James Borden is the current “talk of the town.” There is arguably not a more polarizing figure on the public scene in Hilo right now. ADVERTISING James Borden is the current “talk of the town.” There is arguably not a
James Borden is the current “talk of the town.” There is arguably not a more polarizing figure on the public scene in Hilo right now.
However, not more than about six blocks to the north, by Kalakaua Park, James Albertini and his Malu Aina organization have for years been occupying the grounds of the federal building about every Friday afternoon.
Over this time, some of their signs have undoubtedly offended people, such as their portrayal of America’s military service as evil and corrupt. To my knowledge, there are no grass-roots movements aiming to “take back Kalakaua Park.”
Is the difference between the two situations that Lincoln Park is frequented by children, while Kalakaua is more of an “adult” park? I don’t know, but I do think that Hawaii’s military veterans, having fought to defend Americans’ right to free speech, and the ones I think are most likely to take offense at some of these messages, are among the most committed to the need to protect even “offensive” speech.
Then there was Roger Christie, the guy who used to run a “cannabis ministry” from the second floor of a building on Kamehameha Avenue. I was among those offended by the banner that hung from the window declaring (paraphrasing here) “you too can use a religious pretext to break the law.”
Somehow, I got over it, and Mr. Christie eventually was deposed when he went beyond his First Amendment rights to advocate for the breaking of laws to the actual violation of drug laws.,
There also are the events taking place on Mauna Kea to oppose the Thirty Meter Telescope. I won’t go into any detail here, since many others already have. But this is yet another example of a contentious debate going on in the community that is weighing the defense of “protected speech” versus what is perceived by many others as a frustration of the rights of private institutions and the majority will of the public.
Perhaps the most well-known argument for the limits of free speech is the adage, “You can’t falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” A Wall Street Journal article which recently addressed this topic is worth reading (WSJ, Aug. 21, “Even Speech We Hate Should Be Free”). It concluded that the meaning of this as a legal principle has been “inflated and distorted,” and inappropriately applied to cases involving offensive speech. Ironically, it was based on the opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of a member of the U.S. Socialist Party who had distributed anti-draft leaflets during World War I.
Incidentally, I actually witnessed a situation in which someone called out “Fire!” when an unmistakable smell of smoke began to fill a theater I was in. Surprisingly, only about a quarter of the crowd began heading for the exits (I was among them). As it turned out there was no fire, and the smoke ceased a few minutes later when the temperature of the popcorn machine was turned down. As far as I know, no one was prosecuted for luring patrons out of the theater on false pretenses, though some evacuees were extremely unhappy for having unnecessarily missed part of the film.
The point here is that I don’t think America will ever find a “one-size-fits-all” definition of free speech, but we do need to remain vigilant not to allow someone to be silenced for offending others with what is otherwise harmless speech. To realize this, one also can look to the college campuses where students have demanded, and received, “warning labels” on course literature so they can avoid being “exposed” to politically offensive words or themes in their homework assignments.
But, what if something really, REALLY radical suddenly appeared in our midst, something so far removed from our cultural comfort zone as to shake the community apart, literally like a magnitude-8 earthquake?
What if, say, a radical Islamist group were to open a “cultural center” on Haili Street and start painting bright red slogans on it like “Death to America!” or “Hawaii’s Infidels Go to Heck!”?
How would that scenario play out over the ensuing months? I can’t imagine it, but I invite readers to submit their own opinions on how the community would react to that situation. One thing is for sure: By comparison, it would make the Borden case look pretty tame.
What I would hope, though, is that we would survive even that extreme scenario with our respect for free-speech rights intact.
Curtis Beck is a professional engineer licensed to practice in the state of Hawaii since 1984, though now semi-retired. He lives in Hilo and remains active in civic and professional affairs.
