October 4–11, 2001

cover story

Speak No Evil

How patriotism is trying to silence voices of dissent.

by Daryl Gale, Frank Lewis and Gwen Shaffer

illustration: Paul Palcko

This is not the time.

Over and over we’ve been hearing this phrase in recent weeks. It’s not the time for Democrats in Congress to question President Bush. Not the time to make jokes, however dark, however grimly fitting. Not the time for any of us to appear doubtful about the course that our president has set us on since that recent, long-ago day when a handful of men armed with box cutters and motivations we’ll never understand executed a plan almost sublime in its brutality and changed the world.

Not the time. Some use exactly those words. Like when Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reacted to comments from comedian Bill Maher about America’s cowardice in "lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away," by saying: "It’s a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate. There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not the time for remarks like that; there never is." With two sentences, Fleischer seemed to extend President Bush’s challenge to the nations of the world — "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" — to Americans as well. And as of press time, his only attempt to modify his statement had been to claim he was speaking only of Maher and a particular member of Congress.

Others, however, don’t bother to present their contempt for others’ views as admonishments, but rather skip right ahead to the threats. Often, these are threats of violence, sometimes veiled, sometimes not.

Predictions of the death of irony were premature, it seems; chief among the freedoms for which our enemies supposedly hate us is our freedom to express ourselves, in art, in music, in politics, but most or all, in the written and spoken word. And it is in the name of protecting these freedoms that many among us would like others to shut up. They seem shockingly oblivious to the fact that censorship is supposed to be anathema to us. As writer Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. put it in 1860: "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think."

But now is not the time.

And sadly, not all of them are partisan political operatives or the armchair philosophers who have made talk radio so successful. Some of them work within or have some influence over the news and entertainment media, meaning they play a role in what the rest of us read, see and hear. And in their patriotic zeal, or their fear of those gripped by the patriotic zeal, they are censoring themselves. Even Saturday Night Live has gone all gushy, promising to avoid humor that, as producer Lorne Michaels put it, "is in any way disrespectful" to Bush, who before Sept. 11 was routinely portrayed on SNL as a squinting, adolescent buffoon. Presidenting just got a whole lot easier, because now is not the time.

But we’re in this for the long haul, right? So if not now, when?

In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, there has been a growing intolerance for expressions of dissent over the latest additions to American dogma: that terrorists associated with Saudi exile Osama bin Laden were responsible for the attacks; that said attacks were utterly unprovoked; and that the best way — the only way — to respond is to visit grievous bodily harm upon these people, regardless of the cost in dollars and innocent lives.

If this were an election, we could report that the votes are tallied, the final precincts have reported and the results are in: Free speech lost.

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the lone "nay" vote on Sept. 14 when Congress authorized the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks. For voting her pacifist conscience, Lee has been vilified and excoriated in the court of public opinion. Lee’s press secretary, Andrew Sousa, says that his boss has received 45,000 e-mails and faxes, most of them negative.

"In the first days following the vote, the calls and e-mails were very angry and passionate," Sousa says, "and yes, there were threats and horrible, horrible things said. I should also say that now there are more calls and e-mails coming in from people who may disagree but respect Congresswoman Lee’s vote as one of conscience. But more people are urging restraint now than there were two weeks ago."

In defending her vote against the use of force, Lee writes, "I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk. I do not dispute the president’s intent to rid the world of terrorism but … measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our security."

Sousa, for his part, sees more danger in the tone of the correspondence his office has received than in his boss setting herself up as the sole voice of dissent.

"Dissent, debate and discourse are the basis of our democracy, and it’s ironic that while Americans rally ’round the flag to protect our way of life, we also happily trample on the tenets that way of life was based on," Sousa says. "Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the First Amendment, and that means listening and giving due respect to opinions that may be unpopular at the moment."

Tell that to Les Daughtry Jr. The editor and publisher of the Texas City Sun, Daughtry commadeered a portion of his paper’s front page on Sept. 23 to apologize for a column, penned by city editor Tom Gutting and published the previous day, that sharply criticized Bush for taking so long to return to Washington on Sept. 11.

And in a rebuttal titled "Bush’s leadership has been superb," Daughtry called his city editor’s words "offensive," "outrageous" and "so absurd that they don’t even merit a response." He ended the fawning rebuttal with "May God bless President George W. Bush and other leaders, and God bless America."

Reached at his office for comment, Daughtry admits that the paper was inundated with negative phone calls, faxes and e-mails Saturday after Gutting’s piece ran, but says he was moved to write a rebuttal because he was personally offended by the column. He won’t explain why Gutting was fired.

"I’m not going to comment on the matter past what I said in my rebuttal and apology," Daughtry says. "I’m a supporter of the First Amendment, and I think reporters and editors have the obligation to be voices of dissent at times, but this was beyond the pale."

Daughtry refused to say whether the paper’s advertisers threatened to pull out, and even refused to link Gutting’s column with his being fired. He did admit that the Sun hasn’t hired a new city editor yet, but plans to do so soon. He wouldn’t speculate on whether the new editor would be restricted in what he writes for the paper.

In Grants Pass, Ore., the Daily Courier fired columnist and copy editor Dan Guthrie for writing that after the attacks, Bush "skedaddled" and that, against the courage of the passengers who allegedly thwarted the fourth hijacking by ditching the plane in western Pennsylvania, "the picture of Bush hiding in a Nebraska hole becomes an embarrassment."

The Daily Courier ran an apology to its readers the next day and handed Guthrie his walking papers.

Philadelphia Daily News editor Zack Stalberg was alarmed when he heard that journalists were being fired for being critical of the president, and he vowed that no such action would ever be taken against a writer at his paper.

"I’m just appalled that people are being fired for being the voices of dissent," Stalberg says. "But there really is a newfound sensitivity out there for George Bush in the wake of the attacks, and a tendency to see any criticism as a personal attack on the symbol of our country."

Stalberg says that the recent Daily News editorial demanding "Blood for Blood" was almost unanimously embraced by readers, while at the same time he’s heard flak from readers for even the mildest of criticisms of the administration.

"It’s as though in times of crisis the president can do no wrong, which is bullshit. Public figures need to be called on the carpet when they’re wrong, and it’s our job to be the thorn in the side of politicians and point out the flaws in the political process."

David Rolland was carrying on this tradition when he wrote an editorial titled "The politics of fear and anger" for the alternative newsweekly he edits, the Ventura County [Calif.] Reporter. Rolland accused Bush of manipulating the nation’s fear and suggested that the president had "dangerously oversimplified a very complicated situation" by casting the U.S. as the good guy in a war on "evil."

The first reader to call sounded friendly at first, but then claimed to have lost two people close to him in the attacks. "Then he said ‘Watch your back walking to and from work,’" Rolland says. Another employee took the call, so it wasn’t clear whether the threat was intended for Rolland or for everyone at the Reporter.

Another caller asked if Rolland were still alive. Informed that he was, the caller said, "He shouldn’t be."

"It kind of left me a little weak in the knees," Rolland admits. His first concern, he says, was for the other employees. Later, his girlfriend pointed out that he, too, could be in danger.

"It even made me second-guess what I had said — a little bit, momentarily," he adds. But after re-reading the editorial, he decided it was valid, and he was glad he’d written it.

"The publisher asked if this was a battle I really wanted to fight," Rolland says (Ventura County is "a fairly conservative place," he notes). "I said, ‘This is definitely a battle I want to fight.’"

The complaints and vague threats of violence, he says, came from a few people "who are angry. Very patriotic and very angry."

On Sept. 24, the guests on CN8’s news show It’s Your Call With Lynn Doyle included Congressman Jim Greenwood, a Republican from Bucks County, and Burton Caine, a law professor from Temple University.

Greenwood and Caine mixed it up over the nagging question of civil rights versus national security. Caine raised the issue of declaring war; the Constitution gives this power to Congress, not the president. Greenwood, however, said Caine was missing the point.

"Yes, there are some academics out there who would like to question that," Greenwood said, "but with all due respect, sir, you’re a tad out of step with where this country wants to go."

In other words, get with the program.

To his credit, Greenwood repeatedly made the point that civil libertarians should be part of the dialogue over protecting rights while increasing safety. But just as frequently, he suggested that if Caine and his ilk had nothing constructive to offer, they should keep quiet. "This is not a time for [a cynical] approach," he said.

Later, in an interview, Caine says he is not surprised. "People who assert civil liberties are now considered disloyal," he says. After his appearance on CN8, he received several hostile phone calls: "Why don’t you care about the civil rights of the people who got killed?" "Why don’t you get out of your office and see the real world?" And so on.

In his First Amendment classes, students are willing, even eager, to limit rights. Each semester he asks them to cite what they consider to be reasonable exceptions to protected speech. One year, they came up with 32. Even today, his students — future lawyers — are no more concerned with losing rights than the rest of the population.

Now is not the time.

But now is the time when voicing and listening to dissent is most crucial. Unity does not mean looking together in the same direction; it means looking together in all directions, because none of us, from the president on down, knows for sure where we’re headed, or from whence the next threat will come.