DOCUMENT RESUME ED 071 122 CS 500 097 ADTHOR Tedford, Thomas L., Ed. TITLE Free Speech Yearbook: 1972. INSTITUTION Speech Communication Association,New York, N.Y. PUB DATE 73 NOTE 142p. AVAILABLE FROMSpeech Communication Association,Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, N.Y. 10001 ($2.50) ERRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS Bibliographies; Censorship; *CivilLiberties; Court Doctrine; *Freedom of Speech; GreekCivilization; *Social Attitudes; Student Opinion;Supreme Court Litigation ABSTRACT This book is a collection ofessays on free speech. issues and attitudes, compiled bythe Commission on Freedom of Speech of the Speech CommunicationAssociation. Four articles focuson freedom of speech in classroomsituations as follows:a philosophic view of teaching free speech, effectsof a course on free speechon student attitudes, historicalessentials of teaching free speech,and two opposing views on teacher attitudeson free speech in the communications classroom. Subjects ofother essays are: the judicial process in relation to freedom of speech;freedom of speech in ancient Athens; a case in which theAmerican Civil Liberties Union sought limitations on freedom ofspeech; the opposing philosophiesof Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill;the rhetoric of intimidationin Indiana during.World War I; andSupreme Court decisions relating to the First Amendment during its1971-1972 term. The book ends withan extensive bibliography of articles,books, and court decisions relating to freedom of speechand published between July 1971and June 1972. (RN) rJ;freeperil ljearbook:1972 ,c.! a publication of The Commissionon Freedom of Speech of the Speech CommunicationAssociation U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO. DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG. MATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN IONS STt TED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOU CATION POSITION OR POLICY Editor, Thomas L. Tedford Professor of Dram- and Speech University of North Carolinaat Greensboro PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY -. lk RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED Speech Communication Association BY O Speech Communicatior Static'. Hilton Hotel *. New York. N.Y. 10001 Association TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING 0 1973 UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE US OFFICE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRODUCTION .19 OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REOUIRES PER MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS TEACHING :IEE AND RESPONSIBLE SPEECH:A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW Wayne C. Minnick 1 TOWARD A MORE REALISTIC VIEW OF THEJUDICIAL PROCESS IN RELATION TO FREEDOMOF SPEECH Ruth McGaffey 8 FREE SPEECH IN ANCIENT ATHENS Halford Ryan 20 ACLU LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH:THE CASE OF ELIZABETH FLYNN J. W. Patterson 31 FREE SPEECH: THE PHILOSOPHICALPOLES Cal M. Logue 40 PATRIOTS VS. DISSENTERS: THE RHETORICOF INTIMIDATION IN INDIANA DURING THE FIRSTWORLD WAR Clark Kimball 49 THE INFLUENCE OF A COURSE IN ETHICSAND FREE SPEECH IN CHANGING STUDENTATTITUDES Fred P. Hilpert, Jr 66 SOME HISTORICAL ESSENTIALS OF TEACHINGFREEDOM OF SPEECH John Lee Jellicorse 76 THE SPEECH COMMUNICATIONCLASSROOM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: TWO VIEWS I. TOWARD A LATITUDE OF SOCIALRESPONSIBILITY Jerry Hendrix 85 II. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, COMMITMENTSAND TEACHING PUBLIC SPEAKING Theodore Otto Windt, Jr. 88 THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FIRSTAMENDMENT: 1971-1972 William A. Linsley 92 FREEDOM OF SPEECH BIBLIOGRAPHY: JULY1971-JUNE 1972 ARTICLES, BOOKS, AND COURT DECISIONS Haig A. Bosmajian 115 Acknowledgments The Editor wishes to express his appreciation to the members of the Speech Communication Association who served as editorial consultants for the Free Speech Yearbook: 1972.Particular gratitude is expressed to Alvin Goldberg, Franklyn Haiman, Alton Barbour, Richard Johannesen, Haig Bosmajian. Robert M. O'Neil, Nancy McDermid, and L. Dean Fadely. New Editor for 1973 The new editor of the Free Speech Yearbook is Alton Barbour, Department of Speech Communication, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 80210. Those who wish to submit manuscripts to be considered for use in the 1973 Yearbook should send three copies as soon as possible to Professor Barbour. The Newsletter The Commission on Freedom of Speech publishes its newsletter, Free Speech, each quarter of the academic year. News concerning freedom of speech as well as subscription requests should be sent to the editor, Haig Zosmajian (Department of Speech, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105).After June 1, 1973, the new editor will be Peter Kane, Department of Speech, State University of New York at Brockport, Brockport, N. Y. 14420. Yearbook Volume Numbers The Speech Communicati Association began publication of the Free Speech Yearbook in 1970. Volumes are numbered from that date, with the 1970 Yearbook being Volume I, the 197! Yearbook being Volume H, and the present publication being Volume III.From 1962 through 1969 the Committee (now Commission) on Freedom of Speech printed a limited number of yearbooks in mimeograph form. Back issues of the mimeo- graphed yearbooks are not feadily available; however, libraries can make arrangements for photocopies with the Speech Communication Association's New York office. TEACHING FREE AND RESPONSIBLESPEECH: A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW Wayne C. Minnick Professor of Communication andAssociate Dean of Humanities Florida State University Few people would deny that thereare legitimate limitations on freedomof speech; but while legal mindscautiously formulate tests eat willjustify curtailing free speech, the general public, if opinion polls are an accurate index,is inclined to restrict speech impulsively. In 1o0, a poll of high school students, conductedby Purdue University, indicated that 60per cent believed that police and other should have the power to groups censor books and movies, 63 per cent believedthat com- munists ought not to be allowed to speak on radio, and 25 per cent believedthat the government should not permitsome people to make public speeches 1970 the Columbia Broadcasting at all.' Early in System conducted a telephonesurvey in which respondents were asked, "Doyou think everyone should have the rightto criticize the government, even if the criticism is damaging to our national interests?" Only 42per cent of the persons contacted favored that right.2Hazel Erskii.e, after making survey of public opinion poll quest a ons relating to free speech for the period 1936to 1970, came to the followingconclusion:'Acceptance of free speech for any kind of radical appears to be at a new low for the past three decades. Before1950 a maxi- mum of 49 per cent would have allowedan extremist to speak freely. During the 1950's permissiveness towardradicals never climbed above 29per cent. Since 1960 only 2 in 10 would accord freeexpression to any extreme point of view."3 Such evidence indicates that toleranceof free expression in others is innate tendency; it is learned. not an if we take it for granted thattolerance for freedom of expression has to be cultivated, dowe have a right and/or an obligationto try to inculcate attitudes favorable to freedomof expression in the schools?The purpose of this paper will be to examinethe philosophical implications of answer to that question. an affirmative In our schools and colleges we deal with immature and plastic minds;conse- quently, we have a strong responsibilityto justify what we do to those minds. To like B. F. Skinner there is men no problem. Skinner thinks human behavioris always controlled and manipulated, and he argues that if good men donot manipulate be- havior to good ends, badmen will manipulate it to bad ends. Here isa short state- ment from one of Skinner'sessays: -2- We cannot make wise decisions if we continue to pretend that human behavior is not controlled..../It is a/ dangerous notion ... that most people follow de mocratic principles of conduct "because they want to ...." Although it is tempting to assume it is human nature to believe in democratic principles, we must not overlook the "cultural engineering" which produced and continues to main- tain democratic principles.If we neglect the conditions which produce democratic behavior, it is useless to try to maintain a democratic form of government. 4 It seems evident, then, that Skinner would support conditioning students to hold favorable attitudes toward freedom of expression because freedom of expression is necessary to support democratic government. Nor is Skinner alone in this view. Most educators who have, in the past four or five decades, compiled lists of general ob- jectives of education generally agree that such pragmatic objectives as "civic responsibility" are justified. For the sake of argument let's assume that teaching freedom of expression is defensible if it leads to good ends. We must next inquire what are the good ends it supposedly insures. The social utility theorists, like John Milton, John Stuart Mill, and a large number of apologists who have followed in their footsteps, 6 emphasize at least three desirable social outcomes from the tolerance of free expression.First, the quality of political discussion is said to be enhanced by an atmosphere of open discussion.Democratic political decisions are supposed to rest upon reason and truth, and the only way we can assure public access to reason and truth is through unrestrained expression of ideas.If citizens are denied access to certain kinds of int -mation and opinions, their judgments are distorted. As Alexander Meiklejohn puts it,"It is that mutilation of the thinking process of the community against