Robert Rogers, Editor
Daily Texan
December 15, 1995

The recent actions of Freeport-McMoRan are a serious threat to free speech and academic freedom. In the middle of this week, Freeport threatened legal action against some of its political critics.

In addition to two journalists, the targets include three UT professors: Robert S. Boyer, a professor of computer science; Alan Cline, also a professor of computer science; and Steven Feld, a professor of anthropology.

Boyer was told, "With this letter, we [Freeport-McMoRan] have provided you with documentary material clearly demonstrating that prior charges you have made, repeated or publicized against Freeport about alleged human rights violations were inaccurate and false."

And how did Boyer repeat or publicize these charges? The two main possibilities seem to be either through his guest column in The Daily Texan or his personal Web site, which has become a UT database of information on the controversial topic. (Boyer has offered to give Freeport space on the Web page to present its side, but even this noble gesture wasn't enough.)

And what is the penalty for repeating or even just publicizing allegations about Freeport's involvement with human rights abuses?

A senior Freeport official said, "We want to state clearly that if false and damaging charges about Freeport continue to be made, there is every possibility that we will have no alternative but to seek legal recourse against those parties responsible for the future dissemination of false charges, accusations and misrepresentations directed against Freeport."

In short, Freeport is threatening to punish free speech with a lawsuit.

Its most likely opportunity would be to file a libel suit against the UT professors. But this is of dubious legal merit. First, the building naming controversy is of great public importance, and the chance for a successful libel suit in that environment are diminished.

Second, Jim Bob Moffett and Freeport-McMoRan are undeniably public figures. This means that for Freeport to collect damages, it must prove that the UT professors acted with something in legal jargon called "actual malice." Actual malice means that a statement is made "with the knowledge that it is false" or with a "reckless disregard for the truth."

Neither of those criteria seem to be present in the case of the UT professors. While Freeport's involvement in Indonesian human rights abuses has not yet been settled, there is no evidence that the UT professors knowingly propagated false information.

This is especially true in the case of Boyer and Cline, whose main crime seems to be disseminating charges made by others. In short, these men are threatened for providing information on an important public controversy. That's pure political speech, an area that the courts treat with the greatest deference.

But Freeport's legal threat may not be meant for a courtroom. Perhaps the intent is to intimidate its political critics into silence. Indeed, in the past corporations have used lawsuits against environmental activists. (The lawsuits have been dubbed SLAPP suits -- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.)

Even if the corporations lose in court, they can force the defendants to spend large sums of money on lawyers.

That's a despicable abuse of the legal system. If indeed Freeport is trying to use its financial resources to squelch debate and gag its political opponents, Chancellor Cunningham was absolutely justified in resigning from its board.

Such behavior is abhorrent. Freeport's money is nice, but the University's academic freedom is far, far more important.

Rogers is a senior in Plan II, history and government.