Film Summary
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech keeps track of the state of free speech in the U.S. The documentary problematizes the American population’s increasing tendency to view the First Amendment as the tool to legalize hate speech in the post-9/11 era (Shouting Fire 00:03:07). Using the controversial case of Ward Churchill and the First Amendment attorneys’ opinions, it effectively argues that the First Amendment rights are a continuous fight to participate in rather than a gift. The film also explores the uses of misrepresentation and defamation in the case of Debbie Almontaser and the abuse of police power during the War Registers League’s anti-war protests. Therefore, it illustrates a variety of tools to limit free speech, including unjustified academic and legal investigations.
Characters’ Choices and Ethical Theories
Professor Ward Churchill’s decision to publish his controversial essay on the foreign policy of the U.S. as a contributor to the 9/11 events exemplifies Aristotle’s virtue ethics theory. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that acting virtuously, even without achieving benefits, is a good end to pursue (Hirji 1006). Aristotle posits courage, the golden mean between fearlessness and cowardice, as one of the central character virtues for decision-making (Hirji 1010). Despite the fear of retaliation from the pro-government academic structures, Churchill finished his work to protect others from what he perceived as misinformation. To Churchill’s resentment, three federal TV channels attempted to distract the public from making inferences about the 9/11 attacks’ possible causes and repeatedly called them “senseless acts,” implying the country’s total innocence (Shouting Fire 00:10:31). Churchill avoided cowardice as he refused to change his opinion even when the academic investigation began. Also, since his reactions incorporated research rather than calls for mass disruptions of public order or false claims, no excessive fearlessness was present. Therefore, Churchill’s decision avoids the extreme points on the courage scale and practices it in moderation, thus representing a morally good disposition.
Connections to Issues Discussed in Class: Freedom of Speech and Punishments
The documentary bears a strong connection to the issue of freedom of speech thoroughly explored during the course. While confirming that free speech should be guaranteed and treated as a basic human right, the film recognizes the mismatch between the proclaimed right to express one’s views freely and retaliation for using this opportunity. The movie adds to the discussions of free speech as it exemplifies powerful decision-makers’ ability to restrict this right indirectly by initiating investigations to inflict reputational losses on those expressing unwelcome opinions. Specifically, in Churchill’s case, to punish him without violating his First Amendment rights publicly, the academic community initiated an unjust research misconduct procedure to find seven violations, creating a pretext for firing (Shouting Fire 00:16:43). Thus, the film is closely interconnected with legal issues discussed within the frame of the course. It offers a comprehensive review of the free speech issue by depicting the exact methods that can be utilized to create negative consequences for voicing one’s unwanted political opinions.
A Character Making an Ethical Choice
Ruth Benn’s decision to organize the Civil Disobedience Action in 2004 represents an ethical choice. It is because Benn’s participation in organizing the march pursued the purpose of addressing the lack of accountability for harm-inducing actions, such as prioritizing military goals over peace and the nation’s well-being (Shouting Fire 01:00:41). Ethical decisions can be distinguished from ordinary ones as they incorporate taking responsibility and caring for important ethical causes, and Benn’s readiness to facilitate the gathering is aligned with both criteria. By agreeing to act as an organizer, Benn assumed the responsibility for maintaining the protest peaceful and representing her like-minded compatriots from the War Registers League. Since provocations and violence during the event would create negative consequences for her as a leader, the decision to take risks in the name of advocating for war victims can be called ethical and non-egoistic. Conversely, the refusal to participate as a responsible representative of the War Registers League would cause her to act in violation of the principles of seeking honesty and pursuing the organization’s goals consistently.
Philosophers’ Positions: Mill on Limitations to the Freedom of Speech
John Stuart Mill is among the famous thinkers to take a stance on the freedom to express one’s opinions without the fear of retaliation and the necessary limitations to the freedom of verbal self-expression. Despite considering free speech as something that determines the citizen’s overall freedom, Mill recognizes the inappropriateness of treating free speech as an absolute unrestricted right (Bell 162). By proposing “the harm principle,” he seeks to strike the right balance between an individual’s freedom to express opinions and society’s need to promote public order to keep functioning (Bell 162). The harm principle posits that the maintenance of order and preventing harm to others represent the only consequences in which limiting one’s liberties, including the freedom to express opinions, is justified (Bell 165). His reasons for supporting this specific position include preventing freedom from being weaponized and addressing the opportunities for the majority’s tyranny over the minority by exercising the unlimited freedom of self-expression (Bell 165). Thus, Mill’s position advocates for the free exchange of information that qualifies as opinions while also introducing the harm doctrine to set boundaries.
Works Cited
Bell, Melina Constantine. “John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle and Free Speech: Expanding the Notion of Harm.”Utilitas, vol. 33, no. 2, 2021, pp. 162-179, Web.
Hirji, Sukaina. “Acting Virtuously as an End in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.”British Journal for the History of Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 6, 2018, pp. 1006-1026, Web.
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech. Directed by Liz Garbus, HBO, 2009.