|
Published April 2003 in The Post-Star newspaper Stifling your right to speak up COMMENTARY By STACEY MORRIS "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's difficult to translate a melody onto the page of a newspaper, but imagine for a moment a few bars of the immortal Patsy Cline ballad, "Crazy." If you've been following recent political commentary, you might wonder why "Crazy" isn't used as the soundtrack for coverage of the country's peace demonstrations. The demonstrators, or "Peaceniks" as they're scornfully referred to on occasion, have been called everything from unpatriotic to lunatic to lonely. That's right. Lonely. What other reason, theorized a journalist from The Washington Times, would there be for attending a peace rally on a Saturday afternoon? It might be melodramatic at this stage in American history to use the word afraid so I'll put it this way. Be concerned ... be verrry concerned. The snideness of the journalist's remarks about a particular segment of the population may seem like just another off-handed swipe that makes for colorful debate banter, but look a little closer. The effects of the underlying message are much more insidious. Subtle as it may be, there's a manipulation at work that intends to silently erode the core of personal liberty. It's just one of many instances I've discovered (on television and in print) of the groundwork of shame and embarrassment being laid -- all in hopes of silencing a particular viewpoint. You're probably thinking about now that you're in for a rant about the right of peace demonstrators to assemble and express their views. You're only half right. Because it would be equally inaccurate to define those who participate in troop-support demonstrations as totalitarian zealots. Not that I've heard many of those sentiments expressed anywhere, but if they were, it would still be a gross mischaracterization of the demonstrators' message. So can we take a time-out here? Let's just stop for a moment and look at this rationally. I've had contact with area residents on all sides of the issue. Not a single peace demonstrator has come across as unpatriotic, mentally disturbed or suffering from acute idleness. Nor have any of the troop supporters struck me as the sort who would endorse a dictatorship. Whatever our views, we as citizens of a democratic government are allowed to express them without fear of repercussion, whether it's in the form of tear gas and billy-clubbing or inaccurate labels that impugn one's character. Otherwise, we're on our way to devolving into a society that's no better than the ones we've currently been decrying. Maybe I'm generalizing, but most people probably wouldn't find it flattering to suddenly find themselves lumped into the category of pathetically lonely or treasonous. And that's just the mild criticism. Recently, on an Albany-based talk radio show, the host listed names of pro-peace celebrities, inserting the word 'Bin' between first and last names. The power of suggestion can do wonders. And it's catching. Everyone from gossip columnists to grandmothers have been hissing their disapproval at those who have been rallying for peace. Today it's an obnoxious talk show host spitting out the name Susan Bin Sarandon, but what's next? In the timeless words of Public Enemy: Don't believe the hype. Draw your own, and I do mean your own, conclusions, about peace demonstrators, troop supporters and the wearers of flag and peace-sign couture. And when you've made up your mind, realize with the utmost awe and gratitude, that you have the right to your beliefs. Publicly or in private -- they are yours to express. |