To paraphrase what was
once written in a period of our history close to the foundational period of
this country,
I may not agreed with what you say but will fight to
my death, your right to say it.
What is freedom? What does
it mean to the individual or group of people?
Does one have a right to freedom?
Does it apply equally to all?
Does censorship curtail freedom?
During the course of our
brief history, the citizens of the United States of America have sustained many
attempts at the suppression of freedom.
Freedom of the individual, freedom of a cultural group, freedom of
sharing ideas as expressed in print and the more up to date freedom of the
Internet.
What does freedom mean to
you? For each individual it very well
might mean something different but when put into a composite whole, it usually
is broken into several different layers that merge into one entity of human
self expression that evolves for and benefits the society as a whole. It matters not whether one is African
American, Asian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Polish or from any of the hundreds of
culturally rich peoples of the earth.
Freedom knows no boundaries nor should it be contained or otherwise
subjected to constraints or parameters set down by any governments of the
world, including the United States of America.
In mathematics, it is
completely acceptable to describe something by saying what it is not. Freedom is not the suppression of ideas; it
is not the suppression of one group of people or the individual for the benefit
of another individual or group; it is not the using of a governmental agency
against the individual or group for the purpose of curtailing freedoms of the
same; it is not the teaching of incorrect ideologies which propagandize one
entity over another; it is not the collusion of government working against the
individual or group, for the purpose of targeting or otherwise pinpointing the
same; it is not the oppression of any one individual or group in society.
Then what can be said about
the concept of freedom that we all should enjoy and fight to have sustained for
the benefit of all?
For the individual, it
very well might be defined by the premises and principals discussed by the
makers of the Constitution of the United States. That document might serve as a starting point for all but yet
some people are very much aware that those fundamentals by which this
government is based, is actually based on hypocrisy. Is this to be considered a revolutionary statement? No, for the very forefathers who wrote the
constitution of this country said in the Preamble to the Constitution, that all
men are created equal. Yet, many of
them owned slaves. Not only that, they
also fathered children with the so-called slaves. This was recently exposed in the news when the black and white
families of Jefferson came together to meet for the first time.
Now had it been the case
that freedom was duly enforced by the forefathers, or, simply put that they
practiced what they preached, then there would not have been a need for a civil
war, nor the need to have a voters right act, nor a civil rights act, and so
forth. And then let us not mention the
fact that if someone was of African American background, their vote in some
states was 3/5 of what a white persons vote equaled.
Why present such a
discourse on freedom? Censorship is a
curtailment of freedom. It is a means
by which ideas, concepts, self expression, etc. are suppressed. We recently ran an ad in the Austin
Weekly. Apparently, one of the aldermen's
feathers got a little ruffled so he sent in two lawyers to talk to the
paper. The owner of the paper informed
us that if we removed three items the ad would run. One of the items we absolutely refused to remove because it was a
result of a four month investigation of the absentee voters data as provided by
the Chicago Board of
Elections. The other two items we consented to under
protest. Now you might wonder why?
First, is the
classification of our ad. Some call it
political. Well, anything could be put
in a framework called political and indeed have a complete rationale justifying
that framework. This of course does not
imply something is political but merely can be put in such a framework.
Second, the removal of a
sentence that relates to what function the States Attorney's Office is suppose
to perform is highly questionable. He
should put criminals behind bars because that's his job!
Third, a comment made by
Mary Pecaro to Wayne A. Strnad two days after our picket started was censored
out under the guise of no verification.
Here are some of our
thoughts on these three items. First,
are all display advertisements classified?
Second, what are the written guidelines for political display ads? Where can they be found? Third, are all ads scrutinized at the same
level? If so, then some of the ads that
have been run in the past should have been verified for accuracy also. Questions like: Are those used cars really good cars and sold at the best
possible price? Did the newspaper
investigate whether or not any "lemon" cars were sold? And how about those hair products that are
used on people? Are they ecologically
safe? Are there any long term effects
by using one hair solution as opposed to another? Fact is, if we're going to use a fine tooth comb - no pun
intended - then it should be applied equally to all! Fourth, it's a shame that a newspaper that subscribes to the
principles of the Freedom of the Press, perhaps gets sidetracked when
discussing issues with an alderman's lawyers.
How would you feel about the ACLU lawyers?
Let's keep a Free Press
FREE!
Wayne A. Strnad
Director
Citizens for Community
Action, Inc.
5719 W. Fullerton
Chicago, IL 60639