Freedom of the Press Award – 2006

“Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretense—the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammelled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live you are a subject and not a citizen. “

These are the words of Idaho Senator William E. Borah, 1917.

The reasoning behind Senator Borah’s quote is why ADL established its prestigious Freedom of the Press Award – to honor those individuals or institutions in our community who make significant and lasting contributions to the preservation and protection of the cherished concepts embodied in the first amendment. The award helps enhance public awareness, understanding and support of the precious centrality of the first amendment in protecting and expanding freedom of the press as a magnificent underpinning of our great country.

Vincent Carroll and I were both born in the same year in South Bend, Indiana…although our paths did not actually cross until I became ADL’s Regional Director. Vincent is the award winning editor of the editorial page at the Rocky Mountain News. He is responsible for writing signed columns and unsigned editorials, as well as editing the Commentary section and helping to establish the newspaper’s editorial position. Mr. Carroll’s commentaries have appeared numerous times in The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and many other publications. He is also co-author of Christianity on Trial/Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry, a book praised by The American Library Association’s “Book List” for its “superb argumentation.”

Almost every morning, on the editorial page of the Rocky Mountain News, Vincent is sticking his neck out in one direction or another. Often, it is a well-reasoned analysis of a public policy issue that is entirely consistent with ADL’s position. His opinions are reliably supportive of Israel’s right of self-determination, its right to defend itself against terrorism and the goal of a fair middle east peace; strongly opposed to the extremism of both the right and left; protective of first amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, the press and religion; strongly against racism, bigotry, stereotypes, anti-Semitism and prejudice; and supportive of the proposition that creationism is not science.

Writing recently about Fred Phelps, the virulently anti-gay pastor from Kansas who taunts grieving military widows with hateful epithets at funerals:

“Sometimes its easier being green than a defender of the first Amendment.” But mere public hostility can’t keep us from doing our duty. And our duty is standing up for the rights of the most obnoxious practitioners of free speech.”

This winter, when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a man with a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-American vitriol, came to Denver to speak at a local Mosque, Vincent wrote:

" ‘Tell the people of Colorado our hands are extended with love and peace,’ [the Grand Mufti] told the crowd.

Love and peace. Such words drop like cold stones from the mouth of a man who, according to The New York Times, referred respectfully to the hateful, fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion as recently as last year on Saudi TV.”

Vincent had the courage to do what few journalists in America did…he published the Danish cartoon that enraged Muslims worldwide earlier this year. But he did so alongside other equally obnoxious and offensive cartoons depicting Jews, Catholics and Southern Baptists. And he wrote:

“Defense of free speech is not so robust in this country as it could be, either. A State Department spokesman issued a mealy-mouthed statement that recognized the importance of freedom of speech but then added that the publication of cartoons that incite religious or ethnic hatred is unacceptable –as if that is what happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that the cartoons incited hatred against Muslim or Islam, only that they incited violence by Muslims. That is, indeed, unacceptable.

The Vatican also got it wrong, saying Saturday that “freedom cannot imply the right to offend” religious believers.

On the contrary, freedom must imply the right to offend religious believers – as well as the members of every other organization or group. Otherwise, we will have ceded our freedoms to the veto of the most intolerant among us. The intolerant in Europe and throughout the Muslim world are now trying to exercise such a veto. They must not be allowed to succeed.”

We at ADL do not always agree with Vincent Carroll’s opinions. We disagree with his positions on the value of hate crimes laws, on diversity education, sometimes on religion in the public square and other topics. And he certainly does not always agree with our positions on issues of the day. We trust we will continue to have a vigorous, spirited dialogue on the issues where we do not agree. And that, more than agreement or disagreement on the issues, is one of the main points of this Award. We know that when Vincent Carroll writes, it is only after thoughtful deliberation in an attempt to let the readers, the citizens of this community, judge for themselves whether they agree. We respect his viewpoints even when we believe they are wrong. We hope he feels the same way about us.

In recognition of his outstanding career in the field of journalism…in admiration for his priceless punditry…in respect for his exemplary contributions to the ideals embodied in the First Amendment, I am pleased and proud to present ADL’s Freedom of the Press Award to one of our region’s most talented and honorable journalists…Vincent Carroll.

On Point

by Vincent Carroll

April 26, 2006

Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colo.)

[...]

Friends of free speech

Thank heaven for Hollywood. If it weren't for the movie industry's economic clout, you have to wonder if the California Supreme Court would have issued a ringing endorsement of freedom of expression in the workplace last week - one that should send a message well beyond that state.

However, since defendants in the case were the producers of the once wildly popular Friends TV show, the same California court that had previously rolled back free speech in the workplace at last saw the light. It unanimously rejected the claim of a scriptwriters' assistant that obnoxious sex talk prevalent among the show's writers amounted to harassment.

"Most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace," one justice wrote. Said another: "This case has very little to do with sexual harassment and very much to do with core First Amendment free speech rights."

*Admittedly, Warner Bros. Television Productions has an advantage over most employers because it can argue that crude talk is vital to the creative process. Still, any blow against the stifling growth of laws and rules meant to protect people from offensive speech is worth celebrating.

Harvey Silverglate, director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, believes the decision has particular relevance for college campuses. "If a court widely deemed one of the nation's most hostile to free speech could recognize the need to protect robust and even obnoxious speech in a 'creative workplace,' " he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "shouldn't universities, by virtue of their truth-seeking mission, enjoy the highest degree of freedom from censorship, and campus harassment codes that regulate speech be abolished?"

But of course.