fdFrom MSN:
Free speech just isn’t as cool as it used to be, according to a Gallup and the Knight Foundation study of college students’ views on the subject.
The news isn’t great for this bedrock principle in America’s higher-learning institutions. College students overwhelmingly support free speech in the abstract, but when it comes to the real world, they are accepting of restrictions on it, which is in effect, not very supportive of free speech. And the numbers have gotten worse for speech on a lot of fronts since 2016.
Almost 90 percent of students say protection of free speech is extremely or very important to American democracy, but two-thirds also believe hate speech shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment, and 83 percent support free-speech zones on campus, to contain pre-approved protests and distribution of messages. Not exactly the open inquiry we used to love.
There is some good news. In question after question, it appears the forces that are found shouting down speakers like Christina Hoff Sommers or burning Berkeley or attacking Charles Murray at Middlebury are a very loud minority. “Nine in 10 students say violence is ‘never acceptable'” to counter speech and a solid majority of 62 percent believe shouting down speakers is “never acceptable.” This leaves too-large percentages who think violence and shouting down are fine, but the vast majority of college students are in favor of traditional forms of protest without shutting down speech.
. . . .
There’s one question in the survey that crystallizes the problem with how we think about free speech in a pluralistic society these days, and might explain some of free speech’s recent backslide. The question was a new addition to the survey since the 2016 version. Students were asked to express how important they think the values of diversity and inclusion, and free speech, are to American society.
The good news is huge majorities thought both values were important. Eighty-nine percent of students thought protecting free speech rights is extremely or very important. An inclusive, diverse society garnered 83 percent.
But then they were asked to choose.
“When asked to choose which objective is more important to a democracy, college students prioritize promoting an inclusive society that is welcoming of diverse groups over one that protects citizens’ free speech rights, 53 to 46%,” the study finds. “Women, blacks and Democrats are more likely than their counterparts to choose inclusion over free speech.”
Link to the rest at MSN and thanks to Felix for the tip.
TPV is a blog about the book business, mostly from the viewpoint of authors, not a political blog.
However PG would like to clarify (for any who require it) that the First Amendment protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the press. Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Attentive readers will observer no mention of hate speech in this language. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were drafted and approved in 1787. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783.
There was plenty of hate speech directed by Americans toward King George, his generals, his admirals, his army, his navy and Parliament during the Revolutionary War. Here are a few examples of hate speech directed at King George contained in the Declaration of Independence:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
. . . .
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
. . . .
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
A great many people involved in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence were also involved in drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They didn’t change their minds about free speech between 1776 and 1787.
As far as the US Supreme Court’s application of the First Amendment to “hate speech”, in a unanimous opinion last summer in Matal v. Tam , they reiterated the lack of the right of government or any portion of it, to restrict speech that offends people or to restrict speech based on the content thereof.
Here are excerpts from the opinions of two of the justices:
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for for four justices:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.
Link to the rest at The Washington Post
Before giving the survey, remind the kids that essentially Donald Trump and the cops would be the ones deciding what can and cannot be said.
Suddenly the survey changes.
I am female and a minority (immigrant, biracial). I support free speech over inclusion. I consider it THAT important. Hate speech laws tend to seem to me a way to control people others object to. I find that Un-American. We have laws where you cannot legitimately threaten others or use reckless speech that can lead to a panic/stampede, etc. Controlling speech to the extent that seems to be happening now, especially on campuses, I find that frightening.
Teaching civility and courteous discourse: yes.
Controlling speech and compelling speech: um….beware.
There is a common misunderstanding about violence and free speech, namely that advocating violence is forbidden.
In actuality, it’s perfectly legitimate for someone to claim that all Mexicans should be killed because it’s a very general comment, The only case where this is not so is when there is the threat of imminent danger so a person cannot point to a specific Mexican and claim that he should be killed.
That is a general violent statement. What I’ve seen as illegal (in previous discussions on it) is a threat against a person that can be considered credible. That is not protected speech. But if someone says, “Yeah, all Christians/Muslims/gays/Mexicans/women over 60/babies under 18 months/transgenders/bikers should be killed,” that is general and isn’t posing an immediate threat. If it’s backed up with action–a group conspiring to kill persons of said group–that would be illegal. Not the speech itself, though hateful it may be.
I wonder how far this could go, for example, would an Islamic extremist who claims that all infidels, disbelievers and apostates should be killed, be permissible and would protests against that speaker be treated in the same way by the Conservative establishment as the current protests against white nationalists on college campuses?
Very far.
The proof is in the Islamist recruiting and radicalization going on all over. It is being permitted.
So is the “kill all whites” “kill all jews” rhetoric of the Black Nationalists, Farrakan and worse.
A couple decades back, a Milwaukee city councilman publicly stated that blacks should take to the overpasses to shoot suburban whites driving to work in the city. Nothing happened.
In California, the Reconquista movement talks of breeding and moving in enough mexicans to obtain a voting majority and then seceding to rejoin mexico.
Calexit advocates travel to Russia seeking support for their movement. Nobody is indicted.
Militia movements talk of black helicopters and international conspiracies.
Elected oficial have even urged for the assassination of a sitting president and for a military coup.
Talk is allowed.
Action isn’t, though. Figuring out who is blather and who is serious keeps the three FBI guys tracking those threats real busy. 🙂
The conservative establishment would support his constitutional right to speak, and would oppose violent attempts to silence him.
From a tactical political position, they would probably be delighted to see him as the 2018 Harvard Commencement Speaker.
If they are stating their opinion, then yes, as awful as it is, it should be allowed, even as we allow NAMBLA to talk about how great it is and healthful for men to have sex with young boys. As long as they don’t break the law or seem to be conspiring to do so–ie, gathering with groups to plot a terrorist event, supporting terrorist groups financially, transporting weapons or biological agents, transferring child porn, sex trafficking kids, etc–then yes, they have a right to say crap like that. And in fact, I would want them to openly say these things as this allows HS and FBI and CIA to look and see who is making credible threats and who is just a jackass racist or pervert.
I’m a Christian and a few years ago was out lunching al fresco when an activist for a gay rights campaign came up for donations and for me to sign the petition. I did sign it and I did donate–as I believe in equal rights, even if the behavior is contrary to my faith–but I told her very carefully, diplomatically that the way she was talking about fundamentalist or orthodox Christians would easily be the equivalent of the homophobic statements they abhor, that is, demonizing a group, wishing them silenced, wishing them out of existence. Closeting persons of traditional religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc) that object to gay marriage, making them the caricatured evil enemy, is no different than the caricatures and forced closeting of gays. Both are wrong and we have to be CAREFUL how we word things. But she had the right to hate and so do homophobes. They should just ask themselves why they are speaking in a way they would object to if aimed at themselves.
Golden rule, I suppose.
You can stop people from saying something in public but you can’t stop them from thinking it. Or acting on it.
Ideas that are banned from public discourse simply go underground until they are ready to explode in public view. The explosion can be figurative or literal but either way the result is not pretty.
The best results come from knowing where everybody stands and why. Engagement instead of name-calling.
But that’s not where we stand today.
When hate speech laws are in place, the groups who want to oppress minorities use those laws to silence the minorities’ protests. To achieve an inclusive society, one must actively defend the right to advocate for it.
We might consider how hate speech laws would have been used in the days of the Jim Crow South.
This post doesn’t need a Like button. It needs a Love button!
“Fighting words” isn’t a carte blanche for aggression.
In the example you cite it is a form of “diminished capacity” defense, saying the words so incensed him he couldn’t think straight. He still has to answer for his actions and it is up to the jury to decide his punishment.
The key difference, as highlighted in tbe wikipedia article, is personal vs public. To say “so-and-so is a liar and a thief” is a personal, targeted attack and not protected speech but “all (insert ethnic or professional group of your choice) is a broad, public expression of an idea and thus protected from government action.
Finally, bear in mind that the First Amendment is solely a limit of Government action and those seeking to coopt the Government’s power to coerce in service of their own interests. Suppression of hate speech falls in the latter category. Also, political speech in all its forms is always protected. And most of the speech flagged as “hate speech” is actually political and public. It needs must be protected: “today them, tomorrow you.”
King George’s minions taught the founders well.
Non-governmental free speech issues fall under other categories ranging from assault, libel, restraint of trade, to civil rights violations depending on venue and location.
Different kettle of fish.
Note that institutions funded by Government money are subject to the same restrictions as Government agencies. Technically, Universities fostering suppression of political ideas are open to civil rights suits and some are being sued right now.
Hi Pg, I was just wondering whether you could discuss briefly the fighting words exception to freedom of speech in America.
From my very limited understanding, if a man insults another man’s wife or mother and then the second man punches the first man in the face, the second man cannot be held liable for the violence.
As for freedom of speech, I don’t think people should be penalised for speaking unless they’re calling for violence but I also think that in a civil society, insults and Dirogatory language can cause a lot of tension and disrespect.
For example, according to free speech, should a child be allowed to insult their parents or student to insult his teacher
Here:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”
Chaplinsky decision Edit
Chaplinsky, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was “a God-damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist” and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Post-Chaplinsky Edit
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as “fighting words”. In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen’s wearing a jacket that said “fuck the draft” did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no “personally abusive epithets”; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued “any number” of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that “fighting words” could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters’ speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.
I’m not PG (did take a grad class in the history of the Constitution, though), but the 20th Century understanding of “fighting words” per the Supreme Court seems to be words that are incitement to immediate riot and disorder. You cannot knowingly use words to whip a mob into a frenzy and then sic them on someone or an institution, and then use 1st Amendment as a defense. FIRE’s web site has a nice overview of the Supreme Court’s decisions here: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/
That’s at the national level. Individual states may have something different.
I have seen books condemned and authors demonized because of characters’ speech that, while in line with their profession, personality, or situation, was deemed “offensive”. That includes both modern books set in dystopias or military conflicts and older “classics” expressing what at the time were common attitudes.
Not only do some people wish fiction pretended nobody ever expresses “offensive” ideas, but they also would like to do away with older books that express them.
The survey in the OP indicates how pervasive the idea has become that “free speech is fine, as long as it aligns with my ideas”.
The numbers quoted make it clear it isn’t a tiny, vocal minority but rather a substantial and very active segment.
Writers of dystopias, period pieces, and cautionary tales should take note so you aren’t taken by surprise.
Trigger warnings might be appropriate. 🙂
By the standards some want to impose, MLK’s Letter From A Birmingham Jail needs a trigger warning.
People are stupid. The first two amendments are the cornerstone of everything that comes after.