SLURS OF THE TIMES
NEW YORK Post Opinion
August 2, 2005
After its high-minded defense of "freedom of speech" regarding the debate at Ground Zero, you'd think The New York Times might be a tad less ham-handed in its efforts to silence those who disagree with it.
"Critics of the cultural plan at Ground Zero" say the site "must contain no facilities 'that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events,' " a Times editorial huffed last week.
"This, to us, sounds un-American."
Now, if we were less high-minded ourselves, we might take that personally. That's because we've been in the forefront of efforts to ensure that the site where the War on Terror began for so many Americans is not politicized.
Ever.
We certainly agree that unfettered "dialogue" and freely expressed "artistic impressions" are, well, as American as apple pie.
But that's not what the Ground Zero debate is about.
Rather, the question is whether it's appropriate to use land in the public trust, and public funds, to transform the very spot where the nation suffered the most devastating domestic attack in its history into a venue for debating whether the terrorists had a point.
By all means, have the debate.
But, please, just don't have it at Ground Zero.
That is to say, please park the proposed International Freedom Center someplace other than Ground Zero.
The center is the brainchild of some folks who think it'll be dandy to discuss — among other things — America's dirty laundry in public, on the public dime. Or, as one put it last spring, "the International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you, and I, will disagree."
Once the heat was on, museum officials began talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying the facility would "never" feature exhibits that "denigrate" America — but also that "absolute guarantees" to that effect, as Gov. Pataki has demanded, are impossible.
The honorable course is for the facility to bow out of the project — and find a home somewhere off-site.
Freedom of speech would be preserved, but gratuitous insults to 9/11's dead — and the site where they died — would be avoided.
This is the argument we and others, like Debra Burlingame (whose brother was the pilot of one of the hijacked planes on 9/11), have advanced — in the spirit of free and open debate about the future of the site.
Doing so hasn't made us — and, especially, Burlingame — "un-American."
And the readiness to hurl the term says more about the Times than it does about anyone else.
nypost.com |
