Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on the Right to Read ; No. 3; Politics

<v Narrator>This is Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies <v Narrator>on the Right to Read. This program is sponsored by the Public Library Systems of <v Narrator>Oklahoma and supported in part by a grant from the Oklahoma Humanities Committee <v Narrator>and the National Endowment for the Humanities. <v Narrator>The views and opinions expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those <v Narrator>of either this radio station or their sponsoring agencies. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music] <v Man 1>The most basic freedom we have is the freedom to pursue <v Man 1>ideas, without that, we have very little else. <v Woman 1>We do have the right of freedom of assembly. <v Woman 1>We do have the right of freedom of speech. <v Woman 1>The Constitution says, however, that we cannot assemble

<v Woman 1>or speak against the United States of America. <v Man 2>A knowledge of difference is fundamental to living. <v Man 2>It's a fear of difference that will do a society in. <v Man 3>One abridgement of our rights gone <v Man 3>unnoticed leads to another. <v Man 4>There is a difference between pure agitation and <v Man 4>the movement toward reform. <v Woman 2>I believe in the First Amendment more than I believe in God. <v Narrator>No one likes to be criticized. <v Narrator>Governments, least of all. But most of us have learned to live with criticism, <v Narrator>if not happily, at least in a kind of uneasy truce. <v Narrator>Criticism is what this program is all about. <v Narrator>Criticism of the government of the United States of America. <v Narrator>In some ways, the government is in much the same situation as its citizens <v Narrator>when it comes to criticism.

<v Narrator>No government likes being criticized, particularly when the criticism <v Narrator>challenges the ways that government keeps peace and order among its citizens. <v Narrator>The natural impulse is to use a force of law to halt that criticism <v Narrator>and to limit the spread of any information about it. <v Narrator>The question posed in this program is, how much freedom to criticize the government <v Narrator>Americans should have, and how much access to information about <v Narrator>that criticism should be available. <v Narrator>Obviously, there must be some limits. <v Narrator>But as citizens of a democracy now entering its 200th year of existence, where <v Narrator>do we set those limits? <v Narrator>How do we decide how much freedom to criticize we want and need <v Narrator>in this country? Who shall we allow to set those limits for us <v Narrator>and what standard shall we direct them to use? <v Narrator>These are not idle questions. <v Narrator>One of the aims of the National Bicentennial is to examine the American quality <v Narrator>of life. As we leave Watergate behind us to stand on the threshold

<v Narrator>of our third century, surely it is our responsibility to examine <v Narrator>also the quality of our freedoms. <v Narrator>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting <v Narrator>the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the <v Narrator>press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition <v Narrator>the government for a redress of grievances. <v Narrator>This First Amendment to our Constitution is the cornerstone of our American democracy <v Narrator>and the main guarantor of our political freedoms. <v Narrator>Without it, we would not be permitted to criticize the government or say anything those <v Narrator>in power did not like. <v Narrator>We could not gather to express our views unless the government in power first approved. <v Narrator>Without the First Amendment, we would never see opposition editorials

<v Narrator>in our newspapers nor hear any news the government did not want us to <v Narrator>hear. Without the First Amendment, Watergate would never have been uncovered. <v Narrator>And because they have no First Amendment guaranteeing their freedoms, today the <v Narrator>people of India and the people of Russia and of China and of Cuba <v Narrator>can be thrown into prison for saying or doing anything their governments <v Narrator>decide is not permitted. <v Narrator>And the people of those countries live in a world totally created by their repressive <v Narrator>leaders because they are not permitted to learn about any other ideas <v Narrator>or hear any other opinions. <v Narrator>Americans have not always had these freedoms. <v Narrator>Before our revolution, we knew what it was like to live without these rights. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City University professor Peter Denman says one of the reasons for that <v Narrator>revolution was that our forefathers decided they did not want to live in that <v Narrator>kind of society. <v Peter Denman>The First Amendment, as all of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution

<v Peter Denman>was attached to the Bill of Rights, were designed with the background of <v Peter Denman>British authority and oppression in mind. <v Peter Denman>Also in mind of the founding fathers was the belief <v Peter Denman>that our society, at least by the many of the founding fathers, that <v Peter Denman>a society which permits as many competing <v Peter Denman>notions within it is a healthier society, and one <v Peter Denman>that is less apt to be repressive, less <v Peter Denman>apt to be- to- to place power in the- in the hands of one <v Peter Denman>or even a group of people. Because you've got too many people competing, then it's built <v Peter Denman>into the notion of the entire Constitution, matter of fact. The idea of this competition. <v Peter Denman>So this is the background that many of these people who who wrote the Constitution <v Peter Denman>understood- that competition of ideas is a- another <v Peter Denman>means of restricting repressive power, preventing the kind of thing that

<v Peter Denman>happened under the British. Now the crux of it is openness <v Peter Denman>and the freedom to speak, write. <v Peter Denman>The freedom to dissent, in other words, is implied here. <v Narrator>Today, we accept the freedom to dissent is a basic American principle, but <v Narrator>it is not always easy to be quite as tolerant when it is our ideas and <v Narrator>our beliefs which are being attacked. <v Narrator>The natural reaction is to say such criticism is dangerous and should not <v Narrator>be allowed. It was even harder in 1791 when the idea <v Narrator>of political freedom was brand new. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City attorney Phil Horning says even a dedicated patriot like Thomas <v Narrator>Jefferson could find that being on the receiving end of those freedoms <v Narrator>was not much to his taste. <v Phil Horning>The First Amendment and true allegiance to its real purpose is not <v Phil Horning>a natural thing. It is something has got to be learned, fought for, <v Phil Horning>bled for and acquired.

<v Phil Horning>And I'll give you an example. In 1801 in Jefferson's inaugural <v Phil Horning>address, he said this. <v Phil Horning>He said, If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union or to change <v Phil Horning>its Republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety <v Phil Horning>with which err of opinion may be tolerated for reason is left free to combat <v Phil Horning>it. The perfect idealistic expression of the First Amendment. <v Phil Horning>In other words, if they disagree with you, don't be offended. <v Phil Horning>Allow them to disagree with you, and they'll be an example of the err of opinion <v Phil Horning>which they hold. But when he was elected president and the Federalist Press <v Phil Horning>began to get on to him, he wrote a letter to Governor McCain of Pennsylvania <v Phil Horning>objecting to the licentiousness and lying of the federal press and saying, <v Phil Horning>I have therefore long thought that a few prosecutions of the- of the most prominent <v Phil Horning>offenders would have had a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the press. <v Phil Horning>He sounded just like Richard Nixon there, you see. <v Phil Horning>So whenever the, uh, the offense that one takes

<v Phil Horning>becomes great enough, well, then he immediately becomes convinced that a clear <v Phil Horning>and present danger exists and there ought to be a prior restraint on the criticizing <v Phil Horning>speech that he's being subjected to. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Peter Denman>I suspect whatever support there is for censorship arises <v Peter Denman>out of a desire on the part of persons, on various <v Peter Denman>points along the political spectrum to see their particular <v Peter Denman>tastes and opinions given the force of law. <v Peter Denman>This is not a phenomenon that is restricted to <v Peter Denman>any particular point on the political spectrum. <v Peter Denman>I think you find persons on the extreme left as <v Peter Denman>interested in using law to give particular force <v Peter Denman>to their views as you do those on the extreme right. <v Peter Denman>John Stuart Mill once said that we spent far too much time <v Peter Denman>worrying about which tastes and opinions should be given the force

<v Peter Denman>of law, rather than asking the more fundamental question whether <v Peter Denman>any of our particular tastes should be given the force of <v Peter Denman>law. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>How much information should we as American citizens have about our government's <v Narrator>actions? Most people would answer as much as possible within <v Narrator>reason. We obviously do not want defense secrets, for example, <v Narrator>printed in our daily newspapers where not only we, but our enemies, can see them. <v Narrator>But what if our government lies to us, or if our leaders are themselves involved <v Narrator>in illegal actions? Should we know then? <v Narrator>University of Oklahoma Professor Richard Wells says yes. <v Richard Wells>Information about how the government works, about what <v Richard Wells>politicians do, there I think if you go <v Richard Wells>by democratic norms, I think these should be widely

<v Richard Wells>accessible. And where you draw the limits. <v Richard Wells>I don't know. The old standard was clear and present danger. <v Richard Wells>Nixon's was, of course, national security. <v Richard Wells>I think we restrict information in the public sense much, much more than we should. <v Richard Wells>And every revelation about Watergate or the CIA simply convinces, <v Richard Wells>I think, more and more people that there's greater harm and restriction than not. <v Narrator>That question of who should decide what is national security and what we will hear about <v Narrator>our government is an important one. <v Narrator>Some in our country are now unwilling to trust our leaders to make those decisions <v Narrator>for us. But Oklahoma County Republican Chairwoman Nancy Atgar disagrees. <v Nancy Atgar>If they don't know, who's going to? <v Nancy Atgar>I would think someone in Washington in a highly <v Nancy Atgar>classified job would be able to <v Nancy Atgar>ascertain what is critical to

<v Nancy Atgar>national security and what isn't. <v Nancy Atgar>Again, if we've reached the point that we have no <v Nancy Atgar>one to trust and if the man at the corner drugstore is <v Nancy Atgar>best equipped to determine what's pro or con <v Nancy Atgar>for national security, then we're in a sad state of affairs. <v Nancy Atgar>It doesn't bother me that we have secrets in Washington. <v Nancy Atgar>As long as the United States of America <v Nancy Atgar>as a free country is preserved. <v Nancy Atgar>And as long as we have forces in the world and people in the world <v Nancy Atgar>who want to change our private <v Nancy Atgar>enterprise type of government, there are bound <v Nancy Atgar>to- to be secrets that have to be kept. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays]

<v Nancy Atgar>We have an inherent right, even before <v Nancy Atgar>the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights, we had an <v Nancy Atgar>inherent right to criticize our public officials. <v Nancy Atgar>If we think they're wrong, we have a right to <v Nancy Atgar>criticize 'em. So many Americans don't really believe <v Nancy Atgar>that anymore. And that's a very frightening thing to me. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>In the United States, the government is not the only agency involved in limiting access <v Narrator>to information. In fact, one of the major complaints of many political <v Narrator>groups is that our press is now busily engaged in managing the news. <v Narrator>They object that newspapers, television and radio stations decide what is <v Narrator>good for us to know and then suppress other points of view. <v Narrator>Ann Savage, the president of the Oklahoma League of Women Voters, says she has been

<v Narrator>dismayed by the way the state's newspapers treat women. <v Ann Savage>You get just the one side of- of some issues or not any <v Ann Savage>coverage of some issues at all. <v Ann Savage>When you look at and listen and read the news coverage here, <v Ann Savage>you, uh, get the idea that all women stay home and go to club meetings. <v Ann Savage>And this just isn't so. And I think the news media media should try and <v Ann Savage>give some coverage to other women's activities other than the club women, because there <v Ann Savage>are a lot of women out there who do work and have interests in other areas. <v Ann Savage>After a while, you do believe that, you know, some of it's deliberate. <v Ann Savage>I can't believe that the editors, for instance, of newspapers <v Ann Savage>are not aware of all these things going on, but they deliberately only give the side that <v Ann Savage>they want us to give. <v Ann Savage>I think that there are two ways that the media does this. <v Ann Savage>One is by omission, which is really censorship of, uh, certain viewpoints. <v Ann Savage>And how can a woman make any judgment on viewpoints if they can't see both sides?

<v Ann Savage>And the other, I think, is sometimes by distorting maybe not facts, but <v Ann Savage>distorting news articles. One of the things that is one of my favorite gripes is you see <v Ann Savage>a great big headline and usually it has something like women's lib, blah, blah, blah, <v Ann Savage>blah, blah. And what does it mean? <v Ann Savage>The article has nothing to do with women's lib. <v Ann Savage>So I think this this is one distortion you get by derogatory headlines <v Ann Savage>which immediately make people think, oh, those wild eyed radical women. <v Ann Savage>And yet when you read the article, it may have nothing to do with wild eyed radical <v Ann Savage>women. It may have something to do with everyday working women or everyday housewives, <v Ann Savage>for instance. <v Narrator>But on the other side of Savage's complaint is the press, which certainly has a <v Narrator>responsibility to the values of the country, which allows them so much freedom. <v Narrator>How do you report on those who challenge generally accepted opinions? <v Narrator>Or who advocate the overthrow of our government? <v Narrator>Does the press have a responsibility not only to report the news, <v Narrator>but to avoid adding to a potentially explosive situation?

<v Narrator>Tulsa Tribune publisher Jenkin Lloyd Jones says it is less a question of censorship <v Narrator>than plain common sense. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>Where do you draw the line between a legitimate concern for a <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>proper right and the line beyond which you simply <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>supply a stage for an exhibitionist? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>This is an interesting thing. You got an awful lot of exhibitionists in this country. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>They love to be on stage center. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>They would like to contrive through their behavior or any other means <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>to get in the spotlight. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>And yet how significant are they? So when you get people who say the press is <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>suppressing their points of view with the press, I think has got to say, well, where <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>is there a really legitimate problem and where is there merely noise? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>That's why, uh, sure you would say that I might put on page <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>23 what some person in a pressure group thinks ought to be on page <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>one. But if we overemphasize the person who calls for violence, <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>we get counter-violence.

<v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>You see, I went through a race riot once. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>I was a child in this town in 1921 when the whole black section <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>in Tulsa was burned on a day and when nobody knows how many were shot. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>I know what that thing is like. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>And I know that if we would fill our newspaper <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>full of racial controversy, <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>what you would have is you've got 90 percent whites versus 10 percent blacks in Tulsa. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>What happens if you create a condition so that the rednecks <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>react? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>Who loses? <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Speaker>I do think you've got to draw the line when, uh, someone <v Speaker>is speaking for the overthrow of our government <v Speaker>and is obviously an outspoken defender of

<v Speaker>a form of government, which is against everything that this country was <v Speaker>founded on. <v Speaker>I think then you're running into a fine line about what is <v Speaker>treason and what isn't treason. <v Speaker>Certainly the people who have worked to make this country great and who are <v Speaker>continuing to believe in its principles shouldn't have to <v Speaker>listen to some of this treasonous talk. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>What about this question of those who criticize the government, who would like to see it <v Narrator>destroyed or at least radically changed? <v Narrator>Do they have a right to be heard? <v Narrator>The First Amendment gives at least a conditional yes when it guarantees us freedom of <v Narrator>speech. But how much freedom of speech do we really want? <v Narrator>California communist Angela Davis is certainly free to hold her opinions.

<v Narrator>But by inviting her to speak at the University of Oklahoma, were the officials there <v Narrator>putting a stamp of approval on her ideas? <v Narrator>Or is it so important in the United States to have open access to all political <v Narrator>views that there is a public responsibility to present opposition views. <v Narrator>Republican Party executive Nancy Atgar answers no to that last <v Narrator>question. <v Nancy Atgar>I think we have to understand that a university which is tax supported <v Nancy Atgar>can't just be termed a public facility. <v Nancy Atgar>I think that by reason of its initial <v Nancy Atgar>purpose, a university which is state supported <v Nancy Atgar>is bound under our basic rights <v Nancy Atgar>in this country to reflect what the people who are paying for it <v Nancy Atgar>want it to reflect. <v Nancy Atgar>And I don't necessarily think that this is infringing on freedom <v Nancy Atgar>of education to do this.

<v Nancy Atgar>Our whole country is based on the premise that the people will determine <v Nancy Atgar>their own projected end, so to speak. <v Nancy Atgar>And I think the taxpayers had every right to rise up when <v Nancy Atgar>Angela Davis was mentioned to come to OU. <v Nancy Atgar>And certainly I think the legislature who are innately <v Nancy Atgar>responsible to the people who elect them, had every right to reflect what the <v Nancy Atgar>people felt about this. <v Nancy Atgar>And quite frankly, I had misgivings about <v Nancy Atgar>giving this woman a public hearing at the taxpayer's expense. <v Narrator>But when zv help, state representative John Monks was asked his opinion on having <v Narrator>radical speakers at our universities, the answer was quite different. <v John Monks>I certainly think so with any kind of political ideas, even though <v John Monks>they certainly should be free to expression. <v John Monks>I may not agree with them, but I defend to my death the right for them to, uh, for <v John Monks>freedom of speech.

<v John Monks>And I certainly think in order to get a wide spectrum with the college <v John Monks>students or the students in the institutions of higher learning are old <v John Monks>enough and capable to, you know, mature enough to make intelligent decisions. <v John Monks>And I think that they should be able hear all of this. <v John Monks>Just about anyone they'd want to invite. <v Narrator>But leaving aside for a moment the question of whether Angela Davis should have been <v Narrator>invited to O.U., former U.S. <v Narrator>attorney Will Burghardt says that our whole society has nothing to fear from <v Narrator>radical philosophies and might actually benefit from them. <v WIll Burghardt>I'm sure there are limits. But I- I have the personal feeling <v WIll Burghardt>that we haven't reached those limits. <v WIll Burghardt>I mean, that we could afford to have more freedom of speech than we <v WIll Burghardt>have. I think that a free society <v WIll Burghardt>must accommodate all ideas. <v WIll Burghardt>And I think that probably the problem doesn't come

<v WIll Burghardt>in assessing the ideas, but in assessing what is meant by giving <v WIll Burghardt>them access or giving them expression. <v WIll Burghardt>I think that a person's right to express his idea does not give him <v WIll Burghardt>a right to free time on TV and radio, for example, or in <v WIll Burghardt>the newspaper. But the events of the past <v WIll Burghardt>two years should show us that our system can withstand <v WIll Burghardt>more stress and strain than we thought that it could withstand. <v WIll Burghardt>And among those stresses and strains that I think it could stand would be <v WIll Burghardt>accommodation of ideas that we don't like and I don't- most of <v WIll Burghardt>us don't agree with. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>If there are limits to our freedom of access to political information, <v Narrator>then who shall set those limits?

<v Narrator>This question becomes particularly thorny when there are public funds and public <v Narrator>facilities involved. <v Narrator>Many people believe that our interpretation of First Amendment rights should be as broad <v Narrator>as possible. But they argue that when public money is involved, the <v Narrator>attitudes and opinions of the majority of taxpayers should be given preference. <v Narrator>In fact, they believe American taxpayers should actually have the final say <v Narrator>on what kind of information is available through public channels. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City management consultant Thomas Harris provides some insight into <v Narrator>this point of view. <v Thomas Harris>I like people who feel that way and say that we have good reason to say those <v Thomas Harris>things because we have such a preponderance of material in <v Thomas Harris>the press, in the publications, that come across and <v Thomas Harris>come to the attention of the kids and in the libraries that makes, really, <v Thomas Harris>the other systems appear to have some attraction, you see. <v Thomas Harris>Our system isn't perfect. I don't know that any system is.

<v Thomas Harris>And those who are idealists and who want to make it better or want something better <v Thomas Harris>know and seem only to resort to systems that have already failed, which <v Thomas Harris>are the collectivist, the centralist systems. <v Thomas Harris>And so those who say I don't want to see any more communist or socialist, <v Thomas Harris>or collectivist or central planning type of literature or <v Thomas Harris>monographs or theses that are favorable to those schemes, the reason that they <v Thomas Harris>say that is because on every every side were assailed with attacks <v Thomas Harris>on the so-called capitalist system. <v Narrator>University of Oklahoma political science professor Richard Wells challenges Mr <v Narrator>Harris his view of this decision making process. <v Narrator>Professor Wells says that criticism of our system, even radical criticism, <v Narrator>is so important that there is a public responsibility to make sure it is <v Narrator>openly available. <v Richard Wells>In my opinion, there is a positive obligation <v Richard Wells>on the part of, say, a library in a society that professes to believe what we

<v Richard Wells>profess, to provide the full range of viewpoint. <v Richard Wells>I don't think we should be deterred by the use of dirty words or expletives <v Richard Wells>or strident tones or anything like that. <v Richard Wells>I think a library, a university, a school of any kind <v Richard Wells>should provide the widest possible range of viewpoint that people who <v Richard Wells>are participants and beneficiaries of that institution are capable <v Richard Wells>of hearing if there a question of their capability, the error should be on the side <v Richard Wells>of access rather than not. Now there, it's <v Richard Wells>very difficult because these are public funds and it is <v Richard Wells>a contradiction of sorts for the public to <v Richard Wells>support views which are sufficiently strong <v Richard Wells>so as to say public authority is wrong and should be overthrown. <v Richard Wells>There's a- Marxist says that, and more. But it is the genius,

<v Richard Wells>it strikes me, of the system that it has been strong enough to support <v Richard Wells>views or to have them provided accessible <v Richard Wells>to the people. So that the system remains <v Richard Wells>a system strong enough to encourage criticism of that system, strikes <v Richard Wells>me as strong enough to survive a system that must depend on limiting criticism <v Richard Wells>of it will fail because it's attempting to remain what it can't <v Richard Wells>remain, which is the same. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>In this program, we have looked at some of the ways that access to information is limited <v Narrator>in this country - through government secrecy, through news management <v Narrator>and through simple refusal to hear other political opinions. <v Narrator>We've heard what some Oklahomans think and feel on the subject. <v Narrator>Now it is time to make up our own minds about how much freedom of information

<v Narrator>we want and need. <v Narrator>But before we close, let us go back for a moment to the First Amendment to the American <v Narrator>Constitution. The aim and the effect of that amendment is to protect <v Narrator>the rights of American minority opinions and through the First Amendment, the <v Narrator>founding fathers gave their implied blessing to disagreement in American politics <v Narrator>without disagreement. There would be little or no danger of repression <v Narrator>where the constitution also contains the mechanism for limiting dissent <v Narrator>when it becomes too dangerous. <v Narrator>Now, in the final analysis, it is each individual's responsibility <v Narrator>to define what those limits are. <v Narrator>And in this year of rededication to the spirit of American democracy, <v Narrator>it is well to remember that if we do not decide, someone else <v Narrator>will decide for us. <v Announcer>This has been Limits to freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public

<v Announcer>Policies on the Right to Read. <v Announcer>This program is sponsored by the Public Library Systems of Oklahoma and supported <v Announcer>in part by a grant from the Oklahoma Humanities Committee and the National Endowment <v Announcer>for the Humanities. The views and opinions expressed in this program <v Announcer>do not necessarily represent those of either this radio station or the sponsoring <v Announcer>agencies.