It is with absolute certainty that Howard Campbell Jr. is guilty of doing an exceptionally good job at portraying a very bad man. However, the law gives minimal opposition to role-playing. It is unjust for Campbell to suffer as the scapegoat for the REAL war criminals. It seems painfully obvious that Campbell is guilty of no crimes and Campbells lack of intent further exhibits his innocence.
Campbell never denies his broadcasts or what he expresses within them. It is without a doubt that Campbell makes very auspicious utterances, but Howards words are all a performance. It is very apparent throughout the novel that Campbell means nearly none of what he says in his broadcasts. It is all part of a job, which resulted in absolutely no actions made by Campbell himself. Consequently, what crime has Mr. Campbell committed?
Campbells words are received by people with their own mind and who have the ability to exercise their personal free will. Does it sound at all plausible to blame Campbell for the actions of others? Those who murder and participate in persecution are the real war criminals. Furthermore, Campbell is not at fault if these horrible people in question choose to use his words as fuel for their malice. It is completely preposterous to put Campbell in the same category with brutal criminals that effortlessly and willingly destroy lives and families with their own hands! Undoubtedly, the operative word in this situation is intent.
Unfortunately, Campbell unintentionally has to play the part of cruel man, and since only words are being discussed, Campbells lack of meaning in the words that he says further demolishes any doubt of his innocence. Campbells personal ethics do not seem to match at all what he says in his broadcasts. Therefore, his broadcasts do not reflect any of his true feelings. To any rational individual, the fact that Campbell is attempting to do a good thing, and has no real connection to his expressions confirms no possibility of any guilt on Campbells end.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation, or both. Campbell exercises his freedom of speech and apparently that makes him a criminal? Primarily, one is obliged to commit a crime in order to be a criminal, and one of the most focal things to consider is intent. If one were to look intensely at Campbells actions, they would find neither crime nor intent, resulting in Campbells incorruptibility. Frankly put, Campbell is absolutely an innocent man.