If there's one thing that this controversy has underlined, it is the lack of understanding of some in the community of the difference between free speech and censorship. In this case, one person expressed an opinion and others analysed and critiqued the content and effect of that opinion on the community. When that happened, some people criticised those who did so, alleging it was "censorship" (as in the following example), as if expressing an opinion about someone else's opinion was somehow contrary to that person's right to free speech and was somehow excluded from being considered free speech itself. Free speech does not mean freedom from having what you say criticised, and at no point was that right suppressed by anyone who expressed an opinion in this affair. That's life. We say things, people agree or disagree, and make their minds up one way or the other. We move on. Nigel Parry
Dear Readers,
In his recent letter, "Spat Upon, Threatened, We Stood for Palestine", Mr. Ali Abunimah proudly writes the following paragraph:
"We explained [to the police] that to allow the JUF [Jewish Unity Fund "Walk for Israel" supporters] to have signs and Israeli flags, while banning us from a public park solely because we were carrying signs which expressed a different opinion was a gross violation of our First Amendment rights."
Mr. Abunimah has lofty principles and passionate ideals for Palestine and the Palestinians, most of which I probably share. One principle I don't share, however, is that First Amendment rights apply only to those whom Mr. Abunimah declares legitimate, including himself and his pro-Israel opponents.
Having been forced to leave the public park for expressing "a different opinion" rightly angered Mr. Abunimah. Anyone who has experienced the outrage of being silenced for speaking or writing his or her opinions learns the value of freedom of speech very quickly.
I am hopeful Mr. Abunimah himself has now learned this lesson. Perhaps in the future it will prevent him from playing the role of Policeman of Correct Ideas next time he dislikes what someone else says and writes.
We can make up our own minds about people and issues. We don't need Mr. Abunimah to blot out, interpret, or protect us from, the words of people we can read and judge for ourselves.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Loewenstein
Dear Readers,
With regard to her comments [above], Jennifer Loewenstein doesn't seem to understand at all the way in which free speech (as guaranteed by the First Amendment, among other principles) actually operates.
Free speech is about the exchange of ideas. One person says something, other people respond and so forth. Criticizing someone else's arguments or rhetoric is an integral part of free political discourse.
One is under no obligation to hand anybody else a carte blanche to be immune from having others take exception to their ideas or the way those ideas are phrased. This is in fact the essence of free political speech--a robust and healthy exchange of opinions.
It is precisely an exchange of opinion that the marchers and the police in Chicago sought to prevent using the authority of the state.
A number of people have woefully misinterpreted our statement of concern about some of the rhetoric of Israel Shamir as an attempt at "censorship," or some sort of violation of free speech. (We would note that both these individuals and Shamir have had no compunction about expressing their disagreement with our views and nor should they.) What a few people seem to be asking for in effect is not a free exchange of opinion but for some people to be immune from criticism, above reproach, and exempt from the normal standards of scrutiny.
We certainly would never expect such immunity for ourselves, and the fact that in responses to our concerns we have been lovingly described as "witch hunters," "Inquisitors," "Stalinists," and employees of the Israeli lobby among other terms of endearment, indicates that no such immunity is forthcoming.
Fine.
The only point to clear up is this apparent, although somewhat mystifying confusion that some people have between disagreement and censorship. In an exchange of free speech, we GET to disagree with Israel Shamir, others GET to disagree with us. People can call us whatever they want to, and we can disagree with that too.
Welcome to the world of free speech, open discourse and the First Amendment. Could anything be more different than the Chicago police threatening to arrest two people peacefully protesting in a public park? To misread the exercise of free speech as the suppression of free speech is to have passed through the looking glass into a backwards world where people who voice their opinions are somehow cast as censors. No amount of whining can make it so.
Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish