Commentary
Use of political swastika protected by first amendment
Guest commentary
A recent commentary by Masha
Katz and 12 others (“Anti-war sen
timent borders hate speech,”
March 4, 2003) has disturbing un
dertones. The article suggests that
a sign at 13th Avenue and Univer
sity Street was akin to hate speech
because it equated President
George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler
near an image of a swastika.
The article boldly asserts, “using
a swastika for political discourse is
offensive and unacceptable.” It con
cludes, “The time is now to think
seriously about. . . what the result
may be if hateful speech is allowed
to continue on campus.” In short,
the article suggests the speech at is
sue is so hateful that it should not
be allowed. The article fails to ac
knowledge that not allowing certain
speech on campus invariably de
mands the use of police power.
While I too urge others not to use
such symbols of hatred (in part be
cause I am offended by such sym
bols), I disagree with the assump
tion that the protest described in
the article constituted hate speech.
Equating Bush with Hitler conveys
a specific and clear message: Bush
is a tyrant who uses propaganda to
fulfill some sick Third Reich-like
destiny to rule the world and com
mit genocide.
I may disagree with that assertion
and even find it absurd if not offen
sive because it cheapens the suffer
ing of Jews, Gypsies, gays and oth
ers, but I find it hard to believe that
such an equation constitutes hate
speech or that it espouses a view
point unworthy of debate. The use
of a swastika by itself to communi
cate fear, intimidation or violence,
however, clearly constitutes hate
speech. This distinction is impor
tant to avoid confusing meaningful
political speech with which one dis
agrees with hate speech.
The article also claims the
demonstration was juvenile, unrea
sonable and mindless — thereby
unacceptable — and further sug
gests that such mindless speech has
no place on campus. Nothing can be
further from the truth. This sort of
speech should be permitted so that
Mr. Katz, et al. may expose it for
what it is: Unadulterated nonsense.
Free speech is essential to a free
and open society as well as a robust
learning environment. Others must
be free, barring certain circum
stances articulated by the U.S.
Supreme Court (i.e., incitement,
defamation, clear and present danger,
etc.), to express their views even if
the majority or minority disagrees.
The First Amendment protects
Americans not from one another’s
unpleasant speech but from their
own government (e.g., Cohen v.
California). We may disagree with
the views of others, we may deplore
the burning of flags, abhor the burn
ing of crosses and meet the bran
dishing of swastikas with outrage.
Indeed it is our responsibility,
just as the article suggests, to hold
others politically accountable for
what they say or the messages
they convey. A letter to the editor
is but one good example of how
one may respond to disagreeable
speech. Yet we must be equally
vigilant in ensuring government
has no participatory role in hold
ing others accountable for views
with which we disagree.
The moment we concede that
some speech may be regulated by
the government merely because it
conveys an offensive or emotional
viewpoint is the moment we acqui
esce our First Amendment right to
our government and the moment
we cease to be American.
Simon Ravona is a third-year law
student.
Equating Bush to Hitler is offensive to Jewish community
Guest commentary
Editor’s note: This was submit
ted before the publication of editor
in-chief Michael J. Kleckner’s col
umn discussing the article in
question; please see “Two apolo
gies, one good-bye, much good
luck” (ODE, March 17).
After reading “Americans must
end support for oppressive Israeli
rule” (ODE, Mar. 12), I was appalled
and angered that someone would
write something that ignorant and
anti-Semitic and even more an
gered that the Emerald thinks it is
OK to print his crap. I have never
felt the urge to write the Emerald
with my opinion of world politics,
because frankly I could care less
what other people think about the
war in Iraq and the Middle East, and
I’m sure others feel the same way
about my views. Everyone is enti
tled to their own opinion. The one
thing I will not stand is this guy
comparing the Bush administration
with Hitler and the Nazi Party.
As a Jew, I am deeply offended.
No matter what a person’s view on
Bush is, and I understand that most
at the University can’t stand him,
there is no comparison with Hitler
— a man who ordered and carried
out the murder of six million Jews,
including one million children un
der the age of 12 in a three-year pe
riod. Many, many members of my
family were slaughtered at the
hands of the Nazis, and I grew up
with family stories that I still have a
really hard time talking about.
I refuse to let this guy trivialize
the Holocaust with his views on the
current administration. To me, that
is the most insulting thing someone
can do to a Jew. If Paul Aranas does
n’t understand that a sign with
“Bush=Hitler” and a swastika is
completely not appropriate, he is
extremely ignorant. I know that if I
had seen a person with that sign, I
would definitely have done some
thing about it.
On the matter of the Palestinians,
if Aranas wants to inform us about
the current situation he should at
least have his facts right, but his
numbers were wrong. Aranas wrote
that the Palestinians are basically
freedom fighters who are blowing
themselves up around innocent
civilians because they are “exacer
bated by oppression, murder and 36
years of brutal occupation.” As if
the Palestinians in charge just want
peace and would stop the murders if
Israel just gave them a little bit of
freedom so they could live side by
side in peace and harmony under a
beautiful rainbow.
I looked up Hamas’ charter from
their Web site. Hamas is the main
terrorist organization that has sent
the vast majority of suicide
bombers into Israel (including the
Haifa bus blast a week ago) since
the late ‘80s. Their mission state
ment reads, in part, “Israel will ex
ist and will continue to exist until
Islam will obliterate it, just as it
obliterated others before it. ... The
Islamic Resistance Movement be
lieves that the land of Palestine is an
Islamic Waqf consecrated for future
Muslim generations until Judgment
Day. It, or any part of it, should not
be squandered: It, or any part of it,
should not be given up. ... There is
no solution for the Palestinian ques
tion except through Jihad.”
It is clear that until the Palestin
ian terrorist organizations acknowl
edge Israel’s right to exist there will
never be peace, and that is a fact. I
feel badly that there are people as
ignorant as Aranas in the world. Un
til he knows what he’s talking about,
he should keep his mouth shut.
Arthur Shmulevsky is an undeclared
sophomore.
University Health Center
http://healthcenter.uoregon.edu
WHAT_____
Four-hour American Heart Association CPR Certification class following
the Health Care Provider protocol. It is designed to teach lay rescuers
to recognize and treat life-threatening emergencies including cardiac
arrest and choking for infants, children and adults. Participants will
receive a CPR certification card, which provides two years certification,
upon successful completion of the course.
WHEN
Mondays: April 14, April 28, or May 12 at 5:00-9:00p.m.
HOW
Students may register by calling the University Health Center at 346
2770. Space will be limited to the first 8 UO students. Minimum class
size is 5.
WHERE_
Cafeteria on the second floor of the UO Health Center.
WHO
Class taught by nursing staff from the UO Health Center.
COST
$30, which can be charged to UO account or paid in cash. Registered
students must cancel 24 hours in advance of class for full refund.
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
University Health Center