Words of Power and Civility: Free Speech on Libya, Egypt and Israel, By Louise Annarino, September 13, 2012
As Associate Director of Legal Affairs at Ohio University in Athens,Ohio, I was asked each autumn to speak to the newly-arrived International students regarding American laws, and what they needed to know to avoid legal problems while studying in the United States. I started ,as is my usual practice,with the U.S. Constitution. I then described our judicial structure, the difference between civil and criminal law, and the role of local police, state highway patrol and the FBI. There were 2 areas students were most interested in: traffic laws and 1st Amendment free speech issues.
Freedom of speech was a phenomenally novel concept to many of our students,whose first reaction was to question whether I had misspoken, or they had misunderstood. When I explained we could even burn our flag as show of political protest, several students inevitably leapt to their feet. This seemed beyond the pale to them, as it is for many of us. We discussed how free speech did face limits through reasonable regulations meant to keep the peace;for example,one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. I also explained that it was often a component of active civil disobedience for which dissidents must expect consequences, often a stint in jail. I told them about The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and Ghandi’s peaceful resistance campaign against British occupation of India. I cautioned them to understand that Americans guard free speech, even when the speech is uncomfortable, inane, even hateful. We even have a children’s rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me” as a model for controlling our response to speech with which we disagree, or which is used to “attack” us. Police may intervene only to keep the peace;not to stop speech.
I have been thinking about these afternoons exploring what free speech meant to these students, what impact their new insights into American law and cultural mores would mean once they returned home. This programmed afternoon event led to many on-going friendships with students who would stop by my office to discuss American law and the Bill of Rights in the privacy of my office. We talked about African-Americans knocked off their feet by water hoses, attacked by dogs, clubbed by police as they marched for civil rights and an end to Jim Crow laws. We talked about American anti-war activists. We talked about American terrorists: KKK, Aryan Nation, CCC and other such fanatic fringe groups around the world, and their threat to civilized societies. We developed a common understanding about the dangers such groups posed not simply to life and limb but to free speech,freedom of assembly,freedom of religion, of the press etc.;and, to the very survival of government by the people. For violence breeds contempt for the speech of those who use it to instigate such violence.
I think about these young men today. I wonder what they expect of us;and,what we can expect of them. The theatre we discussed is no longer a crowded building; but, an internet of social media and viral videos. When a hate-monger on one side of the world shouts out hate-speech to arouse and instigate a response, violence on the other side of the world too often erupts. We must be sensitive to the fact that America has been blessed with immigrant influxes,especially along our coasts, which opens American society to cultural differences and reduces tribalism. Countries emerging from tribal structures to begin building democratic republics need our calming influence on such forces;not an aggressive disdain for their struggles. “Chest beating” does nothing to build the good will needed to strengthen the hand of those fighting off the fanatic fringe. A policy of diplomacy and dignity, tolerance and respect for diversity, guidance and support for democratic reform shows President Obama’s power as a statesman. This is not a sign of weakness; but, of strength. Because he is a strong man who knows how to use the power of his office, and his personal power, he does not need to beat his chest.
“Violence as a response to speech has no place,” in society says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
After condemning the attacks and the death of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, “Justice will be done,” says President Obama.
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administrations’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” said the Romney campaign.
Rence Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party tweeted, “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”
Today, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and FOX news continued to lie about President Obama’s response in an effort to undermine his national security accomplishments, and undermine his leadership at home and abroad. Is this the action of patriots? When Americans are being attacked and killed, when we have American troops and diplomats in the field, when we should be decrying ignorant and malicious rhetoric we have a candidates for president and vice-president throwing fuel on the fires burning abroad. They blame not only President Obama but those in diplomatic service whose lives are being licked by the flames.
While diplomatic efforts by Obama and Clinton to assure the world the United States is not waging war on Islam, but on terrorism, Romney goes even further to undermine our diplomacy in the middle east, asserting that Obama is no friend of Israel. He even lied that Obama refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, the two spoke on the phone since they will be addressing the U.N. on different dates: Netanyahu is scheduled to be in NY on the 27th,Obama on the 25th.There are disagreements between them as to strategy; but, not as to the goal of Israel’s security. Netanyahu and Romney are double-teaming our president and his foreign policy. This is no time to play such political games. There is room for disagreement . Within Israel there is disagreement. A Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran “red line”, much as Clinton and Obama have.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister for intelligence and atomic affairs Dan Meridor, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, agree with President Obama’s approach. When Mr. Romney is president he can set America’s foreign policy, but not before that event occurs. Since when does a private citizen,even one running for president, join with the leader of another nation to undermine American foreign policy? Definitely not in the midst of rising unrest near our embassies. President Karzai canceled a trip abroad today fearing the unrest will spread within Afghanistan and against our troops. Should not Romney,Ryan,and Priebus be equally concerned about our troops?
Fact-checkers were busy today assessing Libya/Obama statements of Romney/Ryan/Priebus as untrue. Meanwhile the Neo-cons advising Romney seem eager to push them to continue to lie and create such unrest abroad it could justify their desire to increase military defense spending. Ryan and Romney insist military spending must be increased 20% to keep America safe. They are talking about increasing contracts to corporate arms producers and defense contractors with financial interest in companies such as Mr. Cheney’s Halliburton Corp. They are not talking about veteran’s benefits, which the Ryan/Romney budget cuts. They are not talking about the safety of our troops.
The sad truth is that free speech allows liars to tell untruths about political figures and celebrities because of an exception to defamation charges for public figures. One cannot sue a congressperson by a defamation claim for comments made on the floor of the House or Senate, either. Public and political figures have to defend themselves against lies all the time. We have a notion that “the truth will out”. This might have been true when newspapers,television stations and radio openly and transparently competed with one another;now, one person (or his corporation,think Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes) can own multiple media outlets, even all,within any geographical area. CITIZENS UNITED did away with any transparency requirements which would at least alert us to the names of purveyors of lies. Truth will out is a fantasy. Our town is now the entire world. And media moguls with financial,nee political,agendas rule the town.
Those who have no sacred history of free speech wonder why the U.S. does not simply arrest those hate-mongers and liars who keep throwing fuel on the fires of fanatics. They expect and ask us to arrest, and punish, such persons. While I would love to see them punished, it is not easily done when they can defend their speech as free speech. But, they must face consequences.They must be held accountable…and they will be…if we can discover who they are. Any company supporting such messages of hate, bigotry, and deception should be boycotted, its employees unionized, and its directors removed by shareholder actions. Politicians who join in the game must be denied out votes. We can use speech, our free speech, to see justice done and consequences suffered. We cannot give up our sacred freedoms but we can use them, teach them and spread them throughout this country and the world community.
Words have power, and we must use them wisely, compassionately and forcefully as have our President and Secretary of State. Thank you Mr. President and Secretary Clinton. Thank you citizens of the world, who seek freedom, including free speech for your people. As you build your new democracies,guard it well.
UPDATE/ JUST REPORTED ON RACHEL MADDOWS/9:13 PM:
Attack on Libyan embassy was not a protest but organized attack.4 cars pulled up flying black flags,witnesses say it was response to killing of Libyan AlQuaeda leader by drone attack. As we learn mire we will understand more, and perhaps strengthen our ties with a free Libya and its people.,many of whom were also injured in this attack. It is still imperative that we allow our president and secretary of state to address foreign policy and security issues abroad,and strengthen our ties to emerging democracies and persons of good will. We must hold accountable all those who would weaken and undermine our efforts to seek peace with the nations of the world,despite the difficulties we face.
about the need to protect women and to keep them safe. Thus, we are free to criminalize abortion, even in the case of rape. Consequently, the only person in need of our protection is the fetus; not the mother.
annarino writes 
There is No War on Women,by Louise Annarino,1-25-2014
There is No War on Women,By Louise Annarino
There is no war on women. What we are watching play out is an age-old phenomenon of men who fear women’s sexual expression. Whether it is the Taliban, fundamentalist Muslims-Jews-Christians,or Mike Huckabee, the chastisement and need to control women springs from men’s fear of loss of their own control. I refuse to allow their fear to become my burden. I suggest they learn to handle it all, as I must handle my own fears. Their fear, their loss of control, is not my problem; but, they insist on making it so. I don’t call that a war. I call it fear mongering.
We use the word war too loosely. We enjoy hyperbole because it grabs our attention,holds our imagination, and allows us to believe we are heroes(another word used too loosely)fighting some grand battle. Anyone who has ever experienced war is insulted by this cavalier use of the word. Anyone who have ever acted heroically is appalled by its frequent use in today’s lexicon. As William Tecumseh Sherman who marched on Atlanta destroying all in his wake said in his address to the Michigan Military Academy in June 19, 1879, “You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!” (Battle Creek Enquirer and News,Nov.18,1933). I cannot use the word “war” to describe anything but war. Fear is not war; and, unless we name what is happening correctly, we cannot address the problem we face correctly.
This fear of male loss of control when faced with female sexual expression has biological roots. http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ Men’s brains are structured with less ability to maintain rational thought while in the throes of emotion. Of course they fear women whose brains allow them to cry,laugh,orgasm and think at the same time. Whom should we blame for this? The Hebrews tell a story of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. Most of us have at least heard that story a time or two. There are two elements to that story: obedience to the male deity transferred to obedience to the first male, Adam. Who was to be obedient to these male prototypes? The woman. What do fig leaves have to do with the story? They are used to cover up human sexual expression, and thus control sexual expression which becomes sinful when the woman does not obey the man. That is what is going on today!
The Hebrews were not the first to tell such a story. Earlier cultures and religious traditions acknowledged the power of female sexuality; some accepted it and used it as an avenue to spiritual awakening a la the Vestal Virgins. Others fearfully suppressed it, a la female genital mutilation. We see vestiges of these practices today throughout our world. It is not only Mike Huckabee and Republican men who fear women. Democrats,Libertarians,Independents and a host of other men do, too. The men who do not fear women are able to trust and appreciate women, able to understand the biology of male/female differences without feeling inferior, and able to see diversity as an enriching experience,not one to be feared. There is that word “diversity” which too many of us fear. Such men exist within all political parties and religions.
Although I do not see such fear of women as merely a Republican issue, one must acknowledge that the Republican Party platforms have opposed Affirmative Action,our ONE effort to practice diversity; while the Democratic Party platform has embraced diversity.The Republican Party platform opposes women’s right to birth control and abortion,to freely manage her health needs to freely express her body’s sexuality; while the Democratic Party has embraced a woman’s right to choose how she uses her body sexually and how to protect her health. We cannot ignore that these two party positions are different, even though men are the same biological creatures, dealing with the same fears in both parties.
As a woman,I am not satisfied with the behavior of men in either party. It is not enough to add women to the mix, when the men make all the final decisions, and too often ignore and disparage our female voices. When women’s only strength comes from a separate women’s caucus, whose leaders are the strongest and wisest and most experienced political activists I know, rather than being hired into positions of political power we know we still have a long way to go. We may have “come a long way baby”,finally being allowed to participate in the race; but, the race officials-funders-judges are still men who too often control our political expression. The words men use to describe their view of women is not the problem. Their fear of women’s full and free use of her power is the problem. Huckabee apologists are busy trying to reframe how to control women as if male manners need fixed. Instead, they should focus on facing their own fears and finding their courage in the face of female power and sexuality.
Leave a comment
Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS
Tagged as abortion, birth control, Christians, civil rights, Democratic Party, Democrats, family, female sexuality, feminism, grassroots organizing, health care, Independents, Jews, Libertairans, muslims, politics, religion, republican leadership, Republican Party, Republicans, sex, war on women, women