ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 2, 1993                   TAG: 9306020273
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium


TRUCE, ANYONE?

THERE'S no such thing as a free lunch, goes the saying, and pretty soon it appears there will no longer be such a thing as free speech.

Consider just a few of the most recent assaults.

In a case at the University of Pennsylvania, five black sorority sisters registered a complaint against a white male student who, they said, had called them "black water buffalo" when they were making noise outside his dormitory room at midnight while he was writing a paper. He claims he only called them "water buffalo," without reference to their race, because they were so loud.

The university entertained this case, going through numerous contortions because of its silly speech code, which prohibits remarks that might offend certain ethnic and other groups the university has decided need protection from injurious words.

But the complaining women dropped the case in a manner that appears designed to save university President Sheldon Hackney's job - not the job he currently holds, but the one he wants. Hackney is President Clinton's nominee to head the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Then there are the never-ending attempts to remove books from public libraries or ban references to God at graduation ceremonies.

Not to be outdone, the city of Cincinnati and its baseball team have been competing for the most outrageous attempt to limit free speech. After an unsuccessful effort in 1990 to prosecute a local museum director for showing the homoerotic works of Robert Mapplethorpe, and a more recent failed attempt by the city to ban street racks for commercial handbills and free publications, the Cincinnati Reds baseball team tried to restrict the display of signs at Riverfront Stadium. Not all signs, just those with religious content.

When a suit was filed charging discrimination, the Reds decided to ban all signs, explaining in a ludicrous statement, "We feel it is necessary to protect the family-oriented atmosphere of Riverfront Stadium from detrimental signage."

Detrimental signage? Commercial signs for beer and cigarettes will continue to be allowed. Honestly now. Which type of sign has the greater potential for causing detriment: beer and cigarette advertising, or a sign referring to the Bible verse John 3:16?

This affront to free speech comes from a team whose owner, Marge Schott, was "disciplined" by major league baseball because she was overheard in a private telephone conversation allegedly disparaging Jews, blacks and people of Japanese ancestry.

There seems no end to attempts to limit free expression.

Well, I propose a truce in the free-speech wars. Conservatives should no longer oppose any speech or expression (except that which they might be forced to underwrite with their tax dollars) and liberals, including so-called free-speech purists, must no longer seek to regulate speech and expression based on content or according to whom they think it might offend.

This means that conservatives would have to tolerate demonstrations in which the American flag is burned (a form of expression already upheld by the Supreme Court), and liberals would have to abandon their crusade to establish speech codes on university campuses. They would also have to cease attempts to regulate religious speech and expression, since conservatives will have to agree not to oppose speech and expression of an anti-religious nature.

Let the free-speech wheat and weeds grow together. Let all ideas be expressed so that, in a free environment, the best ideas will prevail. No minds are changed when mouths are silenced. How better to correct boorish, even racist thinking than by finding out who thinks this way and why? How better to promote understanding and tolerance for different beliefs, including religious beliefs, than to allow those beliefs unfettered expression?

Let's see if those who claim to regard the First Amendment so highly regard it well enough to defend speech that offends them. For years, conservatives have been told that a healthy First Amendment demands that we tolerate even pornography. If so, there should also be room for signs reading "John 3:16" at baseball stadiums. Los Angeles Times Syndicate



 by CNB