Not So Free Speech
The Denver Post
February 13, 2005

While the uproar over Ward Churchill may be stealing the media show, Colorado has had several other worrisome free speech dustups. Take the Norwood, Colorado superintendent of schools' misguided censorship or the foolish cops in Westminster and Denver who harassed motorists having anti-Bush messages on their cars.

Ward Churchill's idiotic rants touch a painful scar in our country. Nevertheless, we've been reminded repeatedly of Churchill's right to free speech. Like the words of mindless skinheads, I'll defend his right to say what he wants, no matter how disgusted I am. I'll also defend his right to teach at the University of Colorado, which should be an environment open to all opinions, no matter how weird. So, I hope CU does not respond to the public rage with a witch hunt, which itself would violate free speech. But the other three incidents reflect a deeper threat to our liberties and are getting far less attention in the press.

In Norwood, a small community in Western Colorado, an ill-informed superintendent of schools had to be taught his First Amendment lesson by the very students he claimed to be protecting from crude speech. Kind of silly, isn't it, when language these kids hear every day in movies, on TV, and in the school gym is pretty blue. Superintendent Bob Conder magnified his mistake by giving all those shameless copies of Bless Me, Ultima to the complaining mother to destroy. Now, really, under whose constitution does he have the right to destroy books some parent doesn't like (and he hasn't read)? Well, those kids set him straight, he apologized for his folly-but have we really learned the lesson?

Censorship doesn't belong in schools. If parents don't like an assigned book, they can ask that a different book be assigned to their child. Parents have every right to complain about a book, but they don't have the right to deny other students the opportunity to read it and they certainly don't have the right to round up all the copies and burn them (a la Hitler's banned book bonfires). I'm certainly glad those Norwood kids understand the Bill of Rights and its importance to our democracy.

Censorship doesn't belong on the street, either. There's no provision in our Constitution saying a person can't scribble a message on his dirty car or put any sticker she wants on her bumper, even if those messages are profane jibes at the President of the United States. In Westminster, a Bush opponent was arrested because two people complained about the anti-Bush sentiments he'd scrawled on his car. Now, there was no public brawl over this. Nor was there any incitement to illegal activity. So, why should a police officer, sworn to uphold our Constitution, arrest a guy for expressing his opinion, regardless of whether the language offends bystanders or not? Or threaten to arrest a woman whose bumper sticker he doesn't like?

As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, the lawyer for Westminster had the silliness to say of the arresting police officer, "He had probable cause [to arrest the man]. He had a complaining witness." Oh, so now if someone simply complains about what we say, it is cause for arrest. Well, maybe in Moscow, but not in Denver! Remember, we have the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, which guarantees we can say whatever we want, no matter how stupid or offensive. This wasn't, after all, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or giving away our country's deepest secrets.

We're in the midst of culture wars over whether the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public places. That is clearly religious speech, not subscribed to by all Americans. So, here's an alternative. Since some in authority seem to be confused about the First Amendment, maybe it's time to display the Bill of Rights in public places. That is a code that is certainly applicable to all Americans. Just ask those kids in Norwood.