Responding to my flailing around for an appropriate word to describe Michael Moore's upcoming film, David writes:
Here's a non-four-letter word for the making of a deliberately dishonest film attacking one's own nation in a time of war for the survival of our civilization: "treason".
To publicly characterize it as treason would be wrong. It would also be libel.
Treason in the US has a very specific meaning, defined in the Constitution in Article III.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
This was included in the Constitution because in Europe at the time, the powers-that-be had routinely used charges of treason to eliminate political dissenters and critics. As a practical matter, in many places the act of criticizing government policy was de facto treasonous.
The Founders tried to establish a national system based on an entirely new idea: that the government worked for the people and belonged to them, not the other way around. They felt that it was vital for there to be as much protection as possible for expression of a very wide range of political viewpoints, especially those critical of the policies of the current administration. That's why the First Amendment was proposed; except for its clauses relating to religion, it is intended to protect the right of citizens to speak and write criticism of the government without legal peril. More broadly, and including the clauses relating to religion, the real point of the First Amendment is to protect what could be referred to as freedom of conscience, the freedom of each person to form opinions and to make moral decisions.
The reason that the Constitution contains a definition of treason is to make sure charges of treason would not get used in the US by any given administration to silence or destroy opponents, critics, and dissenters the way treason charges were being used in Europe at the time. (And still.)
Taliban John is a traitor. He levied war against the US. I think that if the US had wanted to pursue a charge of treason against him, he would have been convicted and might have been executed for it. But instead, he made a plea bargain (in exchange for opening up and telling the government everything he knew about al Qaeda and the Taliban), and was never formally charged with treason as such. Still, he is a traitor.
But even though what Moore is doing may well be detestable, it is not remotely close to being treasonous. Certainly he is not levying war against the US. Unlike Taliban John, he has not become a soldier for an enemy power and directly engaged in combat against American troops.
Nor is it the case that he is "adhering to enemies" or "providing aid and comfort" to them. "Aid and comfort" is much more than just rhetoric and moral support. It refers to things like giving significant amounts of money or military equipment to an enemy, or engaging in espionage on an enemy's behalf, or providing safe houses for enemy agents. Expressing opinions strongly critical of government policy, and advocating the idea that said policy is wrong and should be changed, is and must be protected political speech, not treason.
It would be highly dangerous to our system to try to claim that anyone who dissents against war is committing treason. That's exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent in Article III and with the First Amendment. We cannot and should not think of dissent as treasonous
Even if we think that the dissenters are lying.
We must permit such criticism, because we can't dismiss the possibility that the nation might end up in a war it shouldn't be fighting. The genius of the American political system is not that it guarantees to never make mistakes, but that it is more able to recognize and correct the mistakes it does make. Broad legal protection for public expression of dissent is a vital piece of that.
We can't dismiss the possibility that an administration might well lie to the nation in order to get the nation to go to war. I emphatically do not think that is the case now, but it could happen.
There have always been domestic opponents of every war this nation has ever fought. We protect their right to speak and to make their case, so that other citizens can listen to what they say and decide if their case is convincing. If not, they will not convince enough to be politically significant. But if they're actually correct, and make a good enough case, then enough citizens will eventually join them, and the nation will change course.
I do not feel any need to prevent my fellow citizens from hearing "dangerous ideas". I have enough faith in them to think that they will not be led astray, or at least that enough won't be that the system won't be imperiled.
There is a calculation some make when they see ideas with which they strongly disagree, more or less like this:
This argument is blatantly wrong; it is specious and its conclusions are profoundly dangerous. I in my knowledge and wisdom am not misled by it, but others are less intelligent and more gullible than I, and if they are exposed to it they might be gulled. Since the argument is wrong and the conclusions are dangerous, it would be disastrous if it began to influence public policy, and since it contributes nothing useful or positive to public discussion of the issues, no harm would be caused by suppressing it. But if it is not suppressed, it might well begin to affect public policy. Therefore this should be censored.
There are some who would actually nod their heads and agree with this, even though I'm presenting it in rather unkind terms. But most people object to it on its face.
That said, in particularly egregious cases many will find themselves thinking something like this, rationalizing it thusly: "Ordinarily I oppose censorship, but this particular case is exceptional".
I emphatically disagree with that argument. I consider any censorship of expression of political ideas to be prima facie harmful irrespective of whether those ideas have any value or utility (or whether they even contain any truth). I also know that those who censor today may find themselves censored tomorrow.
Recently I put it this way:
You cannot defend freedom by taking it away from others. If you believe in freedom, you are forced to defend the freedom of those you despise, and defend their right to publicly deliver a message you hate. Suppression of dissent is tyranny, no matter who is doing the suppressing.
We demonstrate our true dedication to the idea of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression when we defend that freedom for those whose ideas we detest.
I defend the right of the Nazis to speak. I defend the right of members of NAMBLA to speak. And I defend Michael Moore's right to speak. I detest them all equally, albeit for different reasons, but I am harmed just as much as they if they cannot say what they think. |
