Pollit Recon "Ground Zero"

Reconstruction of Katha Pollit, “Ground Zero for Free Speech”

In “Ground Zero for Free Speech,” Katha Pollit argues that the debate over Park51 ignores the importance of free speech and religious toleration. To present her arguments, she replies to three objections to Park51 from Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rudy Guliani, and Abraham Foxman and then gives her main argument for the importance of freedom of speech. First, Gingrich argues that we are experiencing a subversive invasion of Islam and that we cannot allow Park51 until Saudi Arabia allows churches and synagogues. Pollit replies the Gingrich is adopting a Saudi Arabian standard for religious tolerance, which he ought not to accept, assuming he believes in free speech and religious toleration. Second, Guiliani argues analogically that since we wouldn’t allow a shrine at Pearl Harbor, we shouldn’t allow a Mosque near Ground Zero. Pollit rejects the analogue, saying that we might want to allow a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor. Pollit also claims that Guiliani’s view is anti-free speech. Finally, Sarah Palin and Abraham Foxman both argue that it is just too painful to allow the mosque. Pollit cites a victims group that disagrees and conflicting poll data on the project to suggest that their viewpoint is overstated.

Pollit’s main argument is that if freedom of speech and religious toleration is possible, it cannot be conditioned on the popularity of the viewpoint under consideration because free speech is “always … for the one who thinks differently”. It is implied that people who think differently will tend to be in the minority and therefore their viewpoint will not usually be popular. To be committed to free speech you must therefore be committed to allowing the expression of viewpoints or religious practice whether you like them or not.