Wisconsin Week; 138

Tonight's production of Wisconsin week is made possible in part by a n our pipeline company as a subsidiary of the coastal corporation providing reliable natural gas service to Wisconsin's homes businesses and industries for nearly 40 years. Yes. Welcome I'm Joe Smith in the walkie and I'm Dave Iverson in Madison. Tonight on Wisconsin we children in guns another accidental shooting in Milwaukee raises more questions on this topic. We'll hear from the lieutenant governor. Also this we should flag burning be legal. The controversial Supreme Court decision has people boiling. And we'll wrap things up with our regular Roundtable conversation. First though this summary of the week's news. Thank you Jay. Here we go again. The state's ongoing investigation into lobbying

practices in Wisconsin yielded charges against five more legislators. The Democratic lawmakers are senators Gary George Barbara you let me Richard Shumaker and they that help and Representative Scott Ferguson they are charged with accepting meals and cash from lobbyists. So far a dozen state legislators have been cited for violating state ethics codes or lobbying laws. Governor Tommy Thompson unveiled plans Monday for a 60 million dollar world dairy center outside of Madison. The dairy center will house 50 dairy related facilities and provide jobs for nearly 1000 people. Construction could start within two years. 10000 fish were found dead last weekend along the west side of Lake Winnebago and state fish health specialists don't know why the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources does not believe toxic waste killed the fish. The DNR is now testing to see if natural bacteria are responsible. And finally the world's only circus train meandered from their abode to northern Illinois and back to Milwaukee this week. An estimated one million onlookers were scattered along the route 35 Benz will

set the pace for the clowns elephants camels and the return of the 40 horse hitch when the great circus parade steps off at 2 p.m. this Sunday in Milwaukee. Another Wisconsin child has been killed by a child with a gun in Milwaukee last Sunday 9 year old Timothy Washington was fatally shot by a 14 year old boy playing with a handgun. Who is responsible. Joining us from the Capitol is Lieutenant Governor Scott McCallum. He favors a law similar to the one in Florida making adults responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of children. Lieutenant governor who is responsible is if the parents is it the adults. Well Joe we have seen so many handguns in Wisconsin in particular one of the highest number of. Per capita of any state in the country you don't mind people having handguns but you want them to understand how dangerous they can be and understand they are to be responsible for their children's actions. So this does not mean the issue is not really whether someone should have handguns or not but really the responsibility that one should take if they do have one.

That's right as I propose that the number of people who are concerned that it doesn't go far enough that we look at gun control some people say it goes too far. Any time you start talking about handguns it becomes a very volatile issue in the legislature. Governor some would say this is pretty useless that enforcing a law like this really can't be done. Well in fact there are some laws that that we try to inform people to educate people you look at the safety belt legislation is going to require people to use seatbelts. Well we've seen an increase in the usage up to a little bit over 50 percent a long way to go. Suspect this a lot of you if you hold parents accountable won't solve all of the problems. Hopefully the educational aspect along with them raising the awareness of parents old responsibility will help reduce the number of accidents and deaths. What about those that say this is just double punishment. Certainly the parent too who has a child who is either shot themselves or shot someone else fatally. That is certainly punishment enough and for you to go ahead and do anymore to them it is not even going to be worthwhile if it's one's own child that has

been shot or injured. It's up to the DA in any case to prosecute the charges. It's one's own child. We've got a waiting period before they can take action so as to try to minimize that. But look at it another case that just recently occurred where it's a neighbor child or a friend that is shot. Not the parents be held accountable. As I look at it we've got all types of laws. And I say this is chair of Wisconsin. Kids Project we've got all types of rules and regulations to protect children and protect society even things like fences around swimming pools and. And we require doors to be removed from refrigerators my gosh we take them out and we allow loaded handguns to be all right but the but the hole in this argument is that this is after the fact. This does not prevent anything your particular bill would punish someone after the fact after a child has been killed or a child is killed another child. You're right. The important aspect of this is the informational let people be aware that there's a law the educational aspect would also require signs wherever handguns are sold

say that trigger locks or the guns mean you can securely. But we also work and this is an important point with the gun owner clubs and gun owner groups to inform people of what the law is. But isn't the real issue here just getting rid of the handguns. Isn't that really what you what you'd like to do. No in fact I'm working with the National Rifle Association on this legislation important aspect is that people that have handguns realize that they ought to be used safely and they're very dangerous weapons without supervision. Is this a way are you going to see how it goes in Florida whether or not you're going to be pushing any harder for you for your proposal no the legislation is already being drafted. I have a number of sponsors that have already agreed to work with me in the legislation. I'm looking towards a policy. Having is measured. All right well we hope it gets them good. Thank you I'll tell you Governor appreciate your time. Thank you. Flag Burning be illegal. Well according to a recent Milwaukee Journal poll 75

percent of all Wisconsinites think that it should. The Supreme Court on the other hand has a different opinion. We're going to talk about this controversial topic now with State Representative David Zene who feels very strongly about this as does you know who is the executive director of the Wisconsin ACLU representative scene. Let me ask you this. If I pulled the flag out from underneath the desk here held it up in front of you struck a match what would you do. My gut turns when I think about it. I'm not sure again until it really happens. I've talked to many individuals many groups I know what they went through. My reaction would be to stop it. My gut level reaction why and why does it strike you that Winton's. Because when I see that play I see a lot of experiences that I went through a lot of people that I've associated with over the years back to childhood saying the present legions to the United States Marine Corps serving in Vietnam in the de-militarized zone. I see my unit

getting overrun and I see the bodies going in body bags. I see military professions and parades and all of those things come together in that symbol. Yeah absolutely. It is that same question. If I held up a flag in a match what would you do. I would probably ask you why you want to do it to begin. That's why you're so angry. One it may have been the one thing that sparked your anger. I would be appalled and I would be offended that you would want to burn the flag. But I don't think I would and I wouldn't want to stop you and I would want to put you in jail and I wouldn't want to have any. A constitutional amendment that would prohibit it. And they've seen what you would want to see me punished for that right. Absolutely because.

Because you just cannot burn the symbol of our nation and to me that flag transcends time spiritually to all those that have ever honored it. I just feel so strongly about that. Like you just cannot vote. It be like burning a cross in front of a church and be like in the Jewish temple and be like in a Buddhist monastery burning there some more. And in many of those people associate with many of my constituents are Veterans of Foreign Wars American Legion Vietnam Veterans of America patriotic consuls homemakers high school students have been contacting me in the last several weeks and feel very strongly like I do. It was their turn to Dave's insurance and convince them why something so offensive should be allowed if the flying he pretends to stand for anything it stands for the freedom that many of your comrades died for in their new

fought for the the the fact of the matter is there an individual a Christian individual who owns a Crouse has the right to burn it. That may be blasphemous to burn a religious symbol in Iran but it's not blasphemous for an individual to burn their own religious symbol in the United States to create a spiritual. A fact in that presides in the flag is creating a religious icon. And we are not here to preserve the flag is a religious icon. It means a lot to almost all Americans but the meaning is what's so important not the flag in another itself. It's what stirs you in to try to stab. David Frum lighting the

flag. It's the stirring of it because of what it means to you not the where going in of itself is the play itself. It is the symbol it is the meaning of that flag. I see blood I see peace. I see. The 50 stars I see it all come together and what I see is the democratic principles that are in in shrine and in the symbol of that flag. Today we are encouraging Chinese students to fight repression to fight for freedom of speech and freedom of thought. If they burn the flag in tenement Square we would say right on. At the time that the Solidarity was persecuted and their leaders were were imprisoned if their leaders burned the Polish flag. We here in America would have been saying right but you know what we really have to do what we can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you this. Given in our society that you you're sitting a foot and a half away from Daisy right now and you can tell how much it matters to him. Isn't it worth it for people like Dave scene for people who have put their lives on the line who care about this that much that there be something that we do indeed revere in this country and we say speech fine. You can say the flag is junk but you can't burn it. No I don't think we can do that because what we do then is desecrate the meaning of the flag for Torah. I understand how emotionally attached he is to this symbol but so am I. My emotional attachment to this symbol is different than Dave but you know you're in them the vast and tiny minority. What you have going to the merriment is all about. It's to protect minorities speech after speech. But burning that play you know this is a physical act of violence that act would cause me and many people like me to actually want to be

violent. I've talked to veterans that said that they would actually attack the burning of that flight and stopped that plane from burning and attack the person. How do you and I don't know if I reify you know cry you know I think there are some laws that can be probably good and that would in fact restrict the burnt burning of the flag if it results in a violent situation. And I am not so sure now and nor are constitutional scholars sure that what the Supreme Court said overall is that you cannot pass a law that prohibits the burning of the flag. Does does this controversial decision do something times that is in the sense that it has spurred on this kind of conversation that we are talking about the flag and talking about patriotism in a way that we haven't really been able to ever since the one you're right on. It's absolutely.

Evoke just a tremendous surge of patriotism you go to any store that sells lives saved. They're selling more flags and ever before you see more displayed you see more people wearing and flying that's like than ever before. And it's brought a resurgence of what that flag means and also patriotism. And I believe it's solidified that 75 percent that you're talking about and it's created quite a sort of a cohesiveness. And it's Democrat Republican that's a liberal and conservative. Well that's the point in which I'm sure you both agree I mean. I mean I'm sure you consider yourself to be every bit as much of a patriot as I certainly do. And I think that that if we say the minority of people who are opposed to the kind of constitutional amendment that was proposed by the president they are patriotic too. But what they see in the flag is something different than what they seize. All right. We'll have to leave it at that for now you know said current representative David S. thanks for joining us tonight. Racist remarks always hurt this fall when students return to University of

Wisconsin campus as racist remarks can also get them expelled. A new University rule which was confirmed this week will allow campus officials to discipline students who make blatantly racist remarks. The rules come after several incidents of racism on UW campuses. The new rule is strongly opposed by individuals who see it as interfering with free speech. Joining me are state senator Lynn Edelman Democrat from New Berlin and critic of the new campus rule. And Lawrence Weinstein a University of Wisconsin regent who supports the right to regulate behavior including speech on UW campuses and I welcome you both and reachin Weinstein let me start with you Do you really think in your heart of hearts that this type of rule will put a stop to the racist behavior racist remarks among students. Well that's a good question but it's of course it really begs the issue of why the rule was proposed in the first place. No one expects that the rule will stop all racist behavior. What we're trying to do is equalize the opportunity of all students to get an education. We were

convinced that some students ability was impeded by other behavior. And it's that behavior which we're trying to deal with that does not intend thereby to say that all racist behavior will stop. But on the other hand we know from other kinds of legislation that legislation can educate business put severe restrictions on individual opinions. Well I think there's a lot of confusion about and I didn't really want to get into the First Amendment issue but I guess where there there's a lot of this there's a lot of confusion about the difference between the legitimate exchange of ideas and speech. And we were very careful. We asked three constitutional lawyers on our campus for their opinion they've all agreed we haven't gone over the edge and we still will protect the exchange of ideas but every speech is not protected by the council.

Senator Edelman you're a strong supporter of free speech. You oppose racism. Why isn't this rule that's being proposed. A good idea to help combat racist remarks on campus and behavior. Why isn't it good. Well it's not good for two reasons. One I think that it's unconstitutional. I think it clearly violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and under our Wisconsin Constitution. I disagree with Larry Weinstein and I also disagree with the law professors for your audience I think we should talk about what the rule says. The rule says that if you make a demeaning remark to an individual based on that person's race sex sexual orientation or some other characteristic. And that remark is considered to be hostile to the educational environment of the school. Then you can be punished. Well by exhaustion by discipline by a lot of things. I think that that

clearly violates free speech and is not the rule. Well he's not I don't know that's being proposed though. The rule is and is not being proposed. It was passed by the regents the administration the campuses the legislature the rule will be in effect probably in a week. But that is not the rule. What is the rule that the rule is that you have to first have discriminatory conduct. You have to demean a person intensely because of their race creed color and you have to intend to create a hostile educational environment for that person now. If that's not that's not and that's exactly what I said when you in the room with the word conduct there's no conduct required he says conduct is a racial epithet although he has a condom. Well that's where we disagree I think that the First Amendment protects speech conduct violent conduct threats harassment. Anything of that type should be prosecuted and will be and can be prosecuted under the criminal law. But when you talk about speech that's what the First Amendment talks about is I think also that the idea I

wanted to talk about some of the policy issues. I think it's ironic when we're talking about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the right to free speech with respect to a lying flag burning. And we've got the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents basically saying that you can kick a kid out of school for making a racist remark. That's not what universities ought to be teaching. Well they shouldn't be teaching people how to make racist remarks. Well that's true but they ought to be teaching them about our Constitution. Richard Weinstein What does this do for the for the openness that I think we look at the university to be very open and liberal. And what does this do now to that image. I don't think it does anything. I think it creates a level playing field for minority students and majority students to have equal access to an educational opportunity. And I am curious when the students are back you know that this is going to be challenge don't you. I don't know that it's going to be challenge that certainly our courts in the end will decide whether it's constitutional or not and I don't know that it's going to be challenged it may be

your opinion. And I think the rule is certain to be challenged. I would predict that a court would find it unconstitutional. I think that it does enormous harm to the University of Wisconsin which has long had a great reputation as a bastion of progressivism a place where free speech and interchange of ideas even unpleasant bigoted nasty sexist racist ideas can be expressed I think that this rule basically diminishes the right of students to do this to say those things on campus and it diminishes the university's reputation. All right quickly you have the last word on Weinstein. Well we will be monitoring this very carefully and as a matter of fact we'll be reporting back to the legislature in a year from now and probably have public hearings a year from They'll So we're not going to run headlong into violating anybody's rights. Rachel Weinstein I thank you Senator Lott and I don't thank you. Thank you.

Everyone opposes racism but the new UAW rule to punish racist remarks is seen by some as a serious interference with student rights. Joining me for another look at the UW racism rule. Our regular Roundtable members in Madison are one Nowell editor of The Progressive magazine. And here in Milwaukee Marquette University political scientist John McAdams. Irwin you just heard that discussion. This rule helps to combat racism on the UW campus although I don't think ghetto is you know kind of big free speech. Which never helps anything and I deplore the fact that this great university should impose curbs on speech. Of

course it won't come back. Racism will begin to create an atmosphere where speech is inhibited where people have to worry about being punished for what they say. And I was appalled to hear Richard Weinstein referred to legitimate speech the First Amendment doesn't refer to legitimate speech. It just talks about speech because the founders knew that once you started setting up categories of speech you have no trouble there are finding ways of curbing free speech. You of course agree with that don't you. I'm not as extreme as early on this. There are categories of speech that may legitimately be curbed for example speech designed to harass or intimidate black students can indeed be punished that's legitimate and I think any court in the land would say that it was or do you agree that there should be a rule. The problem with this rule is it is unconstitutionally vague. The courts have consistently held that yes the government can punish certain kinds of speech but when ever a law is drafted to

punish that kind of speech it must be very precise and very specific so it can only be used to punish that kind of speech and not other speech. The problem is this is about speech that constitutes legitimate discussion of public policy issues. Could under these guidelines if interpreted. The end to broadly could be punished and that's a problem. Does this really boil down to students rights and what rights do they even have anymore if any are one. Right I think it's even more the students rights it's a question of the rights of all of us have because it seems to me that in this discussion in the discussion of flag burning and in things happening all over the country I detect a really appalling trend toward busybody as there are more and more people in our society and seems to be who are eager to tell the rest of us what we may or may not say what we may or may not read what we may or may not watch what we may or may not listen to half the country now consist of bullies and the rest consists of people scare the

bully and I think this is the death of freedom in America. If we don't challenge it and have it in the bud. And what about the university's tradition of liberalism. What's happened to each other. Equating liberalism with concern for freedom is a little bit iffy. You know liberals have often invoked free speech yet often in institutions where liberals to become dominant universities for example when they become clearly dominant they go about suppressing speech that they don't like speech accused of being racist sexist or homophobic. So look there is no liberalism of concern for freedom don't match. John McAdams I thank you for being with us. And when. Thank you. Now here's Dave with this week's commentary. I got an intriguing phone call the other day a viewer called Concerned over something she'd heard on this broadcast. The topic was the legislature's on again off again property tax rebate plan and she'd heard about it on our weekly news summary. Here's what she heard.

And the checks are in the mail. No it's not. Yes it is really. Thursday state lawmakers reactivated the plan just in a one time tax credit checks to taxpayers as a special committee. Now to hear the words the check is in the mail. Well one of our viewers did in took it literally. Where's my check this person wanted to know if you'd moved recently and was concerned that her property tax rebate check was lost. After all we said on this program the check was in the mail. The conversation reminded me that television is not just about words it's more than something we listen to it's something we experience. It's a medium composed of pictures sounds and impressions. It's open to interpretation as many interpretations as there are viewers. In that way the role of words on television is very different than in print or on radio in print. You can read exactly what I'm saying. In fact you can reread exactly what I'm saying in radio. There is only the word. So when the

picture fades away you concentrate on what is said. Words matter words matter on television too but they're more easily misunderstood. You're distracted by the fact that I might need a haircut or by the way a camera moves back and forth and so on. All the more reason for those of us in television to be precise about the words we use. So with that in mind Goodnight Joe. Goodnight Dave. Thank you for joining us for this edition of Wisconsin week I'm Joe Smith in Milwaukee. Have yourself a good week and we'll see you in only. Tonight's production of Wisconsin week is made possible in part by a in our pipeline company as a subsidiary of the coastal corporation providing reliable natural gas service to Wisconsin's homes businesses and industries. For nearly 40 years.