What Is “Free Speech,” Anyway?
We live in crazy times. Far-right agitators—from white-nationalist leader Richard Spencer to recent pariah Milo Yiannopoulos—have sparked renewed interest in what types of speech are protected. Some on the left find themselves wanting to ban, stifle, or prohibit certain types of speech, especially speech they feel has been weaponized for use against historically disempowered communities. Inevitably, this leads to fights over what “free speech” really means (and what other terms—such as “hate speech,” “incitement,” “fascism,” and “anti-fascism”—really mean).
Before the next go-round in this important and ongoing debate, let’s define some terms.
HATE SPEECH VERSUS FREE SPEECH
On March 2, Charles Murray, a social scientist infamous for his racist and sexist studies about genetic inferiority, was shouted offstage by students, chased around campus, and physically confronted as a result of his talk at Middlebury College in Vermont. In a letter protesting the scientist’s invitation to speak, more than 450 Middlebury alumni wrote that Murray’s presence at the college “motivates eugenics and the genocidal white supremacist ideologies which are enjoying a popular resurgence under the new presidential administration.”
“This is not an issue of freedom of speech,” the alumni wrote. “In this case, we find the principle does not apply, due to not only the nature, but also the quality, of Dr. Murray’s scholarship.” The New York Times editorial board later voiced its support for Middlebury president Laurie Patton’s defense of Murray’s right to speak. “Free speech is a sacred right, and it needs protecting, now more than ever,” the board wrote.
This same type of debate has been raging in Seattle. In November 2016, students petitioned University of Washington president Ana Mari Cauce to block Milo Yiannopoulos—most famous for his racist, misogynistic, and transphobic views—from speaking at the Seattle campus at the invitation of the UW College Republicans. After a bitter fight between liberal students who wanted Yiannopoulos banned and campus administrators who said they had an obligation, as a state-funded university, to uphold his First Amendment rights, the former Breitbart editor ended up speaking. On Inauguration Day, he appeared inside Kane Hall as his supporters and protesters clashed outside. Later that evening, an anti-fascist demonstrator was shot by one of Yiannopoulos’s fans. The following day, a UW instructor began receiving death and rape threatsonline after being videotaped leaving a demonstration the day of Yiannopoulos’s appearance. (After video clips in which Yiannopoulos seemingly condoned pedophilia resurfaced in February, the self-proclaimed “dangerous faggot” has since become a pariah in right-wing circles.)
Were UW and Middlebury officials correct in saying that Yiannopoulos and Murray had a First Amendment right to their awful views?
Yes, say First Amendment scholars and attorneys Erwin Chemerinsky and Ronald K.L. Collins. Yiannopoulos’s and Murray’s beliefs may be abhorrent, they say, but their right to speak is firmly protected by the Constitution.
“It’s a hard pill for progressives to swallow, but hate speech is protected,” said Collins, a UW law professor.
Recent Comments