In reality, dissent is alive and kicking

Re: The death of dissent, by Bill Duryea, April 20.

Dissent isn't dead. On the contrary, it's alive and kicking and carried forth in more ways than people could have imagined only a decade ago. In an era when any person can post a rant on the Internet for millions of people to see, there's no danger of contrary voices being silenced. Dissent, in fact, has more outlets than ever before.

What has people like Tim Robbins confused is that his right to free speech does not include a right to be heard. He can go on all he wants about the war and his opposition to it, but that doesn't obligate the Baseball Hall of Fame to provide him with a forum. Nor is the public obligated to plunk down money to see his movies, if his opinions so offend the masses. That "chill wind" Robbins spoke of in his address to the National Press Club is a cold truth - that free speech is not just a right but a responsibility, and that free speech can have consequences.

So long as those consequences don't include government agents hauling you away in the middle of the night, the First Amendment is in no danger. But most of America seems to understand that this is a nation at war, and that much of the carping from the antiwar left is more political than personal. That Gary Kamiya, executive editor of Salon.com, wishes that the war in Iraq had gone badly because victory increases President Bush's chances for re-election, sums it up perfectly. "Dissent," at least in this case, is more anti-Bush than antiwar. And it angers mainstream America when these people put politics ahead of national security.

Yes, dissent is alive and kicking. It just needs a dose of honesty before the rest of us can take it seriously.

Extremes of disagreement

This is a dangerous time for dissent. More than one person has been attacked for expressing disagreement with the war in Iraq or the circumstances leading to it.

It certainly is true that none of what private citizens do in reaction to statements by others implicates the First Amendment or other constitutional protections. Those protections, of course, stand against government, not private, action.

Still, we would be well served to recognize that concerted (or even unconsciously parallel) private action can be as seriously coercive, if not more so, than any government statute. Those who label critics as "anti-American," or "not supporting our soldiers" are simply, and seriously, wrong. More important, though, is that their position equates public dissent with civic slander, placing criticism of presidential policy in the same category as racial slur. Whether stated or not, their premise is not that these statements of dissent should be tolerated and then opposed; rather (they say), the statements must not be tolerated in the first instance. It is a dangerously frightening notion.

The approach of those who oppose both critics and criticism is not "I will listen, you will listen, and then we will decide." Rather, it is that "I will speak, and you will not." When disagreement becomes censure, when disapproval becomes sanction, we have gone too far as fellow citizens of a free society. I suggest, especially in this time of grave danger and extreme emotion, that everyone renew one of our principal social compacts: "You speak, and I will listen."

Hear them whine

I am really amazed at the audacity of the Hollywood celebrities who complain that their First Amendment right of free speech is being violated or threatened. They whine, even as they enjoy virtually unlimited access to all the major news outlets, not because of any great knowledge that they have on a particular issue, but because they are "stars." All of the network anchors hang on virtually every word they utter, as if they were heads of state or leading experts on whatever cause they happen to be supporting (or opposing) on any given day. They are rarely challenged about any of their ridiculous and mostly unsubstantiated statements.

Only a Hollywood liberal like Tim Robbins would have the nerve to say, "To allow those rights (freedom of speech) to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat" while exercising that very freedom at, of all places, the National Press Club.

The First Amendment protects these people from persecution from the government, and I don't recall reading about any of them being hauled away to a gulag or having their tongues cut out (Iraqi style) for speaking their minds. The backlash they're facing is from private citizens and private organizations, exercising their own freedom of speech.

Strive for dialogue

Re: The death of dissent.

If the United States is to function as a healthy democracy, we cannot curtail dissent solely because it is deemed unpatriotic or politically incorrect. The greater concern is whether the dissent is framed with respect and responsibility - and substantiated with inclusive, unbiased evidence.

Moreover, dissent has a greater chance of strengthening a democracy if it is done in the spirit of dialogue rather than debate. Debate is often about winning or convincing others to adopt your point of view. Dialogue encourages all parties to explore each other's perspectives and points of view - and handle differences as they arise - with the goal of finding common ground. Dialogue is about problem solving rather than finger-pointing.

It seems many of the examples Bill Duryea cites have a lot more to do with finger-pointing. In fact - for all parties involved - these examples seem to be more about intolerance than dissent. If it's wisdom we seek, it seems our dissent should reflect greater dignity, and our public discourse should strive for dialogue rather than settle for debate.

Graham has freedom, too

Re: Graham's good intentions won't overshadow his controversy, by Philip Gailey, April 20.

The Rev. Franklin Graham has exhibited a lot more than "good intentions" over the last 10 years. Samaritan's Purse has fed, clothed and given medicine to people who have had a desperate need for it around the world. It is ironic that on the front page of the Sunday Perspective section, Tim Robbins' free speech is defended, but on the third page Franklin Graham's free speech is not. After his years of work and experience in the Muslim world, I suppose he is allowed to have an opinion on the Islamic faith. For him to express it honestly upsets the liberal press.

Is it any business of the liberal press, which cannot tolerate Graham's opinions, and whose members have no need of humanitarian aid themselves, where Samaritan's Purse serves? Ask the Iraqis if they want Samaritan's Purse to come to their country. The relationship that Samaritan's Purse has established with the countries and people of the Muslim world, who I am sure are aware of Graham's beliefs, seems to be a cordial one. Maybe the people of Islam are greater supporters of free speech than some in the United States.

The ribbons' message

Re: Don't tie a yellow ribbon round the ole oak tree, April 20.

Richard Roeper's vitriolic rant against the new tradition of tying yellow ribbons to express our desire that someone is welcome and wanted back home is filled with bile.

Only he knows why he seems to hate the color yellow. We're not supposed to stereotype people, why should we stereotype colors?

As for not dating back to the Revolutionary War, how old does an act have to be before it becomes a tradition? Tying yellow ribbons is something that spontaneously swept the nation during the Iran hostage crisis, 20-some years ago. A great number of our troops serving in Iraq are about the same age as, or younger than, the song.

Ah the song. It says, "I've done my time." True, this is a reference to having spent time in prison. So what? There are other places we "do time" away from those we love. Like war. How many times during reports from the front was the question raised: How do the people back home feel about us? The song says, "then you'll know what to do if you still want me." The alternative songs Roeper suggests indicate that those away from home want to come back. The yellow ribbon sends the resounding message: Welcome home, we love you!

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright