Free Speech
Every man has the right to believe what he says and to say what he believes.
The mind is a great blessing given to each individual: it is the producer of thoughts. Thoughts are the basis of words which combine to form sentences and paragraphs, conversations and speeches where ideas are described and spread.
Ideas lie at the root of humanity’s existence; they are inseparably linked to our progression or retrogression. People kill over ideas. Ideas can liberate a person or keep them in bondage. Ideas have justified genocides yet without them the greatest advancements in human freedom and prosperity would never have occurred. Ideas are powerful, yes, and they also underpin intimate human connection. Is love not an idea? Respect? What about empathy, justice, or mercy? Even the virtue of humanity itself is an idea.
One idea in the mind of one person is powerful, but that power is limited. The potency of ideas increases when they are shared from one person to the next. In a free society, each individual is allowed to share their perspective, their intelligence, and their concepts with other individuals. Those individuals can choose to accept or reject the ideas shared with them. This process results in great learning, communication, increased understanding of the reason behind differences, and empathy. It allows frustrated oppressed peoples to express their condition and channel their energy into peaceful efforts to liberate themselves.
Since humans communicate in many ways, free speech protects more than just a person’s voice. It protects their right to share their opinions in a free press. It protects their right to assemble with other like-minded individuals to make their voices heard. It protects their right to join petitions. And it protects their right to express their worship of God in their own way–or not to worship Him if they choose that. When these rights are not protected for all individuals, society is not free. A lack of free speech is a prerequisite to division, an ignorant civic society, and government suppression of opposition and minorities. In extreme cases, riots and civil war. Not allowing a man to express his truth builds tension inside of him that can make him the most dangerous being on Earth.
A society with free speech is not without its own dangers though. The mind is a great blessing, but any blessing can be twisted into a curse. Some ideas that spread through free expression can be harmful to people–designed to manipulate, misinform, and exploit them. Other ideas mix conspiracy and hatred to band those people on the margins of society into hate groups. Because these bad ideas (often referred to as “hate speech”) can spread, many believe their expression should be restricted. The state, and today increasingly technology companies, are seen to be responsible for restricting the expression and expansion of ideas that they deem hateful.
The problem with this perception is that it puts a responsibility on the state and technology companies they are not equipped to handle. How can the government, with its long history of participation in racist systems and schemes, be trusted to validly define and properly restrict hate speech? And if the government cannot do it, how can we expect a team put together by Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk to do it better? The dangers posed by a society with free speech are real, but the dangers posed by a society without it are worse. In the words of Ben Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The Role of the University
The public university is a state-funded, regulated, and operated institution. It is therefore an arm of the state. Its employees and officials are state actors, the same as a police officer or a DMV worker. This means that First Amendment protections of the right to free speech apply to schools like these, schools like the University of Louisville. Still, universities often engage in policies that restrict free speech in a controversial manner, such as instituting small “free speech zones” on their campuses and even silencing controversial opinions expressed by students.
This long-running political debate needs no further commentary, but we must understand that free speech on college campuses is uniquely important to education and to society at-large. Students are the future leaders and operators of the institutions in our society: they will be the teachers, businesspeople, lawyers, doctors, engineers, politicians, writers, scientists, etc. To be truly educated, it is not enough for these students to simply engage with the curriculum, they must also engage with the opinions and experiences of each other and society.
For example, if I am a white student studying to be a doctor, how would I be able to serve Black patients in the future if I do not know many Black people are traumatized, that Black neighborhoods are often bereft of nutritious food, and that asthma and diabetes run rampant throughout these communities? How would I ever learn these truths, which are often left out of the curriculum, if a Black student (or even an outside organization) who had experienced them was not allowed to express themselves on campus? Exchanges of this kind take place daily on college campuses–between the races, between the sexes, between people of different religions and political ideologies, between human beings who have to communicate with one another if they ever hope to understand one another.
Not only would restricting free speech on college campuses hinder the education of students, it would hinder the organization of students who are working to change society now. Students, those men and women tasked with studying deeply to understand the mechanics of the world and society, those young men and women with little to lose by way of employment and backlash for what they say, have always been change agents in American society. Without organized students, there would have been no Civil Rights Movement, or any movement against the war in Vietnam. Students offer youth and vigor and a fresh perspective to society that is absolutely necessary for societal development and advancement. If only we realized our role and our power, or rather the power of our role.
A Conversation With Communists
On an otherwise bright and beautiful afternoon during the 2023 fall semester at Louisville, some undeniably ignorant protestors decided to make their voices heard on campus. This group carried offensive signs and engaged in racist chants. The most memorable sign was entitled “Types of Property,” followed by the words “Slaves and Women.” The nasty messages quickly spread around social media and students were mobilized by various campus organizations to counter-protest.
A friend and I were interested as to how this situation would play out, so we went to see the protests. Upon arrival, it was immediately clear who won the day. The counter-protestors, equipped with signs of their own, had surrounded the group and were chanting so loud that their collective voice easily drowned out the message of the outside group. I thought that it was a good day for the marketplace of ideas: both groups’ rights were protected and the group with hateful messages had their ideas ferociously rejected through speech.
My happiness quickly morphed into disappointment when one of the organizers of the counter-protest, a leader in the Young Communists League, saw me and began explaining the goals of the protestors. “We don’t want people like this to be able to come to our campus and spread hate,” he told me. “But don’t they have free speech too?” I asked. We went back and forth over the limits of free speech and he argued that these protestors made some students, particularly LGBTQ, Black, and women students, feel unsafe. I looked behind him at the protests raging. The ignorant protestors, who were still surrounded, numbered three people. The counter-protestors, many of whom were LGBT, Black, or female, numbered nearly a hundred. Words alone don’t equal violence.
I finally told the organizer that as a person who is a member of a race who have had their free speech rights restricted in the past, it was extremely difficult for me to support restricting the free speech of others, regardless of its content (something I thought he would understand given the history of the suppression of Communism in America). Who’s to say that the restrictor won’t find my speech too offensive to be shared tomorrow? If the contradiction is not clear, they utilized their rights to free speech to advocate restricting the free speech rights of others.
At this point, a Black member of the YCL said, “these people don’t believe you or me should have any rights.” I responded, “I don’t care what they believe.” His argument is an important one that is repeatedly made: how can we let ignorant and hateful people share their ideas? The alternative is for them to believe these things and organize in silence. Before you can even identify who they are, a racist or a homophobe will have a knife in your back. Not allowing these views to be shared may make people feel safe, but it does not make them safe in reality. If someone is sharing what you believe to be ignorant or hateful ideas, organize against the content of their speech, not their right to speak. If you do the latter, you are no better than those advocating for the stripping of your rights.
The Trans Rights Chalking Controversy: Free Speech for All Protected By All
The left are not the only ones advocating for stripping free speech rights of those they disagree with. The right, who often claim to be constitutionalists, are increasingly doing the same. The war between Israel and Hamas incited both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protests on campuses across the country, including here at Louisville. The controversial nature of some of the pro-Palestinian protests, or statements made by the organizations that mobilize them, have made them a target for suppression by the right.
Most egregiously, Governor Ron DeSantis banned Students for Justice in Palestine completely from organizing in Florida’s public universities. So, with both the left and the right seemingly in bipartisan lockstep over suppressing speech they disagree with, what is there to do in a society where free speech is supposed to be a paramount political right?
Our own university can shed some light on how free speech advocacy by dedicated students looks. In April 2023, an incident occurred at a PIKE fraternity party where a transgender student was harassed and kicked out of the party for being trans. Outraged transgender students and their supporters took to campus and chalked it up and down, displaying anger with the fraternity and with university administration for what they perceived as failures to protect transgender students. Workers from the university repeatedly washed away these chalkings even when they followed the university chalking policy, violating the free speech rights of students. One chalker was even chased by campus police as if they were a criminal–across campus and into the Cultural Center. The student, who had done nothing wrong, was pursued even after entering the Cultural Center, a place where many students congregate who likely already have fear and suspicion of law enforcement.
This situation was quickly noticed by the student government, of which I was a part at the time. Student government officials amassed evidence of the free speech violations, got university officials to participate in an open hearing with outraged students, and participated in a sometimes-heated closed door meeting with university administration.
At that meeting, I saw even the most conservative members of the Student Senate fiercely advocate for the right of these students to say what they believed, regardless of if they agreed with the content of their speech. It was my most joyous moment as a student representative, because it is the type of student-led advocacy needed on college campuses across America to protect our right to free speech. It resulted in a clarification of the chalking policy, instructions to maintenance staff not to remove speech, and a university administration that realized they must protect free speech if students demand they do so–regardless of their individual beliefs.
The Limits of Free Speech: True Safety and Security
The issue of PIKE’s alleged discrimination remained, though, even with the free speech issues addressed. Though the latest issue was discrimination against a transgender student, I had Black students and staff who came to me in the wake of this incident to report racist experiences they had with the organization. Worse, and this next point cannot be overstated, every woman on this campus who has spoken to me about attending a PIKE party, from my freshman year until today, has said they either felt uncomfortable or had a traumatic experience because of the behavior of the organization’s members.
Every single woman. To be fair, all this evidence is anecdotal–but there’s something to be said for even unverifiable evidence when its prevalence throughout campus is so well-known and widespread. My first week at this university, I learned that “PIKE spikes.” Due to this, I wrote a bill that would have suspended PIKE’s charter, and their ability to organize on campus or using campus resources, for a year. The SGA constitution empowers the Student Senate to do this in cases where student organizations engage in flagrant misconduct.
Immediately, the bill was challenged by other senators, many of whom were members of Greek organizations themselves, as a violation of freedom of speech and association. The suspension was painted as an impermissible state action against free speech like others I have described here. As I hope this article has made clear, I had no desire to violate the rights of these students. But these students have no right to associate to create a drug and alcohol-fueled environment that lures women into real sexual dangers. They have no rights to physically remove people from their parties because they belong to some minority group or another. Violence, intimidation, and overt actions of discrimination are not protected speech. Unfortunately, the bill failed to be passed.
The limit to free speech and freedom of association must be when people’s physical safety are in real and imminent danger, as I believed was so in this case. Once violence, or the sincere threat of violence, enters the picture, then the freedom to speak and associate with others must become secondary to the dangers posed to others by their conduct.
Conclusion
Free speech, like any right possessed by the people, is not a black and white issue. Consideration of fundamental principles, particular circumstances, and potential dangers all come into play. We live in a divisive time: the whole world is shifting underneath our feet and we see that the political choices we make today will determine our tomorrow. This pressure may make us desire to silence the voices of those we disagree with, but there are no shortcuts to the political future any of us want to see. The only way we can get there without tearing our nation apart is by respecting each others’ right to think and to dream, and to share those thoughts and dreams with others. Let the chips fall where they may, that is democracy.
Louisville Political Review 