Free Speech Documentary Maker Eyes Sotomayor Decision

June 23, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

By Maura Judkis, Washington Whispers

Documentary filmmaker Liz Garbus likes to say that her devotion to the First Amendment was instilled in utero—a declaration that, from anyone else, would be considered hyperbole. But freedom of speech, press, religion, petition, and assembly course through her veins because her father is Martin Garbus, a prominent First Amendment lawyer. He is famous for defending raunchy comedian Lenny Bruce against obscenity charges, helping to get the Pentagon Papers published, and fighting for the right of the Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Ill., despite being raised Jewish himself.

"As a filmmaker, what I do is part of free speech," Liz Garbus told Whispers. "I always wanted to do something about the interesting worlds that I was able to see through my father's work."

Her film "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech" (which takes its name from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dictum that falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater would not be constitutionally protected speech) examines First Amendment cases from a post-9/11, post-Patriot Act world that fall in murky territory, like the firing of a Muslim public school teacher or the arrest of hundreds of peaceful protestors at the 2004 Republican National Convention. It was recently screened in D.C.'s Pantheon of free speech: The Newseum, a building that has the five First Amendment freedoms emblazoned in huge lettering on the side of the building.

Garbus's approach throughout the documentary is even-handed. Though she says that the Patriot Act made the exercise of freedom of speech more difficult for people from the left after 9/11, her vignettes encompass the full political spectrum, including a high school student, Chase Harper, who was removed from public school for wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is Shameful."

"My devotion to free speech at this point is pretty nonpartisan," says Garbus. "You have to defend things that you really, really hate if you mean it about free speech."

That's one of the reason she's closely following the news about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. "She made a very courageous dissenting opinion in a free speech case, where she wrote in support of a New York City police officer who was distributing racist leaflets," says Garbus. "She protected the free speech rights of someone whose views were abhorrent, and I find that very brave. So I'm interested in how that will play out."

Indeed, the timing of her documentary's release—it will be aired on HBO at 9 p.m. Eastern Time on June 29—could not have been better. Several other First Amendment issues have been in the headlines in recent weeks, from President Obama's decision not to release detainee torture photographs to the killing of an abortion provider and the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. The suspects in both of the latter cases were men who had expressed hateful views in online forums prior to the incidents.

"These violent acts are disturbing and horrible, but they're not free speech issues, they're violent crimes," says Garbus, who expressed frustration with journalists who wrote columns stating that hateful speech from the right-wing media was responsible in part for the incidents. Glenn Beck "has a right to his opinion," she says. "Our responsibility, if you don't agree with him, is to get your voice out there. I found it disturbing that there was this cacophony of voices that seemed to be blaming the right-wing media for violent crimes."

As for Obama and the torture photos, Garbus's father compared the situation to the Pentagon Papers in a panel discussion after a screening of the film. The president made the wrong call, the elder Garbus said. "The best thing is to release them. I don't think any of the quote 'American enemies' right now are going to be surprised by anything that's in there," he said. "I think it's a terrible mistake. It's the concept of whether you have an abstract commitment to the First Amendment or you actually believe it means something."

Tags:
Sonia Sotomayor

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

updated number for Jake Witmer 701-204-3215

Jake Witmer of AK 8:50PM November 01, 2012

I anxiously await "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech". It sounds excellent. Martin Garbus, no matter how "liberal" (I'm a Libertarian and a libertarian) deserves the status of a hero in our society, even if he had only defended Bruce.

Martin Garbus sounds like more of a liberal in the sense that Hayek was a "liberal" (from the old tradition of liberal, which meant libertarian). I will be very interested to see if her documentary contains interviews with Charles Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate of "The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education". "The FIRE" has recently defended predominantly right wing and libertarian students against campus "speech codes". (Those of you who have recently attended college know that certain speech is forbidden. As in "Thou shalt not" criticize blacks, gays, welfare, socialism, etc., ...or risk your comments being labeled as "hate speech", and yourself as "reactionary".)

I am also amazed that liberals all across the nation have not found out about the case "Turney v. Alaska".

"Turney v. Alaska" is THE most important First Amendment case to be rejected by the Supreme Court for years. Frank Turney was arrested for handing information to people in front of a courthouse (read "tyranny outpost") in Fairbanks, Alaska. The informational pamphlets he was handing out contained true information (upheld by "John Peter Zenger" in 1735!), about juror's rights in relation to those of the judge.

Now then, since this information is true, it is not illegal for jurors to possess it, even if they are seated.

The information also contained information about the historical addition of prosecutorial juror questioning ("voir dire") to courtroom procedure. Even though "voir dire" is a relatively recent and arguably unconstitutional phenomenon, (1850-present), Turney was alleged to have broken Alaska's "jury tampering" law by handing out the information (which directly ignores the First Amendment). ("Voir dire" was added to the pretrial by post-"Fugitive Slave Act" judges in order to rig Northern juries in favor of convictions, by eliminating those who disagreed with the Fugitive Slave Law from sitting on juries.)

"Turney v. Alaska" is where the USA confirmed that it has lost its sole check on government power: randomly-seated juries, and free expression of USEFUL anti-government speech.

Turney's speech was damaging to those parts of the state that large minorities disagree with. He was charged with breaking the jury tampering law only after a juror who had been handed a pamphlet of his voted to acquit a man of an unconstitutional gun charge.

In so doing, Turney was simply showing the jury their lawful power, upheld by "Laura Kriho v. the State of Colorado" (2000).

Turney's conviction and jail sentence, if left to stand, throws out the First and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution.

Sounds like we need the Garbus family on this case!

Call me at 907-250-5503 if you like.

Jake Witmer of AK 8:36AM June 24, 2009

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement