In what is an otherwise dismal global spectacle, Michael Rossman's response has come through like a shining star and made my day. Although I deliberately did not mention his name in my post, not having yet seen a letter from former FSMers in the Berkeley Daily Planet which criticized the protesters, and so was unsure whether or not he had been among its signers, I am indeed gratified, in retrospect, to have referred to him anonymously, since it has produced this thoughtful and magnificent reply on a subject that is as important today as it was in the Sixties. Thank you, Michael! Jeff Blankfort Michael Rossman wrote: > > Blankfort writes: > > > > . . . we have been assailed as violators of "free speech" by everyone > > from the Anti-Defamation League . . . to veterans of Berkeley Free Speech > > Movement (FSM) including one member of this list. > > Sonuvabitch! I post pithy perspectives on the electoral theater to this list, > and nobody says nothing (save one kind private note.) But one off-balance > moment with the media, and my persona is neon-signed as an apostate, a verbal > jackbooter of virtue! And worse than I apparently deserve, for Jeff has me " > assail[ing] [him and his friends] as violators of "free speech," whereas all > that the Burress article (S.F. Chron, see digest #434] actually said is: > > > The Free Speech Movement also used civil disobedience . . . but Michael Rossman, a > > Berkeley writer and member of the movement, called the Netanyahu protesters' definition of > > civil disobedience [as quoted to him by the reporter] 'illegitimate.' "That's like saying any time > > you do anything against the law for principle, it's civil disobedience," he said. "That's > > too broad." > > Hey, folks, I appeal! Isn't this sole quote from me reasonable in itself? > Hasn't Jeff jumped the gun in classing me with his assailants on basis of how > the quote was used, rather than reading and thinking carefully? Shouldn't > someone with so much political experience be used to the way a reporter will > do a whole interview yet use only one sentence of quote, out of context, to > make whatever point he wants? How could he get taken in so easily? How could I? > > I trust I need not put in the cute typographic smiley-faces to indicate rueful > irony and spare others' feelings. As for my own . . . hey, feel free to kick > away at them, I deserve no less. Here follows my post on the issue, to the > small discussion-group of the FSM Archives board. Several had signed a > statement -- not as the board, but personally as FSM vets -- which was > promptly published, and which can be read less-inaccurately as attacking the > protest. As you'll see, I had trouble signing on; yet got took anyway > independently, by my own confusions. It's a mercy Burress didn't quote more of > my interview; to justify Jeff's intuitive take more clearly. But I have > thought the matter through further (if not to finality), and side more with > Robbie Osman's eloquent take. > > Michael Rossmajn <mrossman@igc.org> > > =================================== > > Dear Friends [on the FSM-A board], > > I'm sorry to have been absent from this conversation, but I did not want to > contribute to its confusion with my own fumbling. I had sat down to sign on to > the text Lynne sent most recently, in full sympathy, but the fussy writer in > me paused to do a slight re-edit for sake of grace and clarity. I got through > the first paragraph just fine, and the start of the second. But here's what > stuck in my craw and choked my sympathy, slightly edited: > > "Though our movement began as a protest to protect the free-speech rights of > students involved in the Civil Rights movement, it never limited its defense > of free speech to those with whom we agreed or to advocates of the causes we > liked, a position that would have been hypocritical to say the least." > > Though I admire and share the passion thus expressed, as an honest historian > I must say that this position is hypocritical to say the least, if not an > outright lie. Unless one regards the FSM as limited strictly to the active > conflict in 1964, I think that it must be understood as having finked out on > defense of free speech in the "FUCK" episode the following spring; and that > this cannot be dismissed as a trivial betrayal. (Precisely the same may be > said in regard to its failure to come to Lenny Glazer's defence.) The most > that can be said honestly, along this line, is that our _vision_ of free > speech afforded special protection to controversial speech in abstract terms. > I would like to add, "and that we had no occasion to test this vision in > defense of speech we didn't like," but the FUCK and Glazer examples choke me. > > In view of this, I think there is no "FSM position on free speech" to express > and defend, at least in regard to the current issue, either as FSM-A or as a > pack of FSM vets self-professedly carrying-on its legacy. I agree with Reggie > and many, that it was completely inappropriate for FSM-A itself to take a > position on this issue (though this does not apply to the KPFA issue, for > reasons I'll be glad to discuss separately if anyone cares.) I agree with > Lynne, that it is approprate for a pack of FSM vets to make a public statement > - -- but only about a technical point of history, not about the morality and > politics of the Netanyahu protest. > > The technical point is that the protest was not in the spirit and legacy of > the FSM in either a positive or a negative sense, as some historically-minded > apologists and critics have claimed. But it's too easy, almost irresistable, > to slip directly from this into thinking and proclaiming that the protest > _betrayed_ the FSM's spirit and legacy. I know this because I did so myself > yesterday, responding to a journalist who called, feeding him most of the > content of Lynne's draft as if it were my own thought, sputtering in precisely > the predictable righteousness, as a keeper of sacred memory, that he called on > me to express -- all the while feeling my anguish at what's happening in > Israel-Palestine, my abhorrance of Netanyahu, my gratitude forthe protesters' > presence and potency. I said some of this too to my interviewer, in broken > interjections, despite my certainty that nonetheless he would use my interview > simply to spank them; and wound up feeling more used than useful. I could not > begin to tell him what tentative resistance had crumbled so swiftly within me, > how my easy slide into collusion with his expectations was greased -- even in > so apparently independent and cantakerous a person -- by simple herd fear, by > my barely-grasped unease at how my long-term, smiling comrades might regard me > were I to stray from the kneejerk rightousness of our faith into apostasy. For > surely, in the stark logic of righteousness, to think that the protesters were > not simply wrong in interrupting Netanyahu is to maintain that some kinds of > speech should not be free. And who could be tolerated or taken seriously among > us who thinks that? > > As my wits return, I recognize that I and some others who signed letters, and > the memory of the FSM itself, have been used as a club to crush voices of > rightful protest. Is this metaphor indeed extreme? Whatever moral authority we > bear, as symbols of the FSM and literal keepers of its legacy, has been > mobilized to help brand the protestors and their protest's purpose as immoral. > Regardless of the reservations and nuances we tried to incorporate in our > statements, the effect is this stark. The field of pronouncement was clear of > competition; there was no one to say, "I speak for the FSM in supporting > them." To condemn them for "violating Free Speech" was a slam dunk, and we > just went and did it -- serving thereby as just another element in the wide > mechanism that has biased and stifled discourse and action on this issue to a > monstrous and sickening degree. > > I think this action is over, its small damage done and irreparable, unless > other media invite us to extend the damage further. No more careful > consideration of this incident's relation even to free speech, let alone to > the FSM, is likely to reach public consciousness, save perhaps through some > recondite, ill-read leftist journal. Even so, I'm still trying to think it > through. > > Like some others who were drawn to comment, I know too little about what > actually happened even to presume to judge, yet did so anyway. As ignorance > leaves me free to imagine, I do so more carefully here, in light of the > shameful rush to blame Nader for Gore's defeat, ignoring Gore's failings. I > imagine that the fault for Netanyahu's cancellation -- if fault it be -- lies > more with the speaker's sponsors, the auditorium's officials, and the police > than with the protestors. For the latters' responsibility was to make > themselves heard; but the responsibility to make the speaker heard was > entirely the former agencies', and they blew it. Thoughtful planning on their > part could have predicted the distinct possibility of so energetic a protest, > and could provided the proper forces and readiness to keep it from interfering > with Netanyahu's speech, save perhaps through scattered audience reaction. > (The argument that this would impose an unfair burden on sponsors of his > speech seems specious to me; but I'll come this below.) I imagine they could > even have mobilized the means to do so after the protesters first slipped > inside, but chose not to. Either way, to blame the protesters for the > authorities' decisions and failures in cancelling the speech seems misguided. > In this historical context, it serves simply to extend the general web of > repression of "anti-Netanyahu" speech, rather than to affirm anything > practical that we believe in -- least of all, their right to be heard. > > As for free speech, is its muzzling really an issue in this case? I think the > philosophical stance must engage with the practical issue of whether it's the > mouse or the elephant that needs the megaphone. Many draw back in fastidious > distaste from this task, preferring the easier way of keeping their principles > pure. But what alternative is bearable, other than plunging in? I shuddered > when my otherwise deeply-savvy younger son affirmed devoutly against > governmental regulation of corporations' TV advertising, on grounds that it > violated their rights of free speech, and their audiences' rights as well. > This is what confused application of the faith comes to, among the young. But > was I really so far from this, when I affirmed piously to my interviewer that > the free speech rights of his audience as well as of Netanyahu had been > abused? > > The fact is that Netanyahu's viewpoint has been and continues to be widely > and well expressed, and dominates U.S. discourse and action -- and that > contrary viewpoints have been systematically stifled. No one was kept from > access to his views by the lecture's cancellation, save in the most transient > sense -- for in effect, one can hardly escape from reading them over and over > in the endless coverage of this scene, from the N.Y. Times' editorials on > down. In such a circumstance, it seems to me, my moral responsibility to > ensure that Netanyahu can be heard on some particular occasion fades away. _He > doesn't need my help.._ The powerful have ample means to deliver their > messages, means which also stifle opposing messages and discourse itself; they > do not _need_ the protection of the First Amendment, being well-fortified by > law in practical regards. In the face of this, to keep the "pure" faith one > must say, "Yet even so, the _right_ of the powerful to speak and dominate > through speech must be supported in each instance, for on such principled, > unequivocal support depends the principled and unequivocal defense of the > right of each unpowerful speaker to speak and be heard." Though this hangs > together as a sentence and a stance, I think its logical coherence -- as well > as its apparant moral and philosophical integrity -- is an illusion that > dissolves under closer examination, though I forbear to pursue this here. > > I find myself led too readily to think of Netanyahu as a "controversial" > speaker, who by this designation might merit protection in the same sense that > I might if I spoke against him. That I hate his views and that the issue is so > agonizing and public does not make him "controversial" in the same sense as > the protestors. Indeed, the problem of discourse is that the controversy > itself is suppressed; and that Netanyahu is an active agent in its suppression > through his appearances here as in action at home, rather than a free agent > simply contributing to public dialogue, in the classical sense of the First Amendment. > > Such analysis suggests a modified free speech stance, which I summarize > crudely here, as the hour is late. The First Amendment was designed not to > enable the powerful to deliver their messages unopposed, but to enable the > unpowerful to be heard against this. When it's used for the former purpose, it > subverts the latter; and by this betrays itself. As a principled and practical > matter, what must be defended is the right of the powerful to speak in forums > of genuine discourse, in which opposing viewpoints are heard and engaged -- as > in the liberal idea of J.S. Mill, that resonated through the framing of the > Amendment and infected us in our youth. Beyond and failing this, I have no > particular respect for their abstract "right" to speak unopposed; and indeed > find this very concept as incoherent as the "right" of the manor lord to > vassals' daughters, since in general it is an exercise not of "right" but > simply of power. > > To characterize vociferous interruption of a malign sermon perpetuating > national barbarity as "interference with free speech," rather than as its > tumultuous expression, is too much for me to stomach; I am ashamed that I did > so. I am surprised also to recognize how much more willing and less conflicted > I would be in arguing and demonstrating for the right of an American Nazi to > speak in public, as compared to Netanyahu's "right." Since they seem as moral > twins to me, the contrast is instructive and clear: The First Amendment and > the idea of free speech were meant to protect the Nazi and me, not Netanyahu. > At the moment, I'm sorry I wasn't there yelling. > > Michael > > ------------------------------ > > End of sixties-l-digest V1 #436 > *******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/12/00 EST