The Limits to Free Speech
Plato’s Academy in Athens Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Raphael (1509-1510)
Recently I heard on Fox News of an event that illustrates autocratic tendencies among students at an elite university, and for that matter of progressives in general. The event was the signing of a petition for repealing the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution by students of Yale University. The “petition” was actually a prank by satirist Ami Horowitz, who goes around making videos showing how prevalent ignorant and outrageous attitudes are. (Check out this video on the different reactions University of California, Berkeley students have to the waving of ISIS’ flag and to the waving of Israel’s flag!)
Just to be clear on what exactly these students would like to see repealed, here is the first amendment in its entirety.
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.
That is, the U.S. government will not abridge and must protect the following rights of its citizens.
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of the press
- Freedom of peaceful assembly
- Freedom to petition the government
It is more than ironic the signers of the petition were petitioning against the very thing they were doing. To what sort of influences are these youth exposed, that they are willing to give up so much for which so many have died to protect?
Could this have been an isolated incident at a particularly left-wing university? A survey by the Young America’s Foundation of 1000 college students indicated the students approved of free speech – until it included conservative views on issues. In fact the more specific the question on speech was, the more support for free speech melted away.
In recent weeks at a number of universities, students have been protesting against expressions of free speech that offend or make them uncomfortable. The irony of this situation must be lost on students, since universities were created to be places where very different viewpoints could confront each other and discuss their differences. At least this was the case in non-autocratic nations. As American cultural institutions, especially the Democratic Party, become less diverse and more autocratic under the influence of progressives, it is perhaps to be expected that free speech and tolerance of those with viewpoints different from progressives would suffer. Evidence for this can be found at the already mentioned Yale University, the various campuses of the University of California, Amherst College, Wesleyan University, the University of Missouri, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Washington, Brown University, Drexel University and Temple University, and many others you can find with an internet search with the key phrase “universities and free speech”. The title of the post Majority of US college campuses becoming ‘no-free-speech’ zones – report says it all.
Yet, it is not just youth exposed to progressive, left-wing professors who oppose freedom of expression. Repeating Ami Horowitz’s Yale University prank video, this time with supporters of Hillary Clinton as targets, media analyst Mark Dice got Clinton’s supporters to express support for repeal of not just the first amendment but of the entire Bill of Rights to boot! Also, see this Fox News interview of Dice to get Dice’s estimation of the Clinton supporters he interviewed, which is very worthwhile all by itself.
Another bad example was provided for us by Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently, when in reaction to the San Bernardino ISIS attack, she said nothing about ISIS “lone-wolf” attacks. Instead, at a Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, Virginia, she declared that while “this is a country that is based upon free speech”, her department would “take action” when anyone’s speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift … that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.” Given that standard, I would have expected her to come after me, since I have written based upon the threat of ISIS against us that we as a nation “had damn well better get our stuff together and kill as many jihadis as we can.” Such rhetoric certainly satisfies the criterion that it “edges towards violence”, and while it is not directed against all Muslims, it is directed to that fraction of Muslims who are radical jihadis who want to kill us. Fortunately for me, AG Lynch “recalibrated” her position with reporter Josh Gerstein by saying, “Of course, we prosecute deeds not words.” That’s a relief!
An even worse example for the people was provided by Democratic Senators about a year ago. What Democrats in the Senate were proposing was a constitutional amendment that would, in effect, repeal an important portion of the first amendment. It was partially motivated by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), in which it was decided that as long as any organization or person did not expressly advocate either the election or defeat of a candidate, there was no compelling governmental interest to justify regulating speech discussing that candidate. The Court’s interpretation of the first amendment was that I could lambaste or praise the positions of a candidate as much as I liked, so long as I did not advocate him/her or call for his/her defeat. This decision was extended in the Citizens United vs. FEC case, in which the court decided corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as those activities were taken independently of a party or candidate.
The constitutional amendment proposed by the Democrats would have said in its first section, “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” The phrase “and others” would have made Buckley vs. Valeo and Citizens United vs. FEC null and void, since then politicians could choose to regulate any communication they thought might influence an election. That is, political speech, the type of speech that should be most protected under the first amendment among all types of speech, could be limited – sharply limited if politicians thought it reasonable. Given this, it would be perfectly easy to envision a future in which progressives would consider conservative causes inimical to the nation and ban them from monetary support. This would be authorized under section 2 of the proposed amendment, which said “Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.” On reading this, do you feel a chill going down your spine? I do. On Thursday, September 11, 2014, by a vote of 54 to 42, the proposed amendment failed to get the two-thirds super-majority to recommend a proposed amendment to the states.
As time goes on, assuming the electorate does not finally realize progressives’ inherently autocratic tendencies (see the posts Is Democracy the Best Government? Is It in Danger?, Do Progressives Want a Police State?, Progressives’ Basic Assumptions, The Complexity of Reality, The Proper Functions of Government, and Progressives’ Disrespect for the U.S. Constitution) and vote them out of existence, we can expect more moves on their part to permanently dominate government.
Views: 3,433