The “Shouting Fire” Film by Liz Garbus Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

The film Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, directed by Liz Garbus, is aimed at exploring provocative issues related to the First Amendment. The very essence of the concept of the film is based on the study of various aspects and the history of people, allowing to assess the admissibility of certain statements, actions, and demonstrations. All this is directly related to the fact that the history of the United States has already encountered various events leading to the emergence of the McCarthyism policy. A similar thing happened after the tragic events of 9/11, which greatly affected the country’s internal security. Thus, the film raises a rather profound question that seeks to define the boundaries of freedom of speech and permissiveness of actions.

Ward Churchill

One of the illustrative stories of the film is an incident that happened to a university professor – Ward Churchill. After the events of 9/11, Churchill published several exceptionally provocative statements (Shouting Fire 00:10:00). They were connected with the fact that he did not consider the events an accident and thus made ambiguous statements about the dead people. One of them was the statement that “little Eichmanns” worked at the World Trade Center. Thus, the former professor connected innocent people with members of Nazi movements. The result of all this was the dismissal of Churchill, which, according to the university, was not related to his statements but was conducted for academic reasons.

Such events, especially during the period of tragic events for the country, cause much more contradictions. It should be noted that Churchill can avail himself of First Amendment arguments since the professor held a position at a state university. However, in this case, a contradiction arises due to the fact that Churchill’s dismissal was not related to statements on official rhetoric. Thus, this situation acquires its ambiguous form since the professor’s actions took place at an unfortunate time. All this has led to increased public attention, but this, in any case, should not become an excuse for his guilt.

Martin Garbus

One of the essential parts of the film’s narrative is the story of Martin Garbus, who is a First Amendment attorney. His activities are associated with many controversial issues that focus on protecting dissidents and other political activists. One of the revealing stories is that Martin defends the rights of the Nazi demonstrators (Shouting Fire 00:25:30). In addition, it is worth considering the fact that he is a Jew, and his father is from Poland, so he managed to catch the events of the 40s. Martin Garbus’s desire to defend the Nazis is not related to his sharing their views and aspirations. In this case, the problem focuses on the area of laws that must be respected equally by all citizens. Such stories make people think about the limits of permissible freedom of speech, which the First Amendment guarantees. It should be understood that Martin only entirely agrees with the idea of freedom of speech and therefore seeks to provide this opportunity to all population categories regardless of their ideology and views.

Freedom of Marches

The film mentions events related to the restriction of freedom of marches. The plot talks about the War Resistors League, a pacifist organization that staged a peaceful demonstration (Shouting Fire 00:59:25). However, during its holding, the police dispersed peaceful protesters, which also led to the arrest of many people. In this case, the viewer is invited to analyze the First Amendment on the subject of freedom of peaceful assembly. However, one of the contradictions is that the marches must be coordinated. Such a law does not allow us to correctly assess the impartiality of the authorities regarding various groups that may be perceived as undesirable or dangerous to society, such as the Nazis. In addition, it should be noted that marches may be restricted for several reasons. One of the reasons for banning and preventing the demonstration is its violent nature. In addition, another factor may be that the protest may pose a threat to public safety. Slanderous formulations can be used by the authorities to restrict the freedom of marches for many organizations whose ideology is not socially acceptable.

Direct and Symbolic Speech

Another important story in the film is the incident that happened with Chase Harper. The boy wore a T-shirt with the inscription “Homosexuality is shameful” to school (Shouting Fire 00:44:30). This event tries to demonstrate to the viewer the difference between direct and symbolic speech. The second type manifests itself in the form of actions or images, which the First Amendment also protects. This story shows the line between what people consider freedom of expression and what can be offensive to various population groups. In addition, it is worth mentioning the fact that in some moments the symbolism can be regulated much more strictly (Kahn). Such an inscription and images can cause contradictions since it is not always clear what can be considered acceptable. The inscription and image made by Chase Harper were intended to reflect his position and idea. However, it is necessary to understand that several images, such as a swastika, may be unacceptable in a particular place in the context of events. Therefore, it is necessary to pay more attention to such freedom since, in some circumstances, the use of certain words and symbols is still unacceptable.

Students’ Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment is a guarantee of students being in public schools, universities, and colleges for free-expression rights. However, it should be understood that private schools have several features related to their broader aspects of functioning. The First Amendment is some restriction on the interference of the state in the rights of its citizens. Accordingly, it should be understood that public schools are part of the government and act on its behalf (Freedom Forum Institute). That is why the regulation of students’ social life must comply with legal justifications. Private schools have much more opportunities to limit the activities of students and their ability to express their positions and opinions (Freedom Forum Institute). For example, it can be given that a number of statements that affect the image of an educational institution or are irrevocable can become a reason for restricting students’ freedom of speech.

Critique of Duty Ethics

A common feature of deontological theories is that they protect the self-worth, the intrinsic significance of specific actions and actions. Different versions of the ethics of duty can consider our actions’ consequences. However, they still insist that by external means (for example, by measuring utility), it is impossible to evaluate or justify what has value in itself (Groenewald). In addition, this approach has one common problem: how to justify the self-worth of certain principles, requirements, and obligations. In other words, there must rely on some absolute moral authority or undoubted truths.

As such support, representatives of the deontological approach can rely on religious tradition, traditional values, and generally accepted ideas. Thus, in the conditions of moral pluralism and relativism characteristic of modern society, it is difficult to justify that a particular principle or solution to a problem has universal significance and that representatives of a wide variety of systems of views should agree with this (Groenewald). Since the duty of ethics focuses not on results but the inner meaning of actions, in such an ethical system, action out of good intentions that cause negative consequences can be morally justified. It is worth noting that this may contradict common sense.

Duty ethics focuses on the right actions and right intentions, downplaying the importance of the benefits or benefits that are produced by these actions. Deontology is ethical teaching, according to which an act is moral only if it is motivated by the fulfillment of duty. It is correspondingly a unique way of justifying morality by reducing it to the proper and not to the good. While it is easy enough to state in general that there are duties and obligations that people should fulfill, it is more challenging to establish exactly what these correct principles are.

Conclusion

Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech is a reasonably significant film that seeks to demonstrate to the viewer various controversial aspects of the First Amendment. In addition, the plot and the demonstrated stories are examples that allow people to understand how complex and ambiguous such a phenomenon as freedom of speech is. The film seeks to answer questions related to the ethics of duty regarding the limitations of freedom for the sake of the security of society and the country. In this case, there is one point that does not allow us to determine the accessibility and boundaries of freedom of speech fully. At the same time, the government can use existing laws and restrictions to ban the activities of unwanted people and organizations.

Works Cited

Freedom Forum Institute. “What Rights to Freedom of Expression do Students Have?”Freedom Forum Institute, 2020, Web.

Groenewald, Retha. “All About Deontological Ethics.” Fractus Learning, 2021, Web.

Kahn, Ronald. “Symbolic Speech.”The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Web.

Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech. Directed by Liz Garbus, Moxie Firecracker Films, 2009.