said, “Hell yes, I want my kid to tell me that he’s not gonna be like me” (327). It’s good that Mike wants his kids to learn from his mistakes and take advantage of their unique opportunities. He truly wants the best for his kids and their futures.
Dolores Dante, a waitress, explained how she started being a waitress to quickly earn money but later she realized that working wasn’t about income; it was about challenging herself. She said, “It would be very dull for me to know I was making so much and no more. I do like challenge. And it isn’t demeaning, not for me” (331). I think most Americans today focus on making money and how big their income is, and they don’t think about enjoying their work. A lot of people have money problems, but I think it would still make people’s lives better if they could enjoy being challenged. Dolores was successful at her job and she was too busy thinking about other people to enjoy it sometimes. She explained, “People would ask for me and I didn’t have enough tables. Some of the girls are standing and don’t have customers. There is resentment. I feel self-conscious. I feel a sense of guilt. It cramps my style” (333). While in the US people feel like they need to be the best and accomplish things, Americans feel bad if they attain this. While their guilt is unfortunate, it shows that Americans are considerate of others and think about others’ feelings. It’s great that in a country teeming with competition people still are compassionate.

Entry #7

It was interesting when Dennis Hart said, “Freedom is the most important thing in your life. We’re facing an enemy today that’s gonna annihilate us unless we retaliate in one way or another. We have to face up to it, Bomb or no Bomb. Otherwise, we’re a bunch of cowards” (238). His attitude is interesting because Hart believed the Soviets were a real threat to American freedom and that the US had to act against them. From the reading we’ve done in class sometimes it seems like the US was overreacting to Soviet communism, but Hart truly believed that the US had to stand against the Soviet Union. He said Americans would be cowards if they didn’t take action against the Soviets, and this might be because the US had just emerged as a major world power and being isolationists wouldn’t show America’s strength. Hart also said, “The white people have to find themselves, they have to keep looking and find out what it is, because if they don’t, the communists can take over this country without a shot being fired” (242). This idea shows that Hart thought Americans had to be sure of their lives or else they would start believing communism would be the answer to the country’s problems. I don’t agree with Hart. Americans historically have defended their country’s liberty and it’s unlikely that they would turn into communists if they haven’t clearly defined their life goals.
Tom Kearny stated something that I think is true. He said, “Of course, everyone resists change, good or bad. Even if it’s good for them, they resist it” (266). Kearny applied this to race relations and said that white and black people needed to learn to get along because it would be easier, but white people still resisted. While Americans want to make progress, many of them still won’t make the changes necessary for it. Today, some Americans won’t change their lifestyles, despite the poor economy. When Lincoln was elected in the 1800s, southern states chose to secede rather than face any possible changes to slavery. On a different note, Kearny said, “The younger generation doesn’t think too highly of us. They think we made a mess of things, which we did” (269). I think today that idea holds true. People who are going to retire in the next few years think the generation before them ruined their retirement because the earlier generation created Social Security, which will most likely fail. The younger generation thinks their predecessors destroyed the environment. Every generation finds fault with the earlier one, but each generation continues to make choices that negatively impact the future.

Entry #6

Ota brought up an interesting point when he said about school in the internment camps, “One of our basic subjects was American history. They talked about freedom all the time” (207). In many instances in American history laws and actions contradict America’s core values. Japanese Americans were imprisoned and unfairly compensated during WWII, black people were enslaved and later didn’t receive equal treatment in society, and people’s anti-war feelings during WWI were silenced. Ota noticed the irony of the situation: a country based on freedom for everyone was unfairly, and without cause, quarantining people of a certain nationality. I understand that many Americans felt the anti-Japanese sentiment because Japan was the country’s brutal enemy in the war, but I can’t grasp how the leaders of the time justified the relocation of American citizens. It’s interesting that the Japanese Americans didn’t resist the relocation or rebel because their Japanese culture encouraged them to be mild-mannered, while the Japanese war tactics were so brutal and unforgiving.
Hutchinson witnessed two Japanese girls leave for internment camps and thought it was confusing, but said, “It must have been okay if President Roosevelt said it was okay” (211). This makes it seem like the government was taking advantage of Americans’ trust because ordinary citizens were too focused on their friends and family fighting in the war to examine the measures taken on the homefront. Some American citizens weren’t even focused on the war going on. Hutchinson said, “It’s like the war hadn’t come to Pasadena until we came there” (216). This reminds me of the war now because many people have family in the war in the Middle East, but so many places in the US aren’t affected by the war on a day-to-day basis. A major war like WWII can occur without disrupting the life of some Americans, so it’s no surprise that Americans didn’t rebel against the internment camps; they simply weren’t affected by any of it.

Entry #5

One quote from Peggy that struck me is when she said, “We were gonna reach the end of the rainbow. When the war ended, the rainbow vanished. Almost immediately we went into Korea. There was no peace, which we were promised” (194). This made me think about how after wars in the US, like the Civil War and WWI, Americans didn’t want to go to war again because of the destruction they’d witnessed, but the country continually goes to war. Peggy mentioned that the US itself and most American citizens came out of the war unharmed because none of the fighting took place on American soil, and this might explain why the government continually opted to enter wars. While Americans knew soldiers who died in the war and the homefront experienced social and economic changes, most Americans didn’t witness the destruction first hand. If Americans didn’t fully understand the atrocities of war, then public opinion wouldn’t change and the government wouldn’t face opposition when deciding to go to war in the future. Or maybe each time the government considers entering a war, the motivation seems more important than earlier wars. Also, Peggy admitted that she was being manipulated into seeing all Japanese people as enemies, and she didn’t even realize it at the time. Because the government can use propaganda to turn Americans against different countries, ultimately the government decides when to go to war and American citizens will have to allow the government to do so.
Sledge reflected on how the soldiers in Japan (both Japanese and American) acted like savages during wartime. They no longer respected life or other humans because they had to desensitize themselves. Sledge showed the contrast between people as citizens and people as soldiers when he described a picture of a Japanese soldier. He said, “Here would be this soldier, sitting in a studio, with a screen behind and a table with a little flower on it. Often he’d be holding a rifle, yet there was always that little vase of flowers” (203). Every country claims its war aims are humane and that its people are benevolent, but all of the soldiers have to act inhumanely in order to fight. It’s a paradox because in order to bring peace there has to be violence and inhumane acts. Sledge even said, “After a while, the veneer of civilization wore pretty thin” (199). He showed that during wartime, people who were once humane lose their humanity in order to win.

Entry #4

The idea of a disconnect between the homefront and soldiers in the war interested me. In the introduction, Terkel wrote, “children on the homefront who knew or did not know what the shouting was all about” (162). This reminded me of the war today in the Middle East because people know there’s conflicts and soldiers in the Middle East, but some of them don’t understand why there are American troops there today or why American troops were sent there in the first place. It seems like during WWII Americans had a better understanding of why America became involved in the war. Maybe this was because of fireside chats, which allowed the president to communicate with Americans, or because the daily life of Americans was greatly impacted by the war. But today people can choose to ignore politics and the daily life of Americans isn’t as affected by the war, so many people don’t think it’s important to understand the war.
One quote from the introduction was about the turning point for America as a country. It says, “In 1945, the United States inherited the earth...at the end of World War II, what was left of Western civilization passed into the American account” (167). While America had been significantly involved in international affairs for thirty years, the end of WWII seems to mark where the US became a world superpower. America had overcome the Great Depression and won wars against Europeans and the Japanese, so it had proved itself to other countries. Until that point, America had been hesitant to immediately enter global conflicts and had been dealing with internal issues. But at the end of WWII America had a powerful army, a recovered economy, and confidence. WWII also marked a change in the government’s role. An admiral said, “World War Two changed everything...Our military runs foreign policy. The State Department has become the lackey of the Pentagon. Before World War Two...the ultimate control was civilian” (169). Something I’ve noticed this year is the progression of the federal government’s role from being relatively insignificant to intervening on every single internal and external conflict. During WWII Americans were happy to let the government take control because the economy was terrible and there was a major war. But now that there isn’t a global war or a severe economic crisis, I wonder if the extensive role of the government is outdated or unnecessary.
Rasmus’s feelings about the use of nuclear bombs on Japan were surprising but understandable. He explained, “We ended halfway across the Pacific. How many of us would have been killed on the mainland if there were no bomb? Someone like me has this specter” (188). To Rasmus, the use of the bombs saved the lives of thousands of soldiers because so many Japanese people and Americans would have been willing to fight and die in the war, so the fighting might never have stopped. But in a book we’re reading for English, a Japanese civilian gave her account of her daughter being killed by one of the bombs, and this made the use of nuclear bombs seem inhumane. Using the bombs was a tradeoff: is it worth it to prevent an infinite number of military casualties and deaths, or is it worth it to preserve the lives of civilians and let thousands more soldiers die?