The academic world and parts of other worlds pay attention, every late September and early October, to the announcements of the Nobel Prizes. This year, the Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, an issue that North Korea is putting back on the agenda. The theme is a recurring one for the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The first nuclear weapons award was awarded to Linus Pauling in 1962 for his campaign against nuclear weapons testing. At that time, four countries had already carried out tests of this type. The second was awarded in 1974 to former Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato "for his renunciation of the nuclear option for Japan and his commitment to advancing regional reconciliation." In 1974, six countries possessed nuclear weapons. A third award relating to the same theme was awarded in 1985 to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War association. In 1995 it was time for the “Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs”, a time with strong rumors about new members of the nuclear club. The International Atomic Energy Agency received its award in 2005: officially there were now seven countries with an atomic arsenal. The list in recent years has included North Korea and, adding Israel, which has never officially declared that it has nuclear weapons, we reach nine. There are six Nobel Prizes against five new countries with nuclear weapons since 1962.
This agenda is undoubtedly important, but it overshadows another defeat: less than three months ago, on July 13, Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2010, passed away “for his long and non-violent fight for fundamental human rights in China”. Liu Xiaobo was released from prison only to die a few days later in a hospital. One of the first generation fundamental rights is the right to freedom of expression. The title of the Samoa Observer editorial of 15 July [I] brings a direct quote from the Chinese activist: “strangling freedom of expression is crushing human rights, suffocating humanity and suppressing the truth”.
Freedom of expression has a history of achievements that need to be remembered from time to time. Here I look back at the “Free Speech Movement” at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. It is an interesting story of a largely spontaneous and growing movement that won the right to free public speech on campus. This freedom of expression has become one of Berkeley's fundamental values, which has a portal dedicated to the movement: http://fsm.berkeley.edu/, with a beautiful timeline, don't miss it. I highlight two emblematic figures here. The first is the dean at the time, Clark Kerr, author of the fundamental The uses of the university, and the main leader of the movement, brilliant speaker (see the timeline mentioned above), Mario Savio. The movement was the pivot of other movements that spread across the United States, developing into campaigns for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. On the other hand, in a polarized society, Kerr's complacency with students was an important factor in the election of Ronald Reagan as governor of California in 1966, which continuously removed the dean.
Mario Sávio passed away in 1996, Kerr in 2003 and Reagan in 2004. In 2017 Donald Trump assumes the presidency of the United States and his spokespeople spread across the country unfurling ultra-conservative and hate-for-different flags in lectures. In addition to these lectures, manifestations of this so-called alternative right (alt-right) across American campuses, provoking often violent protests at Virginia universities [II] to California [III]. “Freedom of expression week” was scheduled for the last week of September in Berkeley, organized by the “Berkeley Patriot” group. The event ended up cancelled, resulting in the appearance of Milo Yannopoulos, in the same Sproul Plaza that consecrated Mario Savio, bringing together supporters (150) and opponents (hundreds) – both estimates, according to the Los Angeles Times, LAT. And freedom of speech, won in the 1960s and which has become one of its most cherished values, appears to be being challenged in Berkeley. It is no coincidence that a portal dedicated to the topic was created, which I mentioned last week: http://freespeech.berkeley.edu/. These challenges are summarized in the article written by Rigel Robinson and published September 22nd in LAT, Freedom of expression is a virtue. Spending millions to enable hate is not [IV]. Robinson says: “Freedom of expression week has nothing to do with what its name proclaims and everything to do with the naturalization of the expression of hate.” He adds that to guarantee security for this supposed freedom of expression, the university has already spent more than one million dollars. Reading the article in full helps you compose a panel. Just like the others on the tab news & opinions: http://freespeech.berkeley.edu/news-opinion/. The FAQ section expresses the dilemma that hate speech and discrimination poses for the administration of a university there: “although the university condemns speech of this type (hate), there is no exceptionality for the expression of hate in the first amendment (of American Constitution)”. The response goes on to say that if expression of hate insults or humiliates a person or group of people based on race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender, it becomes illegal. But: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prohibitions or punishments for expressions of hate violate the First Amendment.
Amid institutional tensions, the community's reaction was in contrast to the week of “freedom” of expression. Only momentary relief, as a postmodern Pythoness could already say: the serpent's egg of the Lingua Tertii Imperii is being hatched. The first is a film by Ingmar Bergman and the second, a book by Victor Klemperer. Using Google, you can join the dots.
[III] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oW2s_hV3VQ
[IV] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-robinson-berkeley-free-speech-week-20170922-story.html
