Monday, October 1, 2007

"Power to the People"

As I was trying to rack my brain for a blogging subject, I overheard an add for "Across the Universe," a major motion picture consisting of all Beatles covers, which, naturally, I am dying to see, but college life has made that difficult. So I began thinking about the political impact The Beatles had on American culture and John Lennon's very public anti-war campaign whose messages of peace hold relevance to our current situation in Iraq.

As I researched Lennon I saw that he had to overcome many obstacles in-order express his negative feelings towards the Vietnam War. All through out history the government has done everything in its power to prevent public criticism of themselves, and in Lennon's case, as in the case of many young Muslim men today, deportation has become a way to prevent this critical speech. In essence, the government has found a way to enact prior restraint.

Back in 1972, Lennon was technically deported from the United States because the U.S. Government was aware of and felt threatened by his peace campaign. As he did in Amsterdam and Canada, Lennon intended on doing a "bed-in" in Washington D.C., where he and Yoko Ono would lay in a hotel bed while reporters would come to their room and interview them about their anti-war politics. It was at the "bed-in" in Montreal that he and Yoko recorded "Give Peace a Chance"(1). Instead of singing the age old "We Shall Over Come," modern Americans could now sing "Give Peace a Chance," and it was that kind of anti-war publicity that the American Government wanted to prevent ( 2). John Lennon was iconic both musically and politically, and everything he said had a profound affect on his millions of American fans. He had the power to publicly express the disapproval that he and thousands of young Americans felt towards U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So to mobilize his peace campaign, Lennon planned on touring the U.S., giving war rallies and setting up voter registration at his concerts (3).

President Richard Nixon and his Republican congress were quite aware of Lennon's peace campaign and its potential effectiveness. Considering 1972 would be the first year 18 year-olds had the right to vote, young Americans would be given the chance to create the change they wanted. Nixon knew that the youth of America did not support him and desperately wanted to stay in office ; therefore, he sent Lennon back to Britain. The government didn't actually walk-up to him and kick him out, but they "found" a reason why his visa could not be renewed, and ultimately deported him (1).

The government found a way to regulate Lennon's speech (music lyrics/comments in interviews) through prior restraint. I realize that the government wasn't necessarily violating the First Amendment because Lennon was not a U.S. citizen and there was no state action, but deporting Lennon to prevent his speech defies the very principal that makes the First Amendment effective. The First Amendment can not be productive if the government is allowed to prevent speech with political merit just because it wouldn't be beneficial for them. In the beginning, prior restraint consisted of things like licensing and taxation, but as the world evolved, less obvious forms of prior restraint have formed destructing the principals of the First Amendment. Subsequent punishment is said to be a form of prior restraint because it deters the speaker from speaking, and, in a sense, deportation can be used as prior restraint because it physically deters threatening speakers.

Sir William Blackstone, which the Framers of the U.S. Constitution idolized as much as young people idolized John Lennon, stated in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that "laying no previous restraints upon publications" was a key to maintaining a free state. Deporting Lennon and preventing his anti-war expressions in America is the epitome of "previous restraints," and violates the public's right to receive that speech (4).

Many Americans felt the same as Lennon and supported his peace efforts; by preventing his presence in America and ultimately his speech, the government was also limiting the marketplace of ideas. Sadly our government is doing the same thing today. The U.S. Government's INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) have been rounding up young Muslim men and deporting them (1). More and more the war in Iraq is beginning to share characteristics with the Vietnam War; just this past January President George Bush unveiled his plan to send 20,000 more troops into Iraq (5). Everywhere I turn there is a different advertisement encouraging young people to join The U.S. Military, but, on the other hand, many foreign artists and musicians are not allowed to obtain visas into The U.S.. Americans are being denied the opportunity to hear these artists and their messages; eliminating diversity and ultimately narrowing the marketplace of ideas (1).

Nixon was not the first president to use deportation to prevent government criticism, and Bush will not be the last, so Americans have to realize that the information they are not getting is as important as the information they are getting. Information is power and the use of it gives the "Power to the People"(6).

(If anyone is interested: The original recording of "Give Peace a Chance" is found at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk>.

Sources:
1.) 'The U.S. vs. John Lennon." <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10982>.


2.) "Power to the People; The Lost John Lennon Interview." <http://www.counterpunch.org/lennon12082005.html>.

3.) "View from Lodi, CA: John Lennon, Deportation, and War." <http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/lennon.htm>.

4.) "Commentaries on the Laws of England: Sir William Blackstone." <http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/>.

5.) "Official: Bush plans 20,000 more troops for Iraq." <http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/09/iraq.bush/index.html>.

6.) "John Lennon Lyrics; Power to the People." <http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/lennon+john/power+to+the+people_20082519.html>.

4 comments:

Amy S. said...

I agree with your ideas that suppressing anti war speech is against what we stand for as Americans. However, I also have to see the idea that non American citizens are not provided the same rights as Americans.
Keeping information and different view points from the American people completely skews the marketplace of ideas. It is also most defiantly a form of prior restraint, which makes a mockery of the first amendment. This is similar to the Minnesota incident. The paper was only allowed to print with the judges approval. With this the government could decide what it wanted the people to view or not to view.
Not allowing Lennon's view to be heard can also cause more harm then good. Americans who agree with him and see him silenced will be outraged to speak out louder. This is perhaps why this type of prior restraint is perhaps a double edged sword for the government. America is centered around our constitution and upholding it.Exercising these actions that are so closely tired to prior restraint do not uphold what we as Americans stand for.

kmarie said...

I found your blog very interesting, Kelly! All of that information was completely new to me.I found your blog very interesting, Kelly! All of that information was completely new to me. I see Amy’s point that the First Amendment only protects American citizens, and I agree that eliminating any idea in the marketplace lies against the Framer’s values whether or not it is protected under the constitution. I would like to point out that whether or not Lennon was in America, England, or Vietnam, he was not silenced. I strongly believe that TV and the media were driving forces behind the large, public opposition to Vietnam. The gruesome realities of war became the gruesome realities in your family room. Jane Fonda is fine example of technological influence and influence from abroad. Her infamous photographs with North Vietnamese soldiers spurred a great uproar when she was a world away. With the developing technology of the time, Lennon’s message could be transmitted. Across the Universe is a great example of this. December 8th marks the 27th anniversary of his death, and his message and voice is still being heard.

I had the privilege of seeing Across the Universe this past weekend. Lucy, the female lead, is inspired by the artistic influences of the time. She becomes an activist and represents a generation of youth that fought for peace. This situation exposes the importance of the marketplace of ideas. One idea sparks another, sparking another, sparking revolution – an event my favorite Framer, Jefferson, desired every two decades or so. With a situation today similar to four decades ago, John, I do say I want a revolution.

Kristen

kmarie said...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WuQSTqyeKx4&mode=related&search=

Anonymous said...

I also agree with Amy that Non-Americans are not protected in the ways that American citizens are from government intervention. However, that is not the main issue that you were trying to get across. If John Lennon had become a United States Citizen, the government would have still "found a reason" as you put it, to limit Lennon's speech. As the government had accomplished silencing Lennon, and as they attempted to silence other speakers with opinions contrary to their own, the government tries desperately to find loop holes that will allow limitation of speech without that being the direct accusation. It's like the government has seen the movie "The Untouchables" with Kevin Costner one too many times. In the film (Which is based off true events)the FBI is trying to crack down on Al Capone's reign in Chicago, and virtually the country. Although they cannot indict him for murder, they find other, lesser known infractions he has committed (Tax Evasion) and convict them of those crimes. This example was that of which the government was correct to attempt such actions because the other crimes were legitimate and proven in court. However, the governments motive in cases in which the main issue is speech they do not agree with shows the government is just trying to cover themselves and save public opinion. An obvious form of subsequent punishment and therefore prior restraint in the future.