Freedom of speech must sometimes be protected from freedom of speech:

Introduction:
As promised this post will attempt to explain how radicalism on campuses and amongst university faculties can, and indeed should be curtailed in order to protect Free Speech. This is a difficult topic, and I ask readers to bear with me as I attempt to articulate my case. In some cases I may not elaborate on a particular point for the sake of brevity, and ask that questions be freely asked if clarification (or further explanation) is desired. As always your comments and input are most welcome.

Note: I am sorry to have to explain this, but to avoid confusion please note that the term 'liberal' is not used to denote political leaning to the left, but rather in the sense that one is in favor of liberty and a free society.

Free Speech:
Freedom of speech is amongst the most cherished of American values, and rightly so. It is this freedom that leads to the free flow of ideas, to political change, to social adaptation and growth, to a free and liberal society. That being said, there are certain understood limitations that we, as a respoinsible society, recognize as needed to protect ourselves from the consequences of certain types of speech.

Limitations:
In early U.S. Supreme Court rulings (understood loosely to mean rulings from the 19th century) the limit of free speech became understood as 'yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.' That is, speech that leads directly to the harm of others (an individual or a group) can be restricted in order to maintain peace and order. Therefore one limit on the freedom of speech curtails statements that directly lead to the harm of others. A common way of understanding this would be to say that my right to speak (and by extension, to express myself) ends at the tip of your nose.

But there are other cases where speech may be justifiably limited, namely situations in which one's speech comes into conflict with that of another.

Concepts - Speech Acts:
According to the Philosopher J.L. Austin, when we speak, we do more than merely make sounds, we act. Some examples of speech acts, understood as speech that accomplishes something, are:

• “I do.” (in a marriage ceremony)


• “I name this ship the SS More powerful that Batman, Superman, and the Incredible Hulk put together.”


• “I give and bequeath my house to my son.” (in a will)


• “I bet you a dollar in will snow tomorrow.”

For the sake of brevity I will leave the examples above to speak for themselves. Such speech acts can be distributed into three categories:

• locutionary acts:  what is said.


• perlocutionary acts:  the effects of what is said.


• illocutionary acts:  the action that the saying constitutes.

That is:

• locutionary acts:  the actual utterance, "I do"


• perlocutionary acts:  the result of the utterance, if one says "I do" one becomes married


• illocutionary acts:  the action that the saying constitutes, saying "I do" constitutes entering into the bonds of marriage. More simply, the illocutionary act of saying "I do" is that the couple is married.

Another important concept to understand here (and I promise that this will all become relevant by the end of this post) is that of felicity conditions, of which there are three:

• speaker's intention


• uptake,


• and (social) conventions

In order for a speech act to be successful, the felicity conditions must be fulfilled.

The last concept that needs to be explained is that of silencing. There are cases in which certain speech can, in effect, silence others. Namely:

• locutionary silencing: physical silencing, for example if a judge says “Silence in the courtroom!”


• perlocutionary frustration: a sort of neutralization of the intended effects of a speech act


• illocutionary disablement: for example, an actor yells 'fire!' to indicate to the audience that there is, in fact, a fire, but the audience believes this to be a part of the show, and so does not respond to the actor's alarm

Some speech acts can result in illocutionary disablement by fixing or determining the felicity conditions of some set of speech acts, thus rendering the illocutionary act of a speaker disabled. One classic example of this is that of a South African legislator’s utterances that determine who may and who may not vote, and thus disables a black South African’s illocutionary act of voting.

Arguments:
The issue of free speech as it relates to radical professors such as Joseph Massad and the like rests on understanding Freedom of Speech as being defined as the protection of speech acts. That is, if one defines free speech in terms of the speech acts one performs by talking or sharing an opinion, radical professors actually infringe on the free speech of their students when espousing their paranoid, hate-filled ideas.

In the case of a radical professor, such as Joseph Massad, his rantings and ravings (see the New York Sun article mentioned in a previous post) have the effect of disabling the illocutionary acts of his students.

In other words, because Mr. Massad is speaking from the position of a Professor, which in a university carries the weight and influence of academic authority, he is able to literally define the lexicon of the discussion. That is, he, and those like him, define the type of rhetoric that is used in academic discussions of the Israeli-Palestinaian conflict. Normally this would not be a problem, but given the publicly recognized radicalism of Mr. Massad (who is being used as a case study for what is, sadly, a larger trend in the American academy), this speech prevents his students from being able to exercise their free speech.

For example, when Mr. Massad states that "Zionists have adopted the identity of the anti-Semite and Palestinians have taken on a Jewish identity" he is making it impossible for a pro-Israeli student to make the claim that they are a zionist (A zionist is, contrary to the radical ideas of people like Massad, not a racist, bigoted and violent person, but rather a zionist is a believer in, and supporter of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. I would hesitate to use the phrase 'Jewish Nationalism', but zionsim certainly approaches this in some ways), as this would result in them being understood not as they intended (as a supporter of the Jewish State), but as Mr. Massad has most unfairly defined (a bigot).

The result, in this instance, is the illocutionary disablement of the student's speech act of support for Israel by disrupting the felicity conditions of the student's speech act. That is, because Mr. Massad and other radical professor's like him have, in effect, redefined (at least in the context of their classrooms) the rehtoric, it is impossible for a student to state 'I am a zionist' without being misunderstood. the student's illocutionary act of supporting Israel becomes an act of declaring one's supposed prejudices. to use terms included in the conceptual discussion above, neither the speaker's intent nor the audience's uptake are satisfied, and so the speech act of the pro-Israel student is nullified. To put it one last way, the radical professor's are setting the felicity conditions of the student's speech, and so it is impossible for the student to speak freely.

'Why,' one might ask, 'should the speech of the professor be limited to protect the ability of one or a few students to declare their support for Israel?'

In response I would argue that, because these professors are in a position of educating students, they are in a position to define the rhetoric that will ultimately be used in a much broader sense. Consider a high school instituting mandatory profanity usage policies whereby students may only refer to their parents as assholes. While many teenagers may sometimes feel this way, to teach this in a school would legitimize an obviously ridiculous concept, and formalize the disrespect of parents in society. The same logic applies to university faculty (and indeed educators at all levels). If faculty like Joseph Massad are allowed to continue to pass along their hate-filled, biased, and radical ideas and sentiments as authentic scholarship, then society will be forced, without knowing it, into thinking along the lines of men like Joseph Massad (radical islamists). The end result of this would not be the silencing of a few students who disagree, or of a few students who identify as pro-Israel, rather the result would be a dangerous shut-down on pro-Israel and non-anti-Semitic perspectives, effectively silencing a much larger segment of society.

In light of this, I believe that the protection of academic freedom and freedom of speech can and should be lifted from men and women like Massad, as the consequences are far worse than the restriction on the free speech of a few. I do not contend that opinions such as theirs ought never be heard, but rather that they ought not be condoned as academic work and scholarship.

New: An excellent article was recently written on this subject here.

News to watch:

I highly recomend that my readers follow the story of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, as this case will prove to be most interesting, as well as test the limits of international cooperation as it relates to prosecution of terrorists.

Background:
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was detained in Saudi Arabia for around two years based on accusations (and subsequent Saudi investigations) of connection to Al Qaeda operatives in the kingdom. During the course of this investigation it was discovered that Abu Ali may have been involved in a plot to assasinate the President of the United States. Abu Ali, a US citizen and a valedictorian of his class at the Saudi Islamic Institute (a Saudi funded wahabi leaning school in Northern Virginia) was returned to the United States and charged with attempting to provide material support to terrorists, and several other counts.

Some articles about this case (I am including the headline and authors names in case the links are terminated while this post is still up):

Prosecutors Say Va. Man Not Tortured
Treatment by Saudis At Issue in Terror Case
By Jerry Markon and Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48751-2005Feb23.html

------------------------------

Terrorist Plot to Kill Bush Alleged
Suspect, a Va. Man, Was Held by Saudis Nearly Two Years
By Jerry Markon and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 23, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43940-2005Feb22.html

------------------------------

U.S. says American citizen a 'grave danger'
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali charged after Saudi Arabia detention
CNN Thursday, February 24, 2005 Posted: 1:20 PM EST (1820 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/23/saudi.american/index.html

------------------------------

Terror Suspect's Family Protests Jail Rules
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES DAO
New York Times Published: February 25, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/national/25terror.html?

------------------------------

Man charged for 'Bush death plot'
BBC News Published Tuesday, 22 February, 2005, 17:38 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4288333.stm

------------------------------

Those should provide a well balanced background. Again, this may prove to be an interesting case, either based on the information that comes to light as a result of it (details about the level of cooperation between US and foreign governments in the War on Terror), or in watching a terrorist face American justice.

Almost there...

The promised post will be up by tomorrow evening. I hope it is enjoyed as much as I enjoyed writing it.
~Johannes de Silentio

Technology:

A true advance in personal computing:

So again, in lieu of more substantial content while I continue working on the promised posting about free speech, I will offer a litle bit of fluff.

If you have never heard of modular computers, check out OQO.com. Essentially a modular computer is one that functions as a portable device and a computer. Think of it as a step down in size from a laptop computer, and a leap up in capability over todays more common PDAs.

The truly exciting quality of these machines is not their size, however, but the potential applications when one combines this sort of pocket-computer with a wearable display (see this Wired article, and this article from USA Today). The potential here is that one can carry around a simple 'box' that funcions as the CPU while wearing an eye-piece to function as the display, thus freeing current devices from the power-hungry displays and granting a longer abttery life to the computers themselves. Consider that instead of the 3-5 hour battery life of most laptop computers, one could potentially double this time by removing the display and replacing disc drives with card slots compatible with compact-flash cards or SD cards (both mediums have long since surpassed the 1GB benchmark). The potential to truly liberate computers from table tops is an intriguing concept.

Coming soon...

Over the next couple days I will be busy constructing the promised argument for the justifiable limitation of the academic freedom/freedom of speech of certain professors at U.S. universities. My argument will, to give a taste in advance, make the case that, because of the position held by radical professors, their radical statements and clear biases constitute a form of silencing with regards to their students. As such, this speech can be justifiably limited to protect the freedom of speech of the students. I apologize for the lack of new content until this post is ready, but I want to give it the attention I believe it deserves. Your patience and continued patronage of my Blog are appreciated.

In lieu of my own content for today, I would like to open this post up for your submissions. Please feel free to leave comments on a vareiety of subjects and I will respond as time permits.

~Johannes de Silentio

2 articles worth reading:

During my web surfing today I came across a couple of very interesting articles that I thought merited posting here. The title of this post is not intended to imply that there is nothing else worth reading, but rather that I found these two pieces to be especially noteworthy. Enjoy.

* Interesting brief on the apparent changes in the Syrian-Russian alliance. You can find it here.

* Interesting article and analysis on the Iranian nuclear program. You can find it here.

~JDS

On the status of the academy:

Massad's Theory: The Zionists Are The Anti-Semites
Crisis At Columbia

BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 22, 2005 The New York Sun
http://www.nysun.com/article/9516

"The Palestinian intifada against Israel may have been a blessing in
disguise for Jews, according to a Columbia University assistant
professor, Joseph Massad."


The excerpt above is a small portion of the terrific article that can be found at the link provided. For the record, the Palestinian intifada refers to the 4 year campaign of terror waged by Palestinian radicals (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the splinter Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, et al) against Israel, including attacks on civilians, some of which have been innocent children.

There is a tremendous problem in the academy today: radicalism and extremism masquerading as scholarship. There are many examples, Joseph Massad being perhaps one of the more glarring examples. Another example is that of University of Colorado tenured professor Ward Churchill who, in an essay published soon after September 11, 2001, likened the victims of the attacks to Adolf Eichman, the man widely considered to be the ultimate architect of Nazi Germany's genocide.

In the New york Sun article, Massad is explained to espouse the theory that Israel, the Jewish State that welcomed many refugees from Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust, is a state rooted in Nazi ideology and technique. Massad, the article explains, further contends that the Palestinians, whose claim-to-fame of recent memory has been the advent of a campaign of sustained suicide bombings against civilians including children, have assumed the role of the Jews circa 1940. That is, Massad contends that the Palestinians fill the role of helpless victims being slaughtered by the millions at the hands of Israel, who he contends has taken the role of the Nazis (slaughterer of millions based on ideas of racial superiority).

I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict here, but would prefer to discuss how this sort of concept, based largely on the paranoid theory and virulent anti-semitism of radical Islamic terrorism, has been passed off as an academic opnion rooted in sounds scholarship.

I would be curious to see the sources on which Joseph Massad based his outlandish remarks, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that the majority of his footnotes would read "author's opinions".

My point is this: if America wishes to maintain its reputation for excellent institutions of higher education, we as a society must reexamine the ideas being spoused by our academics. It is one thing to allow leniency and bend over backwards, so to speak, to protect academic freedom and the Right to free speech, but there comes a time when Universities such as Columbia and the University of Colorado, Boulder must look at themselves in the mirror and ask "how much of what Joseph Massad and Ward Churchill are saying truly reflects the standards of academic integrity we expect from our Professors (or tenured professors as is the case of Mr. Churchill)?" Furthermore they must ask "at what point do we cease to allow radical individuals to use their positions as members of our distinguished faculties to espouse hate-filled and irrational ideologies from which no good scholarship can come?"

For more information on radical academics on U.S. Campuses, I recommend Campus Watch, a web site dedicated to monitoring radical professors in the United States and Canada.

Please stay tuned for a later discussion of the silencing effects such hostile and radical rhetoric can have on student populations in a discussion of when Free Speech may be curtailed in the name of Free Speech.

Nuclear weapons review:

During the 2004 US Presidential election debates, both challenger Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush stated for the record that nuclear proliferation was the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. But how many people really understand this threat, and how fearfully realistic it is? This posting intends to explain some of this in laymen’s terms (questions may be posed via comments on this post, or though doing your own research via the internet. See below for a list of suggested web sites to visit to learn more).

(Author's note: I would have included pictures in this entry to better explain the topics discussed, but chose not to as the links below will guide readers to all necessary imagery)

Unfamiliar terms you might have come across:

• Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)

HEU is one of two types of radioactive material that can be used to construct a working nuclear bomb, the other being plutonium. HEU is a sample of uranium, usually described as a percentage, that contains X% of the uranium isotope U-235. U-235 is preferred for its nuclear properties and can be used in both nuclear reactors and weapons. For the purposes of a nuclear bomb, it is necessary to enrich uranium to around 90% HEU (read as a sample of uranium that is 90% U-235), while reactors require a far less potent sample. Uranium can be enriched through the use of centrifuges and lasers.

• Gas Centrifuge

The centrifuges used in the process of enriching uranium operate on the same principle as the centrifuges one might have seen in a chemistry class or at a doctor’s office. A centrifuge spins at very fast speeds creating centrifugal force. That is, creating a situation in which heavier particles will move to the outside of the centrifuge chamber leaving the lighter particles closer to the middle.

In the case of uranium enrichment, the centrifuges operate on this same principle, but instead of the horizontal spin of a typical centrifuge, those used in nuclear enrichment stand vertically and use a combination of motion, temperature alteration, and magnetic forces to create a more significant effect on the substance being separated.

Uranium destined for enrichment using centrifuges must be converted into a gaseous form of uranium, known as uranium hexafluoride (UF6). UF6 is fed into the vertical centrifuges, which then operate and separate heavier particles of uranium (usually U-238) from lighter particles (generally meaning U-235). The lighter particles are then siphoned out of the centrifuge chamber, resulting in enriched uranium. Enrichment plants that are set up to enrich large quantities of uranium use what is called a cascade, which is a series of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of these centrifuges through which weapons-grade uranium can be produced, or substantial amounts of uranium can be enriched to lower levels for use in reactor cores as fuel.

• Plutonium

Plutonium is an element that does not occur naturally on Earth, and so requires the use of a nuclear reactor to create. Once created through a procedure known as reprocessing, plutonium is a highly radioactive element that makes excellent core material for nuclear weapons. Plutonium is generally not used as reactor fuel.
Reprocessing plutonium is a complicated and expensive process. Essentially it involves removing nuclear reactor core material that has been spent, in other words it can no longer function as core material as its radioactivity has decreased through the slow and controlled nuclear reactions of the reactor core. Once removed, plutonium particles are extracted from the spent sample and stored. I admittedly know less about this process than about uranium enrichment, though if you care to learn more there is, I am sure, ample information on the internet.

• Nuclear weapons

While virtually everyone today knows what a nuclear bomb is, fewer people know precisely how they work. Nuclear weapons can take a variety of shapes, come in a variety of sizes, and have destructive effects ranging from ridiculous to unfathomable, including single warheads powerful enough to wipe out an entire city and much of the surrounding area.
Nuclear weapons are highly sophisticated explosive devices that slam unstable, radioactive ‘blocks’ into each other, initiating a process known as nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is the destruction of the nuclei of the atomic particles of a given material. Because of the relative instability of HEU and plutonium, these substances, used in large enough quantities, form the core of nuclear weapons.

While I cannot pretend to have working knowledge of the most sophisticated designs that exist, the basic principle of a nuclear weapon involves accelerating 2 ‘blocks’ of radioactive material, either HEU or plutonium, into one and other using conventional high explosives. The result is the destruction of the nuclei of the atomic particles in the sample of either HEU or plutonium, and the release of incredible amounts of energy.

Links:

http://www.iaea.org
http://cns.miis.edu/
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/
http://www.sandia.gov/programs/nuclear-weapons/
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/

Memo to Tehran

Feb. 21, 2005 - Iran reiterated on Monday that it would not bow to U.S. and European demands that it abandon uranium enrichment, stressing that its nuclear capability was "not for sale."


That is from a Reuters news wire article. Unfortunately for Iran, nobody is looking to “buy” them out of their nuclear program. Rather, the United States and Europe recognize that a) Iran is not operating a purely peaceful nuclear power program and b) both Europe and the United States are, in keeping with their cultures of generosity and progressiveness, trying to give Iran an incentive other than the threat of violent action to cease their clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Let me say that again so it is perfectly clear. The offers being made by Europe and the United States are not attempts to bribe Iran into halting its activities, but rather are evidence of the West’s desire to use force only as a last resort, preferring instead to try to bring Iran deeper into the fold of the global community.

The current Ayatollah and his ruling cadre of hard-line clerics should take note, because there is an expiration date on the current offers and rhetoric. A nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated by the United States or Europe (allies of each included), and such a situation will be prevented by violent means IF necessary.

So, Ayatollah Khameini, distinguished leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, do not say that you were given no alternatives, and do not say that nuclear weapons are your right.

Nobody wishes to deny you nuclear power and I, for one, am willing to listen to your explanations with an open mind. I can understand the rationale of wishing to free up natural fuels (oil and gas) for export to assist your burgeoning economy, and I can understand the attractiveness of nuclear energy to make this possible.

However, I cannot listen to such explanations while you decline to expose the full length and breadth of your nuclear activities to the world (IAEA inspectors). You claim to pursue only peaceful power, I wish I could believe you. If you want to demonstrate that Iran is an honorable country that is (or should be) an equal partner in world events, accept proposals for the import of nuclear fuel and the export of nuclear waste under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Renounce any claim to the ‘right’ of indigenous nuclear fuel cycle beyond the eyes of the world, and a peaceful power program will be yours with our help.

Yet you refuse to do this, and you continue to raise suspicions. The only explanation is that you seek weapons. You have violated your treaty (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty [NPT], and Additional Protocols [which, by the way, you really ought to ratify as a sign of good faith]) obligations and when confronted with the evidence, you have done a little song and dance.

The West and indeed the World expects you to come clean, and doing so would be an enormous step in the right direction.

Useful tip for combating ignorance and stupidity

If you happen upon a Peace Rally:
1) Approach ignorant, committed pacifist talking about peace and saying there
should be "no retaliation"
2) Have a brief conversation w/ them and ask if military force is
appropriate.
3) When he says, "No." ask him, "Why not?"
4) When he says, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which
would be awful, and we should not cause more violence."
5) Punch him in the face . . . hard.
6) When he gets up to punch you, point out to him that it would be a
mistake to (and contrary to his values) punch you because he would be causing more
violence.
7) When he agrees with you that he has pledged not to commit violence,
punch him in the face again . . . only harder this time.
8) Repeat steps 2 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is
necessary to punch back

NOTE: this is intended for humor only, and does not represent the author's actual views on peace, violence, or interpersonal action. The author does not advocate punching a liberal in the face.

A Brief Discussion of Evaluative Hedonism in John Mill's "Utilitarianism"

In his work Utilitarianism Mill advances a theory known as evaluative hedonism, which states that pleasure is the only thing which itself is intrinsically good. The theory continues that other things that a person might consider good are good because of the pleasure that they provide. This idea in and of itself is compelling. If one considers a normal person’s actions, for example eating a meal, going to a sporting event, watching TV, smoking a cigarette, etc., the outcome of the activity is some sort of pleasure. In other words, if one considers the action of eating a meal it is clear that this activity brings pleasure.

Consider a thanksgiving meal. The table is set with steaming hot turkey that is neatly sliced and sitting on a plate in its own juices, a bowl of mashed potatoes sits looking at the people around the table inviting them to dig in. Plates with cranberries, stuffing, salads, and bread also adorn the table. Most people who have just eaten a thanksgiving meal, if asked how they felt, would reply that they felt good and full. The food itself was merely food, but the pleasure that one derives from eating such a meal is what makes it good.

Another example is smoking. Smoking is understood today to be harmful to one’s body and potentially lethal over time. Still, millions of people light up daily. When a young adult tries his or her first cigarette, the ultimate desired goal is pleasure. Whether this individual is smoking to fit in, to feel accepted, or just to experiment with something new, the goal is still pleasure. Fitting in is a good feeling, as it gives one confidence and strength and makes an individual feel accepted. Likewise, experimentation is often the only way to know if something is enjoyable or not. How can one make a judgment about an experience, such as drinking cherry coke, if one has never tried it? Ultimately, this idea is very compelling. It is difficult to think of a situation in which one does not seek some sort of pleasure or enjoyment.

Open question on the importance of knowing.

The question of whether the world is real or illusory has plagued thinkers for generations. For one thing, there is no good answer, we simply cannot know in the truest sense of the word.

Another problem that arises in this sort of discussion is the question of whether or not it makes any difference. In other words, if the world is a grand illusion, what difference does that make to anyone trapped inside it? Understanding that there is no way to "wake up" to the world as it really is, what difference does it make if the world we perceive is real or not?

Were it that we could wake up and see that our perceived world was a dream, the answer to this question would be simple, it would make a great deal of difference!

Another possible situation is that we could determine if our perceived world is illusory, but have no means to leave it in favor of reality. In this case, does it matter that we know we live inside a dream? Would it be better, perhaps, to remain ignorant of our condition?

Lastly, it is possible that the world is real and that there is no grand illusion or deception. Again, the same question comes to the front: what difference does it make?