​

Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech is a documentary film from  2009 about how the first amendment is applied in different situations in the United States. The topic of freedom of speech and the First Amendment in the United States is discussed  by the director Liz Garbus. The documentary prominently features First Amendment attorney, Martin Garbus ( Liz Garbus's father) who talks about the past and present state of free speech in the United States.  The documentary explores different cases that involve the first amendment such as: a professor at a university being fired because he published a controversial article about 9/11, a principal from a Arabic/ English immersion school being fired, and more. The documentary gives multiple options on each case form the defendants and the opposition. But this topic is highly disputed and can be hard to hard clear cut boundaries which she explores in the documentary. 

​

The situation that struck me the most was the case featuring Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who found himself facing backlash after posting his opinion and personal projections of the  September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. In his essay, he argued that the September 11 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. He compared the role of the US as very overbearing and compared the killings here to what has happened in other countries due to US involvement.  Following the controversy, the University of Colorado interim Chancellor called for an investigation on Churchill and ultimately he was fired for his position. He was fired for " research misconduct." The Chancellor stated, "While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public. "

​

The first amendment is questioned and tried in this case because Churchill was using what he thought to be his ability to speak freely even in an academic setting, but because he was under the prohibition of a university they thought that his words were rousing and disrespectful to the US government and they censored it. The first amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” He was tried also because the university thought his comment on the government were “offensive” which can be tried in relation to the first amendment. 

​

Ethically, I stand with Churchill and I think he should not have been fired for his words regarding the 9/11 incident because he has the ability to use free speech even within his right as a professor. The ethical code of Utilitarianism applies because it promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the majority of a population.  While exposing the wrongdoings of the United States in relation to the September 11 incident is shocking and controversial, it does hold truths. And I believe that the American people deserve the truth over anything. And Churchill had the personal inherent right to express his feelings and finding regardless of his position at he university. I feel like knowing this information is what is best for the overall masses in spite of it being against the social norm of opinions after 9/11. He has the right to say and publish his personal options on the incident. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

​