CSULB Human Rights Forum – Dr. Craig Smith

CSULB Human Rights Forum – Dr. Craig Smith


[ MUSIC ]>>ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
OUR SPONSORS, IN PARTICULAR HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH, PENN CENTER USA, THE CSUF FOUNDATION, AS WELL AS
MANY CSULB OFFICES AND DIVISIONS THAT HAVE PROVIDED TIME AND
RESOURCES TO MAKE THIS EVENT OVER THE NEXT THREE
DAYS POSSIBLE. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT
THE OUTSTANDING SPEAKERS PARTICIPATING IN THIS EVENT,
AND THE CONVERSATIONS GENERATED OVER THE NEXT THREE DAYS
WILL PROVIDE EACH OF US WITH A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF AND CHALLENGES TO FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS,
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,
AND FREEDOM OF BELIEF. AND BEFORE I INTRODUCE OUR
SPEAKER, I’D LIKE TO REMIND YOU IF YOU DON’T HAVE A PROGRAM
YET, PLEASE PICK ONE UP. IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU KNOW PEOPLE
[INAUDIBLE] ARE INTERESTED, GO AHEAD AND PICK UP ONE
OR TWO FOR THEM AS WELL. AND NOW IT IS MY PLEASURE TO
INTRODUCE DOCTOR CRAIG SMITH, DIRECTOR OF OUR VERY OWN CENTER
FOR FIRST AMENDMENT STUDIES, AND CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF FILM AND ELECTRONIC ARTS. DURING HIS TWENTY
YEARS AT CSULB, DOCTOR SMITH HAS RECEIVED
NUMEROUS HONORS FOR TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE,
INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SPEAKERS ASSOCIATION OUTSTANDING
PROFESSOR AWARD IN 1997, AND THE UNIVERSITY’S OUTSTANDING
PROFESSOR AWARD IN 2000. AUTHOR OF OVER A
DOZEN BOOKS AND MORE THAN FIFTY SCHOLARLY
ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS, DOCTOR SMITH’S RECENT STUDIES ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT
INCLUDE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PARTISAN POLITICS,
SILENCING THE OPPOSITION, GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES OF
SUPPRESSION, THE FOUR FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
AND DANIEL WEBSTER, AN ORATORICAL BIOGRAPHY. IN ADDITION, HIS SCHOLARLY STUDY OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH HAS BEEN
SELECTED AS THE LEAD ARTICLE IN THE PRESTIGIOUS
FREE SPEECH YEARBOOK. DOCTOR SMITH REGULARLY PUBLISHES
EDITORIALS ON THE SUBJECT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
IN THE MIAMI HERALD, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES,
WASHINGTON POST, AND OTHER LEADING NEWSPAPERS. DOCTOR SMITH HAS SERVED AS
A CONSULTANT TO CBS NEWS FOR CONVENTION ELECTION
NIGHT INAUGURAL COVERAGE, HE WAS MUCH IN THE
NEWS RECENTLY. HE’S SERVED AS A
FULL-TIME SPEECH WRITER FOR PRESIDENT GERALD FORD,
AND CHRYSLER CEO LEE IACOCCA, AND HAS ALSO SERVED
AS A CONSULTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH,
AND GOVERNOR PETE WILSON. PRIOR DUTIES INCLUDE AS
WELL SERVING AS DIRECTOR OF SENATE SERVICES FOR
THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE OF THE US SENATE IN ’79-’80,
AND AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN
SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE IN ’81-’82. IN 1983 DOCTOR SMITH
FOUNDED THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOUNDATION, AND REMAINS ITS PRESIDENT
TO THIS DAY. HE TAUGHT AT SAN DIEGO STATE
UNIVERSITY AND AT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, AND THE UNIVERSITY
OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM, BEFORE COMING TO CAL
STATE LONG BEACH. BOY WHAT A CATCH THAT WAS. DOCTOR SMITH HAS SERVED ON
THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION FOR TEACHER CREDENTIALING,
STATEWIDE CSU ACADEMIC SENATE, AND IS NOW SERVING AS A MEMBER
OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. PLEASE JOIN ME IN
PROVIDING A VERY WARM WELCOME TO OUR VERY OWN DOCTOR
CRAIG SMITH.>>TODAY I WANT TO START THE
PANEL, THE FORUM OFF BY LOOKING AT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND ITS
EVOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES, TO GIVE US SOME HISTORIC
BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT’S GOING ON, AND WHY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE PAST. AND IF YOU’VE READ THE
NEWSPAPER IN THE LAST TWO DAYS, WHY IT’S CURRENTLY
BEING CHALLENGED. AND WHILE WE’RE DISCOVERING
THINGS THAT ARE STILL SURFACING FROM THE LAST ADMINISTRATION
CONCERNING CHALLENGES TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I WORKED FOR BUSH
SENIOR, NOT THE LAST BUSH. I WANT TO, VERY CLEAR WHICH
BUSH I WORKED FOR, OKAY? MY STORY BEGINS,
AND DON’T WORRY, IT WON’T TAKE EIGHT
HUNDRED YEARS TO DO IT, BUT MY STORY BEGINS IN 800 AD. THE AMERICAN MODEL OF FREEDOM
OF EXPRESSION IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE EUROPEAN MODEL
THAT WE BROKE AWAY FROM WITH OUR WAR
FOR INDEPENDENCE. THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
IS THE FIRST CONSTITUTION TO PUT FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IN WRITING. THERE HAD BEEN SOME
GUARANTEES GIVEN VERBALLY AND THEN TAKEN BACK
IN OTHER PLACES. BUT WE WERE THE FIRST COUNTRY
TO ACTUALLY PUT IT IN WRITING. AND SO WE HAVE A
VERY DIFFERENT MODEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS
THAN IN THE EUROPEAN TRADITION. AND SO I WANT TO LOOK
AT THAT TRADITION AND THEN MOVE TO OUR AREA. NOW ONE THING THAT’S
KIND OF EASY TO REMEMBER ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
IS THAT IF YOU, YOU KNOW, HOLD YOUR HAND UP,
YOU’VE GOT FIVE FINGERS, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAS FIVE MAJOR CLAUSES. AND YOU CAN BUILD
AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AROUND THOSE CLAUSES. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS
REALLY A COMBINATION OF MANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE SUBMITTED BY THE STATES TO THE CONGRESS,
AND THEN REWRITTEN BY OUR FRIEND JAMES MADISON,
WHO CRAFTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BEGINNING WITH THE
VERY STRONG LANGUAGE, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
ABRIDGING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. SO WHAT ARE THOSE PROVISIONS? FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WHICH
INCLUDES OUR ABILITY TO SPEAK OUT, GIVE OUR OPINIONS,
COMMERCIALLY ADVERTISE, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH,
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WHICH GIVES US THE FREEDOM
TO PRINT ALL THAT STUFF, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, WHICH MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT
ENDORSE OR ESTABLISH A RELIGION, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
FREELY EXERCISE OUR BELIEFS. AND THEN THE FOURTH PROVISION
IS FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. THIS OFTEN GETS OVERLOOKED,
BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GATHER TOGETHER, AND TO
CHOOSE WHO WE GATHER WITH. AND THE LAST IS THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT
FOR GRIEVANCES. AND THIS BECAME VERY
IMPORTANT, THIS IS ANOTHER RIGHT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
THAT SEEMS TO HAVE FALLEN BY THE WAYSIDE, BUT IT WAS
VERY IMPORTANT DURING THE FIGHT OVER SLAVERY. WOMEN’S GROUPS AROUND THIS
COUNTRY REGULARLY PETITIONED CONGRESS, PROTESTING
SLAVERY IN THEIR STATES. AND THE MAN WHO STOOD UP AND READ THOSE PETITIONS
COURAGEOUSLY IN CONGRESS WAS JOHN QUINCY
ADAMS, THE FORMER PRESIDENT WHO HAD BECOME A MEMBER OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
GOT SO MAD AT HIM FOR DOING THIS, THEY
CENSORED HIM. BUT HE CONTINUED TO STAND
UP AND READ THESE PETITIONS FROM THESE WOMEN’S GROUPS
FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY. IT’S AN IMPORTANT PART OF
OUR FIRST AMENDMENT HISTORY. BUT LET’S GO BACK TO
THE EUROPEAN MODEL AND ESTABLISH THAT,
AND THEN MOVE FORWARD TO THE AMERICAN MODEL, AND
LOOK AT HOW IT EVOLVED. A SIGNAL OF THE WEDDING
OF CHURCH AND STATE IN EUROPE OCCURRED IN 1800. IN THAT YEAR CHARLEMAGNE,
WHO HAD HELPED DRIVE SOME OF THE FORCES TOGETHER AND
CREATED THE FRANKISH EMPIRE, AND STARTED A WHOLE NEW
RENAISSANCE AT TOUR IN FRANCE, CAME TO ROME, AND WAS
CROWNED HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR. HE BOWED BEFORE THE POPE, AND
THE POPE PUT THE CROWN ON HIM. AND THAT INDICATED THE
HIERARCHY THAT WOULD EXIST FROM THAT TIME FORWARD UNTIL THE
PROTESTANT REVOLUTION IN EUROPE, THAT THE STATE SERVED THE
CHURCH, AND THAT THE TWO OF THEM COOPERATED TOGETHER. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
DEVELOPMENTS TO OCCUR AFTER THAT WAS IN 1456, WHEN JOHANNES GUTENBERG
INVENTED THE PRINTING PRESS, ACTUALLY MOVABLE TYPE. AND THIS ALLOWED FOR THE
PRINTING OF MANY THINGS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS OF
COURSE THAT GUTENBERG HAD TO DO IMMEDIATELY WAS TO
REPORT EVERYTHING HE WAS GOING TO PUBLISH, AND GET IT APPROVED BY THE ARCHBISHOP
[INAUDIBLE] OF GERMANY. SO HE COULD PRINT CATHOLIC
BIBLES, BUT NOT MUCH ELSE. NOW IF YOU GO TO THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON, DC, THEY HAVE TWO OF THE
GUTENBERG BIBLES. THERE’S A GUTENBERG BIBLE
OVER AT THE HUNTINGTON. AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THEY HAVE
JUST WONDERFUL GIGANTIC PAGES, AND THEY TURN ONE EVERY DAY SO
IT GETS YOU KNOW, EQUAL WEAR, AND I’M SURE SINCE
YOU ALL KNOW LATIN, YOU CAN READ THESE
BIBLES, AND ENJOY THEM. BUT THAT WAS THE MODEL, AGAIN,
WHERE THE PRESS WAS SUBJECT TO PRIOR RESTRAINT
BY THE CHURCH, AND THAT OF COURSE LIMITED
WHAT THESE PEOPLE COULD SAY. 1492, RED LETTER YEAR, RIGHT? COLUMBUS SAILS OFF
FOR AMERICA, FERDINAND AND ISABELLA PUSHED
THE LAST MUSLIM ENCLAVE OUT OF GRENADA IN SPAIN. BUT ALSO, FERDINAND AND ISABELLA
INSTITUTE, RE-INSTITUTE, IT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED BEFORE, BUT THEY RE-INSTITUTED
THE INQUISITION, WHICH FORCED PEOPLE
INTO CHRISTIANITY. THE INQUISITION THEN
SPREAD TO ITALY, WHERE IN FACT IT WAS
MORE STRICTLY ENFORCED THAN EVEN IN SPAIN. AND SO AGAIN, YOU HAD
THIS LOCKDOWN OCCUR ON THE PART OF RELIGION. THERE WAS A BREAKTHROUGH
THOUGH IN 1517. ON HALLOWEEN, ALL HALLOWS EVE, A MONK WHO HAD BECOME A FAMOUS
TEACHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WITTENBERG, TACKED
NINETY FIVE THESES UP ON A CHURCH DOOR THERE, AND
SAID THAT HE WOULD DEBATE ANYONE ON THESE NINETY FIVE THESES. AND THE NINETY FIVE THESES
CHALLENGED THE CHURCH ON MANY OF ITS ABUSES. THAT MAN, YOUNG MAN WAS
NAMED MARTIN LUTHER. AND THE REASON HE TACKED THE
PETITION UP ON HALLOWEEN WAS BECAUSE THE NEXT DAY WAS A HOLY
DAY OF OBLIGATION FOR CATHOLICS. SO AS THEY ARRIVED AT CHURCH,
THEY SAW THIS BIG SCROLL UP THERE, AND HE GOT
THE PUBLICITY HE WANTED. HE ALSO GOT THE PUBLICITY
HE WANTED BECAUSE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. BY THE TIME GUTTENBERG
HAD SOLD HIS PRESS, AND OTHER PEOPLE
HAD DEVELOPED IT, FOR EXAMPLE WILLIAM
TAXTON BROUGHT THE PRESS TO ENGLAND IN 1476. IT HAD NOW SPREAD
THROUGHOUT EUROPE. THERE WERE MAJOR PUBLISHING
HOUSES ALONG THE CANALS IN VENICE. AND ALL OF THESE THAT WERE
INTERESTED IN LUTHER’S SIDE OF THE DEBATE PUBLISHED
HIS NINETY FIVE THESES. SO THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION
THAT OTHERS HAD TRIED TO BRING, MEN LIKE WYCLIFFE AND JOHN
HUSS AND GIODANO BRUNO, AND HAD FAILED, SUCCEEDED
WITH LUTHER, BECAUSE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. AND THAT BECAME NOTED
BY OUR FOUNDERS, THAT WHEN THE PRESS IS FREE,
IDEAS CAN BE EXCHANGED, A FREE MARKETPLACE
CAN BE CREATED, AND EVERYONE FUNCTIONS BETTER. IN 1521, THERE WAS ANOTHER
RUPTURE IN THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM WHEN HENRY THE EIGHTH OF
ENGLAND, FORMERLY NAMED DEFENDER OF THE FAITH BY THE
POPE, BROKE WITH THE POPE BECAUSE THE POPE WOULDN’T
GIVE HIM A DIVORCE, STARTED HIS OWN CHURCH. BUT AGAIN, STILL IN ENGLAND WE
HAD THE SAME MODEL OF CHURCH AND STATE KIND OF
BEING IN BED TOGETHER. NOW DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME
THAT HENRY THE EIGHTH RULED, AND THEN EVENTUALLY HIS
DAUGHTER ELIZABETH BY ANN BOLIN, SUCCEEDED TO THE
THRONE, AND THEN JAMES AND THEN OLIVER CROMWELL,
AND ALL OF THE TURMOIL THAT WAS OCCURRING IN
ENGLAND FORCED PEOPLE TO EMIGRATE TO THE
UNITED STATES. AND ONE OF THE, THEN OF
COURSE NORTH AMERICA, AND IN COMING HERE, DIFFERENT
STATES WERE ESTABLISHED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. AND THAT GAVE US A DIVERSE
BASE AMONG THOSE COLONIES. I MEAN THINK ABOUT IT. MASSACHUSETTS WAS
FOUNDED BY PURITANS. THEY WERE NOT HAPPY
WITH THE ANGLICAN CHURCH BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T THINK
IT HAD PURIFIED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ENOUGH. AND SO WHEN THEY
WERE PERSECUTED, THEY CAME TO MASSACHUSETTS. WHEN OLIVER CROMWELL CAME TO
POWER, AND PUT THE PURITANS IN CHARGE IN ENGLAND,
THE CATHOLICS LEFT, WITH LORD BALTIMORE, AND
THEY CAME TO MARYLAND, AND THEY FOUNDED THEIR COLONY. THE QUAKERS WERE PERSECUTED, AND
THE QUAKERS ARE HEROIC IN ALL OF THIS BECAUSE THEY
TOLERATED EVERY RELIGION. AND SO THEY WENT
TO PENNSYLVANIA, AND THEY FOUNDED
THEIR COLONY THERE. OTHER COLONIES WERE
FOUNDED FOR OTHER REASONS. GEORGIA WAS FOUNDED AS
A PLACE TO PUT CONVICTS, AND BARES THAT REPUTATION
TO THIS DAY. [ LAUGHTER ] VIRGINIA WAS FOUNDED BY
ADVENTURERS WHO WERE TRYING TO MAKE A GO OF THINGS, AND
HOPED TO FIND GOLD THERE UNDER MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT
GREAT GRANDFATHER, JOHN SMITH. SO THE COLONIES WERE ALREADY
DIVERSE BEFORE WE EVEN GOT TO THE TIME OF THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION. AND OF COURSE THE FOUNDERS OF
OUR COUNTRY, THOSE WHO FOUGHT, AND DIED FOR OUR
FREEDOM, WERE PRODUCTS OF ENLIGHTENMENT THINKING. ALMOST ALL OF THEM HAD READ
JOHN LOCKE FOR EXAMPLE. NOW WHY IS JOHN LOCKE IMPORTANT. JOHN LOCKE WROTE THE BILL
OF RIGHTS IN ENGLAND, IN 1689 AFTER THE
GLORIOUS REVOLUTION THAT PUT WILLIAM
AND MARY IN CHARGE. BUT HE ALSO WROTE, IN HIS
EPISTEMOLOGY, HIS PHILOSOPHY OF HOW WE COME TO KNOW THINGS, THAT THE SOUL WAS
A BLANK TABLET. IN SHORT, HE SAID, BECAUSE
THE SOUL IS A BLANK TABLET, WE LEARN OUR EXPERIENCES, AND THUS ALL PEOPLE
ARE CREATED EQUAL. THAT COMES FROM LOCKE. MONTESQUE, VOLTAIRE, OTHERS
ALL INFLUENCED THE FOUNDERS AS THEY PUT TOGETHER
OUR THINKING ON BECOMING INDEPENDENT. NOW ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
MOMENTS IN THIS HISTORY IS WHEN PATRICK HENRY STOOD UP AND GAVE HIS SPEECH PROTESTING
THE STAMP TAX IN 1765, AND ENDED BY SAYING, GIVE
ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH. NOW THE SPEECH ITSELF
SCANDALIZED THE VIRGINIA ASSEMBLY. BUT AGAIN, THE PRINTING
PRESS HELPED OUT. THAT SPEECH WAS PUT OUT IN UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPERS
THROUGHOUT THE COLONIES. AND WHEN IT WAS READ IN BOSTON
OUT LOUD, THEY FORMED THE SONS OF LIBERTY, WITH JOHNNY
TREMAIN AND THE OTHERS, AND THAT THEN LED TO THE BOSTON
TEA PARTY, AND ON WE WENT. NOW ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED TO PRESERVE FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS WAS BECAUSE OF THE ROLE IT HAD
PLAYED IN FOMENTING REVOLUTION, USING PATRICK HENRY’S SPEECH. SO OUR RICH TRADITION
OF REVOLUTION IS PART OF WHY WE HAVE A
FIRST AMENDMENT. BUT OF COURSE YOU KNOW,
IT WASN’T THAT EASY. WE HAD A DECLARATION
OF INDEPENDENCE THAT SAID WE HAD CERTAIN
INALIENABLE RIGHTS, WHICH MEANT THESE WERE THE GOD
GIVEN RIGHTS THAT CAME TO US, OUR NATURAL RIGHTS THAT THE
ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS HAD ENDOWED TO US. BUT WE HAD TO GET THOSE
INTO SOME FORMAL FORM, AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT
DOING THAT. AFTER WE WON THE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WE ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE COLONIES. AS YOU KNOW, THEY SIGNED ONTO WHAT WAS CALLED THE
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. THOSE FELL APART BECAUSE THEY
DIDN’T HAVE ADEQUATE TAXING POWERS AND JURISDICTIONAL
POWERS. THERE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, AND THE CONSTITUTION WAS THEN
PUT OUT FOR RATIFICATION. NOW DURING THE RATIFICATION
DEBATES, AROUND THE COLONIES, TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION,
CRITICISM EMERGED OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE
IT DID NOT CONTAIN A BILL OF RIGHTS. PEOPLE FORGET THAT WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS PASSED, THERE WERE NO AMENDMENTS TO IT. I MEAN YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THEN LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE ADDED. THE FIRST STATE TO
REALLY PUT ITS FOOT DOWN ABOUT THIS WAS
MASSACHUSETTS. MASSACHUSETTS SAID WE’RE
GONNA RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IT’S ON THE CONDITION THAT
ONCE IT’S PASSED, IT BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A BILL OF RIGHTS. VIRGINIA THEN FOLLOWED SUIT,
AND SO WE HAD A PRECEDENT. ONCE THE CONSTITUTION WAS
RATIFIED, THE CONGRESS WAS TO MEET, AND WRITE
A BILL OF RIGHTS. AND THEY PUT JAMES MADISON
IN CHARGE OF THIS PROJECT. WELL MADISON WAS
GETTING NOWHERE, THE CONGRESS WAS DRAGGING
ITS FEET ON A BILL OF RIGHTS. THE FEDERALIST PARTY
ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT A BILL OF RIGHTS WAS UNNECESSARY. THEIR ARGUMENT WAS THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS CONGRESS CAN ONLY MAKE LAWS ABOUT WHAT WE’VE
ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THEREFORE, THEY CAN’T MAKE
LAWS ABOUT OUR RIGHTS, OUR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,
OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THAT’S UP TO THE STATES, AND ALL
THE STATES HAVE BILL OF RIGHTS, SO WHY DO WE NEED IT
IN THE CONSTITUTION. JEFFERSON BEGGED TO DIFFER,
AND THOUGHT THAT WE DID NEED TO GUARANTEE OUR RIGHTS,
BECAUSE HE SAID YOU KNOW WHAT? OVER TIME, THE SUPREME
COURT COULD REINTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, AND
MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE, AND THEN THEY COULD
BEGIN TO WRITE LAWS THAT DID AFFECT OUR RIGHTS. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS
TALKING ABOUT. TWO HUNDRED AMENDMENTS
CAME IN FROM THE STATES. NOW THEY WERE, SOME OF THEM WERE
OVERLAPPING, SOME OF THEM WERE ON THE SAME TOPIC, AND THE
HOUSE THEN CHARGED JAMES MADISON AND HIS COMMITTEE,
A WRITING COMMITTEE, WITH CONSOLIDATING
THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO A BILL OF RIGHTS. MADISON GOT IT DOWN TO
TWENTY SIX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND
SENT IT OVER TO THE SENATE. THE SENATE NARROWED
IT DOWN FURTHER. THEY THEN MET IN
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND CAME UP WITH TWELVE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST TWO WERE REJECTED. THE FIRST ONE CONCERNED, WAS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAID CONGRESS CAN’T GIVE
ITSELF A RAISE IN THAT SESSION. THEY COULD GIVE A RAISE TO
THE NEWLY ELECTED CONGRESS, BUT THEY COULDN’T GIVE
THEMSELVES A RAISE. WELL THE PEOPLE IN
THE STATES THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS JUST HOUSEKEEPING,
AND SO THEY DIDN’T APPROVE IT. THE SECOND ONE WAS
ANOTHER HOUSEKEEPING, THEY DIDN’T APPROVE IT. SO THE THIRD AMENDMENT
BECAME THE FIRST, AND THAT’S WHAT WE KNOW AS THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THIS DAY. BUT ONE OF THE GREAT
IRONIES OF HISTORY WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL FIRST
AMENDMENT THAT MADISON WROTE ABOUT CONGRESS REMUNERATING
ITSELF HAD NO TIME LIMIT FOR RATIFICATION. AND IT WAS RECENTLY RATIFIED, AND IS PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION NOW. SO JAMES MADISON WROTE THE FIRST AND THE LAST AMENDMENTS
OF THE CONSTITUTION. SO YOU LIVE ON, EVEN FROM
YOUR GRAVE, AS YOU GO THROUGH. THE TWELVE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE OUT THERE WERE DEBATED
THROUGHOUT THE COLONIES, AND FINALLY WHEN VIRGINIA
RATIFIED ON DECEMBER 15TH, 1791, WE HAD A BILL OF RIGHTS
IN THE CONSTITUTION. AND FROM THAT TIME FORWARD, EVERYBODY THOUGHT
NOW WE’RE PROTECTED. BUT A SHORT FIVE
YEARS LATER, IN 1796, IN JOHN ADAMS’ ADMINISTRATION,
THINGS BEGAN TO GO AWRY. THERE WERE A NUMBER
OF CAUSES FOR THIS. FIRST, WE GOT OURSELVES INTO
A QUASI-WAR WITH FRANCE. FRANCE HAD BEEN TAKEN
OVER BY THE DIRECTORATE, THE DIRECTORATE WOULD EVENTUALLY
BE TAKEN OVER BY NAPOLEON, AND HOSTILITIES BROKE OUT
OF COURSE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE UNITED
STATES GOT CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. THE FRENCH STARTED COMMANDEERING
AMERICAN SHIPS, AND EVENTUALLY BY 1798 HAD SUNK THREE
HUNDRED AND SIX AMERICAN SHIPS. WE WERE ON THE VERGE OF
WAR, THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY, AND THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROLLED
THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECIDED THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY,
THEY NEEDED TO PULL BACK ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THEY PASSED A NATURALIZATION ACT
THAT SAID IT WOULD TAKE LONGER TO GET CITIZENSHIP, BECAUSE THEY
FELT THAT THE IMMIGRANTS COMING INTO THE COUNTRY WERE SIGNING INTO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN
PARTY AND THEY DIDN’T LIKE THAT. THEY TRIED, THEY PASSED A
LAW THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
COULD KICK ANY IMMIGRANT OUT OF THE COUNTRY, IF HE
DEEMED THAT PERSON A THREAT. THEY SAID THAT NOBODY
COULD NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE LOGAN ACT, WHICH
IS STILL IN EFFECT TO THIS DAY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. THEY SAID THAT SEDITION
WOULD BE A CRIME. SEDITION MEANS CRITICISM
OF THE GOVERNMENT. NOW WHEN THESE LAWS, THESE
VERY CONTROVERSIAL LAWS WHICH CLEARLY RESTRICTED
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WERE BEING DEBATED
IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE HOUSE FIST
FIGHTS BROKE OUT. THERE WAS A STRONG MINORITY
OPPOSED TO PASSING THESE. BUT THEY EVENTUALLY GOT THROUGH
BY THREE VOTES IN THE HOUSE AND A FEW MORE IN THE
SENATE, AND JOHN ADAMS, AND PROFESSOR MCCULLER
[ASSUMED SPELLING] MY APOLOGIES, BUT JOHN ADAMS GLEEFULLY
SIGNED THESE INTO LAW. HE WAS HAPPY TO PUT CARTOONISTS
THAT MADE FUN OF HIM IN JAIL, AND WE ENTERED INTO AN
ERA CALLED THE ALIEN AND SEDITION CRISES,
FROM 1798 TO 1800. A CONGRESSMAN WAS PUT IN JAIL
FOR CRITICIZING FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HE GAVE A CRITICAL
SPEECH OF JOHN ADAMS, AND WAS JAILED FOR IT. HE WON RE-ELECTION
FROM HIS JAIL CELL AND EVENTUALLY WAS RELEASED. EDITORS OF NEWSPAPERS THAT
WERE CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT AND FEDERALIST POLICIES
WERE PUT IN JAIL. IT WAS A SAD TIME THAT
YOU KNOW, JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER WE PUT A BILL OF RIGHTS
IN PLACE, THERE WERE CHALLENGES TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON THE
PART OF THE CONTROLLING PARTY IN POWER IN WASHINGTON, DC. IN THE ELECTION OF 1800
THIS BECAME AN ISSUE, AND THOMAS JEFFERSON
EVENTUALLY WON THAT ELECTION. IT WENT TO THE HOUSE, AND THE
HOUSE FINALLY THREW ITS SUPPORT TO JEFFERSON. AND JEFFERSON, IN HIS
INAUGURAL ADDRESS ON MARCH 4TH, THE INAUGURALS WERE ON MARCH
4TH THROUGH 1933, ON MARCH 4TH, 1801 ANNOUNCED THAT HE
WAS SUSPENDING THE ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, AND THAT
WE WERE ALL REPUBLICANS, AND WE WERE ALL FEDERALISTS
IN ONE COUNTRY, UNITED FOR OUR RIGHTS. AND SO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS WERE RE-ESTABLISHED BY JEFFERSON, AND WE MOVED
FORWARD THROUGH TIME. THAT SET A PRECEDENT
HOWEVER, THAT THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE HOPEFULLY
WOULD REMEMBER, THAT WHEN WE HAVE A
NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS, LIKE A QUASI-WAR WITH
FRANCE, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL THAT OUR RIGHTS MIGHT
BE RESTRICTED. THE NEXT CHALLENGE TO
THE FIRST AMENDMENT CAME UNDER THE PRESIDENCY
OF ANDREW JACKSON. THERE WERE ABOLITIONIST
NEWSPAPERS THAT WERE SENDING THEIR TRACKS,
THEIR NEWSPAPERS INTO THE SOUTH, SAYING THAT SLAVERY
WAS AN AWFUL THING, AND THAT SLAVES SHOULD
BE EMANCIPATED. THIS LED TO RIOTS IN
CERTAIN SOUTHERN TOWNS, AND SOUTHERN STATES ASKED THE
PRESIDENT TO BAR NEWSPAPERS FROM BEING ALLOWED TO BE MAILED
INTO THE SOUTHERN STATES. THE CONGRESS OVERRULED
THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT OVERRULED
THE CONGRESS BY SAYING MY POSTMASTER GENERAL
WILL NOT DELIVER THESE PAPERS INTO THE SOUTH. AND SO WE FACED THAT CRISIS UNTIL ANDREW JACKSON
LEFT THE PRESIDENCY. A LARGER CRISIS OCCURRED
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN OF COURSE,
AGAIN THERE WAS A CRISIS, A CIVIL WAR, AND LINCOLN
SUSPENDED HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE WAR IN CERTAIN PLACES
AND WAR ZONES IN ORDER TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY. LINCOLN’S HIGHEST PRIORITY WAS
TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION, AND SOME PEOPLE FELT THAT HE
TOOK UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN ORDER TO DO IT. THERE WERE TWO CASES THAT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
IN THIS REGARD. THE FIRST CASE WAS HEARD
BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAWNY WITHOUT THE REST OF THE COURT
BEING THERE, THEY REFUSED TO CONVENE TO HEAR THE CASE. THIS WAS THE EX-PARTY
MILLIGAN CASE, AND IN THIS CASE A
MAN HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT
AND HIS POLICIES IN INDIANA. HE HAD BEEN INCARCERATED
UNDER MARTIAL AND BROUGHT, AND HELD IN DETENTION. HE COULD NOT BE RELEASED. HE WAS HELD THROUGHOUT THE WAR
AND THEN EVENTUALLY RELEASED. ANOTHER CASE THEN CAME
UP, A MAN NAMED MERRIMAN OUT OF MARYLAND HAD
BEEN INCARCERATED. THE WAR ENDED BEFORE HIS CASE
REACHED THE SUPREME COURT. SO WE HAD MOVED BACK TO
A PERIOD OF STABILITY WHEN THE COURT ANNOUNCED
ITS DECISION. THE DECISION WAS READ
BY JUSTICE DAVID DAVIS, WHO HAD BEEN A PARTNER
OF LINCOLN’S. AND HE ANNOUNCED IN
MILLIGAN APRIL, 1866. AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
PASSAGE FROM THE SUPREME COURT, PARTICULARLY RELEVANT
IN TODAY’S TIME. DURING THE LATE WICKED
REBELLION, THE TEMPER OF THE TIMES
DID NOT ALLOW THAT CALMNESS IN DELIBERATION AND
DISCUSSION SO NECESSARY TO CORRECT A CONCLUSION OF
PURELY JUDICIAL QUESTIONS. THEN CONSIDERATIONS OF SAFETY
WERE MINGLED WITH THE EXERCISE OF POWER, AND FEELINGS
AND INTERESTS PREVAILED, WHICH ARE HAPPILY TERMINATED. NOW THAT THE PUBLIC’S SAFETY
IS ASSURED, THIS QUESTION, AS WELL AS ALL OTHERS, CAN
BE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED WITHOUT PASSION, OR THE MIXTURE
OF ANY ELEMENT NOT REQUIRED TO FORM A LEGAL JUDGMENT. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IS A LOW FOR RULERS AND PEOPLE, EQUALLY IN WAR AND
IN PEACE, AND COVERS THE SHIELD OF ITS PROTECTION ALL
CLASSES OF MEN AT ALL TIMES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. ONE OF THE PLAINEST
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WAS INFRINGED WHEN MILLIGAN WAS
TRIED BY A COURT, NOT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS,
AND NOT COMPOSED OF JUDGES. ANOTHER GUARANTEE OF
FREEDOM WAS BROKEN WHEN MILLIGAN WAS
DENIED A TRIAL BY JURY. MARTIAL LAW CANNOT ARISE
FROM A THREATENED INVASION. THE NECESSITY MUST BE ACTUAL
AND PRESENT, THE INVASION REAL. IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SEE HOW THE SAFETY OF THE COUNTRY REQUIRED
MARTIAL LAW IN INDIANA. MARTIAL LAW CAN NEVER EXIST
WHERE THE COURTS ARE OPEN, AND IN THE PROPER AND
UNOBSTRUCTED EXERCISE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. NOW THAT RULING BY JUSTICE
DAVIS AND THE SUPREME COURT IS IN EFFECT TO THIS DAY,
SO THAT THE PRESIDENT, WHEN HE SUSPENDS HABEAS
CORPUS, MUST JUSTIFY IT. A CLOSE READING OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS CRUCIAL HERE, AND JUSTICE DAVIS GAVE
IT A CLOSE READING. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT
THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE CONSTITUTION
EXTEND TO EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ANY
PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A
CITIZEN TO GET OUR RIGHTS IF YOU’RE ON OUR SOIL. SO IF YOU’RE NOT ON OUR SOIL,
AND YOU’RE NOT A CITIZEN, THEN THEY CAN GET YOU, AND
WE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. SO THE CRISIS DURING THE
CIVIL WAR WAS OVERCOME IN 1866 BY THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION, AND WE MOVED FORWARD
THROUGH TIME. THERE WERE VARIOUS CRISES THAT
CHALLENGED THE FIRST AMENDMENT OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THIS
COUNTRY WAS SUPPRESSED WHEN IT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN,
UNDER FIRST AMENDMENT LAW. PEOPLE HAD TO REPORT IF
THEY WERE JOINING A UNION, WHICH WAS LATER DECLARED
ILLEGAL BY THE SUPREME COURT. YOU CAN BELONG TO A UNION
WITHOUT TELLING YOUR EMPLOYER, BECAUSE YOUR EMPLOYER
CAN RETALIATE AGAINST YOU IF THEY KNOW YOU BELONG
TO A CERTAIN UNION. YOU CAN BELONG, IN THE SOUTH, MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAACP WAS
PROTECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT, BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD FIND OUT THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES
WERE MEMBERS OF THE NAACP, AND THEN THEY WOULD FIRE THEM. AND SO OUR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY
BECAME PROTECTED, MAINLY COMING OUT OF THESE CASES
INVOLVING THE UNIONS. ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING
AFFRONTS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT
OCCURRED UNDER ANOTHER PRESIDENT THAT WE THINK OF AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD HAVE PROTECTED CIVIL
LIBERTIES, WOODROW WILSON, PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT,
BROUGHT PROGRESSIVISM INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. BUT ALONG CAME A
WAR, WORLD WAR I. AND DURING THAT TIME
THERE WAS A SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. WOODROW WILSON RE-INSTITUTED
THE ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, KEEPING IMMIGRANTS OUT,
DEPORTING IMMIGRANTS, AND SUPPRESSING ANY SEDITION THAT WAS CRITICAL
OF HIS GOVERNMENT. OF EVEN MORE INTEREST, AND
PEOPLE OFTEN FORGET THIS, WAS THE SUFFRAGIST MOVEMENT. WOMEN WERE FIGHTING
TO GET THE VOTE. BY THIS TIME BLACK MEN HAD THE
VOTE, WHITE MEN HAD THE VOTE, CITIZENS HAD THE VOTE
IF THEY WEREN’T FEMALE, BUT WOMEN WEREN’T
ALLOWED TO VOTE. AND THIS WAS REACHING A PEAK
DURING THE WORLD WAR I ERA. A GROUP OF SUFFRAGISTS
CHAINED THEMSELVES TO THE WHITE HOUSE FENCE. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAD THEM REMOVED, PUT THEM IN JAIL,
REFUSED TO FEED THEM, AND THEN WHEN HE WAS CRITICIZED
FOR THAT, HE FORCE FED THEM. THEY WERE TREATED AS IF
THEY WERE TERRORISTS, AND THESE WERE MERELY
WOMEN WHO WERE IN A STATIC PROTEST
IN FAVOR OF SUFFRAGE. THE FIRST RED SCARE THAT THE
UNITED STATES ENDURED CAME UNDER THE WOODROW
WILSON ADMINISTRATION, STARTING ABOUT 1918,
1919, WHEN ANARCHISTS AROUND THE WORLD WERE
THREATENING VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS, AND AN ANARCHIST HAD
VIRTUALLY STARTED WORLD WAR I. IN THIS COUNTRY THE
THREAT WAS REAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S HOUSE
WAS BOMBED IN GEORGETOWN, A. MITCHELL PALMER, AND
SO FIVE THOUSAND PEOPLE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
WERE INCARCERATED AND HELD, AND SLOWLY TRIED ONE AT A TIME. THE LEADER OF THE
SOCIALIST PARTY, EUGENE DEBBS, WAS PUT IN JAIL. CAN YOU IMAGINE, INCARCERATING
A MEMBER OF AN OPPOSITION PARTY. YOU WOULDN’T THINK THAT COULD
HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT HAPPENED IN 1917. AGAIN, IT TOOK THE END OF THE
WAR TO BRING US BACK TO SECURITY SO THAT WE COULD
GET OUR RIGHTS BACK. IT TOOK A CHANGE OF POWER, THE REPUBLICANS DEFEATED
THE DEMOCRATS. AND WHEN WARREN G.
HARDING BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS
WAS THE FIRST ELECTION IN WHICH WOMEN WERE
ALLOWED TO VOTE, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
THAT WARREN G. HARDING DID AS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WAS TO FREE EUGENE DEBBS FROM JAIL. IN THE 20TH CENTURY, RIGHTS
HAVE REGULARLY BEEN INFRINGED BY PRESIDENTS WHEN THEY’VE
BEEN THREATENED BY WAR. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, BELOVED AS
HE IS, FOUND THAT RADIO STATIONS AND TELEVISION STATIONS, WHICH
WERE JUST BEGINNING AT THE TIME, THAT WERE CRITICAL
OF THE NEW DEAL, COULD HAVE THEIR
LICENSES DENIED, AND THEIR LICENSES TURNED OVER
TO PEOPLE WHO WERE FRIENDLY TO THE ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION. DURING THE WAR, AS WE
KNOW, THERE WAS A FEELING THAT CERTAIN ETHNIC
GROUPS MIGHT POSE THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES. A LEADER IN INCARCERATING THESE
PEOPLE, JAPANESE AMERICANS, WAS THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA,
A MAN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME,
HIS NAME WAS EARL WARREN. HE EVENTUALLY BECAME
GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, HE THEN BECAME CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND ATONED FOR HIS SINS
WHEN HE WAS GOVERNOR OF, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA. YOU CAN GO UP TO MANSANAR
[ASSUMED SPELLING], UP OFF ROUTE 395, AND SEE WHERE JAPANESE AMERICANS
WERE INTERRED THERE, AND IN OTHER PLACES AROUND
THE COUNTRY, IN NORTH DAKOTA AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO EVEN UNDER SOME OF OUR
MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENTS, OUR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS CAN BE THREATENED, AND THIS ALWAYS IS A PROBLEM. THE LAST CRISIS I WANT TO
LOOK AT IS THE MCCARTHY ERA, BECAUSE IT WAS SO IMPORTANT
TO SHAPING HOW WE FEEL ABOUT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS, AND WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN A COUNTRY WHEN SCARE
TACTICS ARE INVOLVED. IN, AND ONE NEEDS TO
UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC CONTEXT. I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT, WHEN WE’RE TEACHING
OUR STUDENTS, AND WE’RE TEACHING ONE ANOTHER,
TO ESTABLISH A HISTORIC CONTEXT FOR WHAT WENT ON, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING THESE
PEOPLE WERE WRONG. IN EACH OF THE CRISES
I’VE TALKED ABOUT, THERE WAS A NATIONAL CRISIS
THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED. LINCOLN WAS FACING A CIVIL WAR,
WOODROW WILSON WAS INVOLVED WITH WORLD WAR I,
AND THERE WERE IRISH AND GERMAN AMERICANS
WHO OPPOSED HIM. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS FIGHTING
THE WORST DEPRESSION, HOPEFULLY, THAT WE HAD, ON THE BRINK. AND IN THE MCCARTHY
PERIOD, THE SAME WAS TRUE. REMEMBER THE HISTORY
OF THAT TIME. IN 1946, THE WAR WAS OVER. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS DEAD, HARRY TRUMAN HAD
BECOME PRESIDENT, AND HE INVITED WINSTON
CHURCHILL, THE HERO OF ENGLAND, TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND GIVE A SPEECH
AT FULTON, MISSOURI. THAT WAS THE SPEECH IN WHICH
WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID, IN HIS ATTACK ON COMMUNISM,
THAT AN IRON CURTAIN HAD FALLEN, FROM THE BALTIC TO THE ADRIATIC, THAT THE SOVIET UNION
WAS BEGINNING TO TAKE OVER EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, AND THIS WAS A MAJOR
THREAT TO WESTERN POWERS. BY 1948 THE SOVIET UNION HAD
TAKEN OVER POLAND, EAST GERMANY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, ROMANIA, THE
UKRAINE, BELARUSE, ASTONIA, LATHIA, LITHUANIA,
THINGS LOOKED PRETTY GRIM. NOW AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE
UNITED STATES WAS THE ONLY POWER WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND SO IT
HOPED TO KEEP THE SOVIET UNION IN CHECK USING THE
TRUMAN DOCTRINE, AND OTHER KINDS OF ENFORCEMENT. ALSO IN 1946, THE HOUSE ON AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
COMMITTEE BEGAN HEARINGS ABOUT WHERE COMMUNISTS
WERE TRYING TO TAKE OVER VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
AROUND THIS COUNTRY. ONE OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS
WAS THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, THE PRESIDENT OF WHICH
WAS RONALD REAGAN. AND RONALD REAGAN CAME TO
HOLLYWOOD AND TESTIFIED THAT THEY WEREN’T GONNA
LET THE COMMUNISTS TAKE OVER THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD,
IN QUITE A FAMOUS PERFORMANCE. THINGS WENT FROM BAD
TO WORSE IN 1948. A MAN WHO WAS THE EDITOR OF
TIME MAGAZINE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF TIME MAGAZINE AT ONE POINT,
A MAN NAMED WHITTAKER CHAMBERS, CAME BEFORE THE HOUSE ON
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE AND CLAIMED THAT THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, A MAN NAMED ALGER HISS HAD BEEN
A MEMBER OF A COMMUNIST CELL WITH HIM IN THE 1930S. THIS CAUSED A SENSATION. THE NEW LEADER OF THE HOUSE ON AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE
CALLED ALGER HISS BEFORE IT, AND A NEW YOUNG CONGRESSMAN,
RICHARD NIXON, ASKED FOR EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE PROCEEDED. WHEN ALGER HISS APPEARED
ON THE FIRST DAY, HE WAS ASKED WHETHER
HE’D EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND ALGER HISS SAID
THAT’S RIDICULOUS, I’M A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN,
I’VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN MY LIFE, I WOULDN’T
YOU KNOW, DO SUCH A THING. THAT NIGHT RICHARD NIXON
WENT THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPTS OF HISS’ TESTIMONY, AND REALIZED
THAT HISS HAD NEVER PARTICULARLY AND DIRECTLY DENIED
THAT HE’D BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. SO THE NEXT DAY IN QUESTIONING,
NIXON SAID ARE YOU NOW, ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS
QUESTIONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE
YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY,
AND ALGER HISS TRIED TO DODGE THE QUESTION AGAIN. AND NIXON SAID ALL YOU HAVE
TO DO IS ANSWER YES OR NO. AND HISS SAID I WAS NOT,
AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. I AM NOT NOW, NOR HAVE
I EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. WELL IT TURNS OUT HE
WAS, UNDER ANOTHER NAME. AND EVERY PERSON SINCE WHO’S
TRIED TO EXONERATE ALGER HISS IN A BOOK, HAS COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS GUILTY. THAT WAS A SCANDAL, THAT
THIS WAS A MAN WHO WAS THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO HAD HELPED FORM
THE UNITED NATIONS, AND HERE WE ARE DISCOVERING THAT
HE HAD BEEN IN A COMMUNIST CELL, AT A TIME WHEN WE’RE IN
THE THROES OF THE COLD WAR. IN 1949, THINGS GOT EVEN WORSE. NATIONALIST CHINA, AN
ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES, FELL TO THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, LED BY MAO TSE TUNG. IN 1949, THE SAME YEAR, RUSSIA ANNOUNCED IT HAD
DEVELOPED THE ATOM BOMB, AND EVERYBODY WENT CRAZY. HOW DID THEY GET IT, HAD WE
LEAKED THIS INFORMATION TO THEM, WERE THERE SPIES AROUND THE
COUNTRY, WERE THERE SUBVERSIVES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. AND THEN IN 1950, IN
WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA, A YOUNG SENATOR NAMED JOE
MCCARTHY GAVE A SPEECH TO A WOMEN’S REPUBLICAN CLUB. AND DURING THAT SPEECH HE
HELD UP A PIECE OF PAPER AND SAID I HAVE A LIST OF TWO
HUNDRED AND FIFTY SUBVERSIVES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO
HAD BEEN, OR ARE NOW MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. CREATED AN ABSOLUTE SENSATION. THE PIECE OF PAPER TURNED OUT TO BE HIS LAUNDRY
LIST FROM HIS HOTEL ROOM. HE WAS MAKING UP HIS
NUMBERS AS HE WENT ALONG, BUT NOBODY KNEW IT AT THE TIME. AND IN THE CONTEXT IT
SOUNDED PERFECTLY BELIEVABLE. YOU KNOW, HOW COULD RUSSIA
TAKE OVER HALF OF EUROPE, HOW COULD THE COMMUNISTS
TAKE OVER CHINA, HOW COULD THEY DEVELOP
THE ATOMIC BOMB, UNLESS THERE WERE
SUBVERSIVES AMONG US. SO THE MODEL WE HAVE HERE IS NOT
ONLY IS THERE AN EXTERNAL THREAT OF THE SOVIET UNION THAT HAS
INVOLVED US IN A COLD WAR, THERE’S THE INTERNAL
THREAT OF SUBVERSIVES IN OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT,
AND WE BETTER DO SOMETHING. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE
CAN DO IS RESTRICT OUR RIGHTS. AND VARIOUS LEGISLATION
WAS PASSED THAT BEGAN TO RESTRICT OUR RIGHTS. THE MCKAREN WALTERS ACT,
THE SMITH ACT, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, RESTRICTING
RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY. MOREOVER, ON THE LOCAL LEVEL
PEOPLE BECAME FOLLOWERS OF MCCARTHY, AND WENT INTO
THEIR LIBRARIES AND ASKED THAT CERTAIN BOOKS BE
REMOVED FROM THEIR LIBRARY, ANYTHING WRITTEN BY MARX,
ANYTHING WRITTEN BY LENIN, SO THAT YOU COULDN’T
SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. MANY PEOPLE WERE
CALLED BEFORE THE HOUSE ON AMERICAN ACTIVITIES. ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS WAS
DASCHEL HAMMOND [ASSUMED SPELLING], THE MAN WHO
WROTE THE MALTESE FALCON. AND ON THAT PANEL I
TOLD YOU ABOUT TOMORROW, ONE OF OUR GRADUATE
STUDENTS IS THE GRANDDAUGHTER OF DASCHEL HAMMOND, AND SHE MAY
TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT WHEN HE WAS ASKED YOU
KNOW, WHAT WOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, TELL LIBRARIES YOU KNOW,
IF YOU HAD YOUR WAY. HE SAID WELL THE MORE
BOOKS THE BETTER, ISN’T THAT WHAT LIBRARIES
ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. SO PEOPLE WERE BEING
BLACKLISTED FOR BEING MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY,
THEY WERE BEING BLACKLISTED FOR TAKING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH WAS THEIR RIGHT. THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SAYS YOU
CAN’T TESTIFY AGAINST YOURSELF, AND YOU’VE SEEN HOW THAT’S
USED YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT TESTIFY AGAINST YOURSELF. PROFESSORS FROM CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WERE
CALLED TO WASHINGTON. AND WHEN THEY TOOK THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, THEY WERE FIRED, EVEN IF THEY HAD TENURE. THOSE WERE THE DAYS, KAREN. [ LAUGHTER ] SO THE ONLY PERSON YOU KNOW,
THAT I CAN FIND THAT STOOD UP DURING THIS PERIOD FROM A COLLEGE CAMPUS WAS
NATHAN PUCEY [ASSUMED SPELLING], THE PRESIDENT AT
HARVARD UNIVERSITY. AND HE SAID YOU’RE NOT, WE’RE
NOT GONNA FIRE THOSE PEOPLE. THEY’RE EXERCISING THEIR
RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. BUT IT WAS A BAD
TIME IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT WAS JUST
IN THE FIFTIES. BY 1954, MCCARTHY HAD
BECOME VERY POPULAR. IN THE GALLUP POLL,
BEGINNING 1954, POLL SAID 54% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT THE
METHODS OF JOSEPH MCCARTHY. THIS IS A MAN WHO HAD BEEN
CAUGHT EDITING PICTURES TO PUT TWO PEOPLE TOGETHER
WHO REALLY WEREN’T TOGETHER, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ACROSS
THE ROOM FROM ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS A MAN WHO HAD
ATTACKED NEWSPAPER EDITORS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. NOW, WAS ANYBODY SPEAKING
UP AGAINST MCCARTHY? SURE. ONE OF THE FIRST, MY
HERO, ANOTHER SMITH OF COURSE, MARGARET J. SMITH,
SENATOR FROM MAINE. IN 1950, RIGHT AFTER HE
GAVE HIS WHEELING SPEECH, GOT UP ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE AND SAID, GAVE A SPEECH CALLED THE
CONSCIENCE OF A REPUBLICAN, AND SAID THIS PARTY DOESN’T
STAND BY JOE MCCARTHY, WE NEED TO CENSOR THIS GUY. BUT NOBODY WENT ALONG WITH HER. HENRY LOOSE [ASSUMED
SPELLING], REPUBLICAN, PUBLISHER OF TIME
LIFE ENTERPRISES, ATTACKED JOE MCCARTHY,
BUT NOT MUCH HAPPENED. IN MARCH AND APRIL OF 1954,
EDWARD R. MURROW OF CBS, AND YOU’VE SEEN GOOD
NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, TELLS THAT STORY,
ATTACKED MCCARTHY. BUT STILL HE SEEMED
INVULNERABLE. MCCARTHY WAS DONE IN
BY HIS OWN MEGALOMANIA. HE SAID THAT THERE WERE
SUBVERSIVES IN THE ARMY, AND HE WANTED TO HAVE
A HEARING TO PROVE IT. AND SO THE ARMY MCCARTHY
HEARINGS BEGAN IN THE SUMMER OF 1954, AND THINGS WERE GOING
PRETTY WELL FOR MCCARTHY. HE WAS GETTING A
LOT OF PUBLICITY, THESE WERE BROADCAST EVERY DAY,
YOU COULD SEE IT ON TELEVISION. I REMEMBER COMING
HOME FROM SCHOOL AS A TINY LITTLE BOY,
AND WATCHING THIS. AND THERE YOU GOT TO SEE
ALL OF THIS GOING ON. AND PEOPLE ATTACKED MCCARTHY,
AND STILL HE SEEMED TO SURVIVE. AND THEN CAME A MOMENT THAT
BROKE THROUGH EVERYTHING. MCCARTHY ATTACKED AN
ASSISTANT TO THE LAWYER WHO WAS REPRESENTING
THE ARMY, JOE WELCH. AND THE ASSISTANT WAS JUST A
YOUNG KID OUT OF LAW SCHOOL, AND MCCARTHY ATTACKED HIM AS
HAVING COMMUNIST AFFILIATIONS. AND JOE WELSH RESPONDED
TO MCCARTHY, SAYING AT ONE POINT SENATOR, AT
LONG LAST, HAVE YOU NO DECENCY. YOUR FORGIVENESS WILL HAVE TO
COME FROM SOMEBODY ELSE OTHER THAN ME, AND WELSH
GOT UP AND WALKED OUT. AND THE MCCARTHY
BALLOON COLLAPSED. PEOPLE BEGAN TO SEE
HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS. HIS POPULARITY WENT DOWN,
HE WAS CENSORED THAT FALL BY THE UNITED STATES
SENATE, FINALLY, AND DRANK HIMSELF
TO DEATH IN 1957. THE MCCARTHY ERA WAS OVER. BUT IT’S ONE OF OUR BLACKEST
MEMORIES IN OUR HISTORY, AND THAT COULD HAPPEN SO RECENTLY SHOULD
GIVE US ALL PAUSE. NOW WE’VE SEEN OTHER THINGS
THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THEN. IT’S INTERESTING THAT THE USA
PATRIOT ACT WAS HARDLY DEBATED, AND ONLY ONE PERSON IN EACH BODY
OF OUR LEGISLATURE OPPOSED IT, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE ALIEN SEDITION
ACT WHERE FIST FIGHTS BROKE OUT, AND THERE WAS A STRONG MINORITY. I MEAN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR, THERE WAS A COMMITTEE
INVESTIGATION, THE PUGOT HEARINGS. THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION
AFTER 9/11. SO WE NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS. WHAT IS KIND OF THE
BOTTOM LINE IN ALL OF THIS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHEN WE HAVE
A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT, OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
ARE IN SEVERE DANGER, AND WE NEED TO PROTECT THEM. NOW WHERE CAN THESE
THINGS COME FROM. LOOK AT THE CRISES
I TALKED ABOUT. THE ALIEN AND SEDITION, THE EXTERNAL THREAT WAS
THE QUASI-WAR WITH FRANCE, THE INTERNAL THREAT WAS FRENCH
PHISOPHS [ASSUMED SPELLING], JACOBANS THAT HAD
INFILTRATED THE COUNTRY, THEY WERE THE SUBVERSIVES. THE MAJOR ACTOR WAS
THE CONGRESS, IT WAS CONGRESS THAT
PASSED THE LAW. THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T ASK FOR
THEM, BUT HE SIGNED THEM. THE MAJOR ACTION WAS THE
ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT, AND THE ROLE OF THE
SUPREME COURT? NOTHING. IT WAS COMPLICIT UNTIL
JEFFERSON BECAME PRESIDENT AND COULD APPOINT DIFFERENT
MEMBERS TO THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE CIVIL WAR WHAT
WAS THE EXTERNAL THREAT. SUCCESSION, AND THE
BREAKUP OF THE UNION. WHAT WAS THE INTERNAL THREAT. COPPERHEAD EDITORS, EDITORS IN THE NORTH SUPPORTING
THE SOUTHERN CAUSE. WHO WAS THE MAJOR ACTOR
IN SUSPENDING OUR RIGHTS? PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN. WHAT WAS THE ACTION? THE SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS. WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF
THE SUPREME COURT? THE CHIEF JUSTICE TRIED
TO STOP IT, BUT THE REST OF THE COURT WOULDN’T GO ALONG
WITH HIM, THEY WERE COMPLICIT UNTIL THE WAR WAS OVER. WORLD WAR I, WHAT WAS
THE EXTERNAL THREAT? GERMANY AND COMMUNISM. WHAT WAS THE INTERNAL THREAT. ANARCHISTS, COMMUNISTS, REDS. WHO WAS THE MAJOR ACTOR. THE PRESIDENT, WOODROW WILSON
PASSED THE LEGISLATION, THE ESPIONAGE ACT, THE
ALIEN SEDITION ACT, ARRESTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF
THE SUPREME COURT? ONCE THE WAR WAS OVER, THEY
THEN TOOK THE CASES UP, AND ISSUED THE SHANK
AND ABRAMS DECISIONS, ONE IN WHICH THEY UPHELD
THE PRESIDENT, AND THE OTHER IN WHICH THEY DID NOT. THE MCCARTHY ERA, WHAT
WAS THE EXTERNAL THREAT? THE SOVIET UNION. WHAT WAS THE INTERNAL THREAT? SUBVERSIVES, COMMUNISTS,
PINKS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. MAJOR ACTOR? CONGRESS PASSING THESE LAWS, AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNING
THEM, PRESIDENT EISENHOWER. THE MAJOR ACTION, YOU CAN LOOK
IT UP, THE MCKAREN WALTERS ACT, THE SMITH ACT, YOU CAN
LOOK AT BLACKLISTING THAT OCCURRED IN HOLLYWOOD. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED. DURING THE CRISIS, EUGENE
DENNIS, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, WAS PUT IN JAIL FOR ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW REMEMBER THAT THE FOUNDERS
HAD ADVOCATED THE VIOLENT REVOLUTION AND OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNOR. DENNIS WAS PUT IN JAIL,
IN A DECISION HANDED DOWN DURING THIS CRISIS
BY THE SUPREME COURT. ONCE MCCARTHY WAS DEAD,
THEY TOOK ANOTHER CASE UP, THE YATES CASE, ANOTHER
LEADER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHO ADVOCATED VIOLENT OVERTHROW,
AND THEY FOUND IN HIS FAVOR AND SAID THAT SPEECH
ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS
LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES, AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT AN
INCITEMENT TO VIOLENT ACTION. SO DURING THE CRISIS THE SUPREME
COURT SUPPORTED THE RESTRICTION ON OUR RIGHTS, ONCE
THE CRISIS WAS OVER, THEY GAVE US OUR FREEDOMS BACK. SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
WE SHOULD REALIZE THAT OUR PRECIOUS
RIGHTS, THESE FIVE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
ARE NOT SECURE, AND THAT WHEN THERE
IS AN EXTERNAL THREAT, WE CAN HAVE THOSE
RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY, UNLESS ALL OF US ARE
EDUCATED ABOUT OUR PAST AND HOW THESE RIGHTS
HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THAT EVEN THE SUPREME COURT
HAS ACTED IN THIS MANNER, WE’RE NOT SAFE, AND
WE’RE NOT FREE. AND IN AN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION, IT MAY BE TOO MUCH YOU
KNOW, TO EXPECT EVERYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERSTAND THIS,
IT WOULD BE NICE. BUT AT LEAST IN AN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT. WE SHOULD BE TEACHING
ONE ANOTHER AND WE SHOULD BE
TEACHING OUR STUDENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]>>IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, DOCTOR SMITH HAS
AGREED TO ANSWER THEM. OR ATTEMPT TO ANSWER
THEM AT LEAST.>>ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM. I’M NOT A LAWYER, SO I’LL
GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWER. [ LAUGHTER ]>>HELLO CRAIG.>>HELLO JAMES.>>ON SUNDAY THE LA TIMES
HAD A PROVOCATIVE ARTICLE ABOUT FBI INFORMANTS
GOING TO MOSQUES, RECORDING NOT ONLY
THE [INAUDIBLE] WORDS, BUT GOING TO HOMES, HOURS, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS ALMOST
HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TAPES. HOW IS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A
CRISIS MENTALITY, THE YOU KNOW, AMERICAN MUSLIMS ARE
FEELING THREATENED TO GO TO THEIR OWN MOSQUE,
HOW DO WE STAY VIGILANT, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S
A TRADITION PERHAPS THAT WE’VE BEEN BOMBARDED WITH
NEGATIVE IMAGES TO STAND UP AND SAY THIS WOULD BE WRONG
FOR ANY OTHER RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES, HOW ARE WE
ALLOWING THIS, IS THERE ANY WAY TO CONTROL OR BE VIGILANT
AS YOU SAY ON THESE KINDS OF RIGHTS BEING RESTRICTED.>>WELL ONE OF THE
GREAT SUCCESS STORIES OF THE FBI HAS ALWAYS
BEEN THEIR ABILITY TO INFILTRATE THREATENING
GROUPS. AND WE KNOW THAT THE
SAME IS TRUE IN ISRAEL, WE KNOW THE SAME
IS TRUE IN ENGLAND THAT TERRORIST ATTACKS
HAVE BEEN STARTED USING, STOPPED USING THESE METHODS. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU
AUTHORIZE THIS KIND OF THING, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE
AND WHERE DOES IT STOP. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND
INFILTRATING AN UNDERGROUND CELL, BUT GOING INTO A CHURCH
AND RECORDING YOU KNOW, WHAT SOMEBODY IS SAYING. NOW IF THE AMAM OR THE REVERAND
WRIGHT WANTS TO PUT THEMSELVES ON TELEVISION AND WE ALL SEE
IT, THAT’S A DIFFERENT MATTER. BUT I THINK WE DO
HAVE TO BE VIGILANT, AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. I MEAN WE NOW KNOW THAT
RONALD REGAN WAS AN INFORMANT FOR THE FBI DURING HIS TERM, AS
HEAD OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD. THAT DIDN’T COME OUT UNTIL
AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY. SO YOU KNOW, THE LONG ARM OF THE
LAW IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT. AND IT’S OUR PRIVACY AS WELL
AS OUR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.>>DOCTOR SMITH, CONGRATULATIONS
ON YOUR MODEL HOLDING UP OVER ALL THESE
YEARS, EXTERNAL THREATS VERSUS OUR RIGHTS
GOING OUT THE WINDOW. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF YOU’RE
AWARE OF ANY CURRENT PROCESSES OR MOVEMENTS WITHIN GOVERNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE CHILLING EFFECT OF THE PATRIOT ACT
ON FREE SPEECH.>>WELL YES. THAT’S BEEN GOING ON SINCE
THE PATRIOT ACT WAS PASSED. THE ACLU IS WORKING
ON IT, PEOPLE, SPEAKERS HERE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT THAT. I THINK ERWIN [INAUDIBLE] AT TWO O’CLOCK MAY BE
TALKING ABOUT THAT. HE’S THE NEW DEAN OF THE
LAW SCHOOL AT UC IRVINE. I REMEMBER ERWIN WHEN
HE WAS A COLLEGE DEBATER AND I WAS A DEBATE COACH,
SO I’M GONNA SHOW UP AND GIVE HIM A HARD TIME. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT IT’S COME FROM
CITIZENS, IT HASN’T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. I MEAN THAT’S THE
GREAT FEAR I HAVE, IS THAT IN THE PAST
WE’VE HAD PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT
RAISING QUESTIONS. THAT’S MUCH LESS SO NOW. AND THE OTHER PROBLEM
I THINK WE HAD WITH THE US PATRIOT ACT WAS THE
COMPLICIT NATURE OF THE PRESS. I MEAN THAT’S A FIFTH
COLUMN THAT I HAVE ADDED TO THIS EQUATION THAT WILL BE
COMING OUT IN MY BOOK THIS YEAR, THE SECOND EDITION OF MY BOOK
ON SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA HAS BEEN RENEWED BY STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK PRESS. AND I’M PUTTING THAT IN
THERE BECAUSE I DIDN’T, THE FIRST TIME I WROTE
THE BOOK I DIDN’T LOOK AT THE PRESS CLOSELY ENOUGH. I ALWAYS ASSUMED YOU
KNOW, THE PRESS ATTACKED, AND WANTED THEIR FREEDOM BECAUSE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NEXT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND
THEY WENT ALONG WITH US. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN
THE PRESS HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN THIS, AND IN THE US
PATRIOT ACT AND FROM 9/11 ON IT WAS PRETTY STRONG.>>HI. I WAS RECENTLY AN
EXCHANGE STUDENT IN SWEDEN, AND I WASN’T AWARE OF
THIS UNTIL I WAS IN SWEDEN THAT THERE’S A SEVIS
[ASSUMED SPELLING] SUBSECTION OF THE PATRIOT ACT,
AND I WAS READING ABOUT PRIVACY IN A COURSE. AND I FOUND THAT AS AN EXCHANGE
STUDENT, YOUR RECORDS AND YOUR LIKE PRIVACY IS GONE
BECAUSE YOU’RE MOST LIKELY TO BE TERRORIST OR
YOU KNOW, SUBVERSIVE, OR ESPIONAGE RELATED, INVOLVED
WITH ESPIONAGE RELATED ACTIVITY. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? AND ISN’T IT JUST A
DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?>>IT’S A CLOSE CALL IN THAT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING RECORDS AND
PRIVATE MATTERS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE CALLS OVERSEAS,
LET ALONE TRAVELED OVERSEAS, IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL
SECURITY. NOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
THINGS THAT WERE STRUCK DOWN. THEY SAID THAT A
UNITED STATES CITIZEN ON UNITED STATES SOIL COULD
BE INCARCERATED AND HELD WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS,
AND THE COURTS STRUCK THAT DOWN. THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT
JOHN ASHCROFT CAME UP WITH THAT THEN GOT STRUCK DOWN. THEY HAVE NARROWED IT, BUT
THAT ONE REMAINS ON THE BOOKS. IF YOU TRAVEL ABROAD,
DON’T HAVE ANYTHING BAD IN A FILE SOMEWHERE
IN YOUR HOUSE.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?>>HI. I’M WONDERING HOW
ONE TELLS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPEECH ADVOCATING
THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
THAT DOESN’T INCITE VIOLENCE VERSUS THAT THAT
INCITES VIOLENCE.>>OKAY. THE QUICK ANSWER IS IN
1969 THE SUPREME COURT HANDED DOWN A DECISION CALLED
BRANDENBURG VERSUS OHIO. READ THAT DECISION,
BRANDENBURG VERSUS OHIO, 1969, BECAUSE THEY SPELL OUT THE
DIFFERENCE VERY CLEARLY. THE THREAT HAS TO
BE IMMINENT, OKAY? I YOU KNOW, IF I SAID OKAY
EVERYBODY, LET’S GO OVER AND BURN DOWN PRESIDENT
ALEXANDER’S HOUSE. HE’S IN WASHINGTON, SO WE CAN
GET IN THERE AND WE CAN BURN IT. THAT’S AN IMMINENT THREAT. SECONDLY, IT HAS TO BE
CAPABLE OF HAPPENING. ARE WE CAPABLE OF GOING
OVER THERE AND BURNING DOWN HIS HOUSE, EVEN
IN THE RAIN? MAYBE WE ARE, MAYBE WE AREN’T, THE COURT WOULD HAVE
TO LOOK AT THAT. AND THEN YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO
DIRECT, SINCE I’VE DIRECTED IT AT PRESIDENT ALEXANDER, I’VE
DIRECTED IT AT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP, AND THAT QUALIFIES. SO THOSE ARE THE MAIN THINGS,
THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT, IT’S NOT FICTIONAL,
THAT IT’S AN IMMINENT THREAT AND YOU MEAN IT, AND IT’S
DIRECTED AT A SPECIFIC GROUP. BUT IF I SAY IN GENERAL
YOU KNOW, WHENEVER YOU GET THE
OPPORTUNITY, WE SHOULD TRY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE IT’S BAD, I’M
ADVOCATING ANARCHY, THAT’S NOT INCITEMENT TO RIOT. SO THE BRANDENBURG
DECISION, 1969, IS THE ONE YOU WANT TO LOOK AT.>>ANYONE ELSE?>>GIVEN THE MAJOR
SHIFTS THAT WE’RE SEEING IN OUR QUOTE POST-MODERN WORLD,
AND ESPECIALLY THIS SHIFT IN MEDIA AND THE CORPORATIZATION
OF MEDIA, THIS WHOLE IDEA OF FREE PRESS, IS THERE, I
THINK IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT
WE’RE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTINUE IN THE BASIC IDEAS THAT WE HAVE,
OR GIVEN ALL THAT DEREGULATION AND WHAT’S HAPPENING, IS
THERE GONNA BE A MAJOR SHIFT IN THE PARADIGM?>>YEAH. WE ARE IN
AN EVOLUTIONARY STAGE WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEDIA. THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS
WAS CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE NETWORKS AND
CABLE STATIONS. THE NETWORKS USED TO BE
ENTITIES UNTO THEMSELVES. NBC WAS TAKEN OVER BY
RCA, WAS TAKEN OVER BY GE, AND NOW IT HAS TO MAKE A PROFIT. CBS WAS TAKEN OVER BY VIACOM,
ABC WAS TAKEN OVER BY DISNEY. AND SO THEY’RE LESS INDEPENDENT,
AND THAT’S A PROBLEM, AND THAT’S THE FIRST
PART OF THIS EVOLUTION, THIS CONGLOMERATION OF
THINGS COMING TOGETHER. AND BY THE WAY, THERE’S A
PAPER ON THIS ON OUR WEBSITE THAT YOU CAN LOOK UP AT THE
CENTER, THAT TALKS DIRECTLY TO THIS ISSUE OF
CORPORATE CONGLOMERATION. THE SECOND THING THAT’S
HAPPENING IS THE REAL INDEPENDENT VOICES
ARE ON THE INTERNET. YOU HAVE BLOGGERS THAT
ARE DISCOVERING THINGS THAT NEWSPAPERS AREN’T
DISCOVERING ANY MORE BECAUSE THEIR REPORTING
GROUP HAS BEEN CUT BACK TO ECONOMICALLY SURVIVE. THE THIRD THING WE NEED TO LOOK
AT IS THAT NEWSPAPERS ARE DYING IN THIS COUNTRY,
AND IT’S VERY SAD. I MEAN THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN NEWS WENT UNDER, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE HAS GONE
INTO BANKRUPTCY AND IT’S OWNED BY ANOTHER CORPORATION, AND THIS
MORNING THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ANNOUNCED THAT IT IS CUTTING ONE
MORE SECTION OUT OF THE PAPER. SO IT’S GETTING YOU
KNOW, ALMOST AS THIN AS THE LONG BEACH
PRESS TELEGRAM, AND THAT’S ABOUT AS
THIN AS YOU CAN GET. SO ALL OF THIS IS TAKING
PLACE AT THE SAME TIME. I THINK WHAT YOU’RE GONNA
SEE IS AN EMERGENCE, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE KNOW
HOW TO DO THIS REALLY WELL, IS AN EMERGENCE OF THE INTERNET
AS AN INDEPENDENT VOICE. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN A PIONEERING
KIND OF COWBOY THING OUT THERE. WHAT’S GONNA BE DIFFICULT
TO DETERMINE IS WHAT’S REAL AND WHAT’S NOT REAL,
WHAT’S BEING MADE UP AND WHAT’S NOT BEING MADE UP. ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, THOSE
OF US WHO SUPPORT A SHIELD LAW, WHICH WOULD PROTECT REPORTERS
FROM REVEALING THEIR SOURCES, WHEN WE WRITE THE LAW,
WHO DOES IT SHIELD? WHO’S A REAL REPORTER? IS IT A BLOGGER WHO
DOES NOTHING BUT BLOG, AND THAT’S THEIR PRIMARY DUTY? ARE THEY A REAL REPORTER? OR IS IT SOMEBODY WHO GETS
MONEY TO BE A REPORTER? HOW DO YOU DEFINE
WHAT A REPORTER IS? AND THAT’S A REAL POST-MODERN
MOMENT, BUT WE CAN’T DO THAT. SO I KNOW I HAVEN’T ANSWERED
YOUR QUESTION, BUT I’VE TRIED TO PORTRAY WHAT’S GOING ON
HERE, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE IN A MOMENT OF MAJOR
EVOLUTION IN TERMS OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE NEWS.>>IS THERE ONE MORE QUESTION?>>WELL THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.>>IF NOT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

One thought on “CSULB Human Rights Forum – Dr. Craig Smith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *