Interesting...


This one-sided documentary talks about people defending the First Amendment, then condemns everyone who opposes those people by using *their* First Amendment Rights.

A nice, hypocritical viewpoint--exactly as we've come to expect from the left.

If they were so interested in supporting everyone's First Amendment Rights, why would they feel the need to even categorize people as "the right?" Shouldn't everyone's opinions count the same?

It doesn't appear so...

Sleep peaceably at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf.

reply

This one-sided documentary talks about people defending the First Amendment, then condemns everyone who opposes those people by using *their* First Amendment Rights.
What are you talking about?
If they were so interested in supporting everyone's First Amendment Rights, why would they feel the need to even categorize people as "the right?"
Do you remember the section about the kid in high school arguing that homosexuality is shameful? That section was attacking "the left" for their attempts at suppressing free speech.

"C'mon...you're better than that!"

reply

Actually, the guy had a point.

1. They're complaining about Ward Churchill and the teacher, but people were using the first amendment to speak out against what they thought was wrong. Whether the people on the right were correct or not, they have the right to protest against someone who they want fired. Churchill deserved it for other reasons, the teacher got screwed over, but IT IS STILL NOT MCCARTHY-LIKE STUFF. You have the right to say anything you want -- you just might get fired for it. If the government arrested Churchill because of what he said it would be another story, but he just got fired. Rush Limbaugh said crazy stuff on ESPN and got fired. Imus got fired. If you think the Churchill thing is a crime, are you going to go to bat for those two?

2. That homophobe kid was A. the shortest section in the movie and B. a very poor choice to show the "conservative point of view." If you honestly believe that idiot is a good representation of conservatives, you're much more prejudiced than I can explain.

reply

"This one-sided documentary talks about people defending the First Amendment, then condemns everyone who opposes those people by using *their* First Amendment Rights. "

One-sided? False. Each segment was commented on by advocates from the left and right. Along with Martin Garbus, Eric Foner and Ward Churchill, you were presented with commentary from David Horowitz, Eugene O'Donnel, Daniel Pipes, and Richard Posner among others.

Not that I agree with his views regarding homosexuality, but I thought the segment about Chase Harper was the most poignant and infuriating (infuriating - regarding his denial of 1st Amendment rights) of the entire documentary. I nearly stood up and applauded his quote:

"Offensive? When has speech been restricted simply because it's offensive? Are we in America?"

I was actually surprised that someone who was capable of such adept reasoning could be so swept up in the unreasonableness of right wing "Christian" bigotry. Stunning, really.

I was disappointed with the Ward Churchill segment, simply because Liz Garbus failed to provide any investigation into the official reasons why Mr. Churchill was fired. This is only alluded to by Mr. Garbus (I think it was him, the quote is not attributed to anyone as the speaker is off screen) stated they dug up "skeletons in his closet" - however, that was the only segment in this well made and provocative documentary that struck me as one-sided.

reply

the primary reason Churchill was dismissed was academic fraud, which was well documented (unlike his credentials and his faux-native American heritage). My paternal grandmother was Chickasaw, and I don't appreciate individuals such as Mr. Churchill who falsely proclaim Native American heritage for personal gain and propaganda purposes.

As for the documentary itself, its very exisitence undercuts the argument made by the filmmakers. If the 1st Amendment were under such virulent attack, surely they would be unable to produce such a film. But yet they did. Amazing!

Furthermore, the greatest threat to free speech is the censorship that takes place on college campuses every day. Bring a liberal speaker to campus to speak, and you may see a few conservative students protesting outside, possibly even inside. Bring a conservative to campus, and you'll be lucky to even hear him speak, as leftist student organizations work hard to ensure that threats, intimidation, and general chaos prevents the exchange of ideas that they find distasteful.

THAT is an affront to the 1st Amendment, certainly more so than Mr. Churchill's alledged grievances.

reply

youngerone1, my primary criticism was that the academic fraud you speak of was not well documented at all in this film. Never did they cite the specific charges against Mr. Churchill, they were only briefly alluded to.

I'm not aware of any allegations against Mr. Churchill's stated heritage - can you provide proof of your claim?

I also think you missed the point in a larger sense. The film merely acknowledges that the protection the 1st Amendment offers is not absolute, and it does this through commentary on a handful of cases that have fallen into a legal gray area. Never did the filmmakers imply that 1st Amendment rights have been restricted to the point of banning the production of films. After watching the film, a modicum of critical thinking reveals that is not the argument the filmmakers are making. The film is an acknowledgment that the law is, in many cases, elastic and not absolute. This is Into To Constitutional Law 101.

reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Ethnic_background

There's some debate about whether or not he actually is Native American. I personally think he is, based on my own experience. I have some distant Native American ancestry (my great great grandmother on my paternal side and my great great grandfather on my maternal side, both of which are more or less confirmed, as well as some supposed other ancestors I haven't really been able to verify). I also know for a fact that my paternal great great grandfather was Native American because a cousin of mine has a certificate of Indian Blood but has so far refused to let any of the rest of the family have access to the birth certificates and other records she used to prove our ancestry, so I'm legally not Native American. Also, my great great grandfather said he was white on the census, even though he wasn't. It was actually VERY common for Native Americans to say they were white on censuses, and many invented ancestries such as "Black Dutch" or claimed to be Italian in order to explain their dark complexion. Remember, Native Americans weren't legally citizens of the United States until the early 1900s, so claiming Native American ancestry on a census was more or less suicide. It meant you were either likely to be expelled to a reservation or else lose all of your benefits and protections as a US citizen.

Given this, it's not unheard of for someone to have quite a bit of Native American ancestry and still not be considered Native American by the government/tribal authorities.

One of the reasons it's so hard to prove is that the government and Bureau of Indian Affairs made the requirements very strict (even a DNA test which identifies the person's race isn't considered valid proof when obtaining entry into any of the tribes or getting a certificate of Indian Blood) in an effort to encourage assimilation. The tribal authorities, on the other hand, have been equally as strict and unbending when it comes to people of mixed ancestry in an effort to discourage assimilation and mixing with white people. For example, of someone born on a reservation moves away from the reservation, they permanently forfeit most of their tribal rights and privileges and are not allowed to move back. This is done to discourage people from leaving and assimilating.

However, both sides have the effect of making it very hard to prove Native American ancestry for someone who has been distanced from the tribe for a number of generations.

Therefore, Ward Churchill's story is actually pretty common. I know of other people than just me and him who are in similar situations, and it's perfectly plausible.

reply

Youve filled in a few blanks I have had in my life. I have been told that my family has heavy native american ancestry but its become kind of a joke me and my brothers laugh about considering theres also heavy black and puerto rican ancestry. My brothers and I actually found my great grandfathers legal papers and he was listed as "Black Dutch" so we always assumed the native american thing was something my grandfather made up to avoid being listed as 100 percent black. Youve given me something to think about.

reply