The Mail TWO POSSIBLE DEFENSES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Without deciding on the merits of the alleged violation of the principle of freedom of speech by the various students and faculty at the pro-war Teach-in, I offer two possible defenses in their favor:

(1) As Justice Holmes stated, the clearest ease of violation of free speech is that of a person shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Such a person should reasonably see the chaotic result of his yell. Likewise, the pro-war speakers and their sponsors did and/or should have foreseen the reaction of many students at the campus. Bringing in pro-warriors to a militantly anti-war campus logically results in disruption. Therefore, it is the pro-war speakers and their sponsors who, in the name of free speech, provoked the resultant disruption, i.e., but for the pro-war teach-in, such disruption would not have occurred. . . .

(2) The second is also an affirmative defense. It argues that the alleged violators are actually the victims. The anti-warriors went to the Teach-In not to listen, but to convey to the various responsible personages (the Thai Ambassador, the Vietnamese Embassy official, and the White House aide) their disapproval of the present war in Indochina, through the exercise of their freedom of speech. By the shouting, clapping, and even the disruption, the protesters intended and did communicate to the above persons their sentiments. This argument should be weighed in light of the fact that virtually all other effective avenues of communication to the responsible persons and governments have been blocked.

Let me add parenthetically that I personally do not condone the actions by the protesters for two reasons: (1) freedom of speech is so vital in society and especially at a university that an extraordinarily high standard of care should be exercised to preserve and to maximize the flow of ideas and opinions; and (2) the pro-warriors got much more mileage out of the disruption than they would have from their speeches.

In human events, the active is the passive; the passive the active; the actor is the acted; the acted, the active.