“Free speech is not a special right."
When I was a student at Dartmouth, I did all I could to avoid the classes of Susan Brison, a philosophy professor who also taught in the women's and gender studies department. In a department as small as philosophy, that was a hard thing to do, especially if you were a major (as I was). But Brison was known for wearing her leftist political agenda on her sleeve, something that I could not (and still can't) stand.
If you want to get a sense of where her head is politically and intellectually, look no further than this post that she authored at the Huffington Post titled, "An Open Letter from Black Women to SlutWalk Organizers." Last time I checked, Brison was not black, yet she felt compelled to "endorse and post this letter in solidarity with -- and with the permission of -- the original signers."
If only her white guilt could have ended there. Her latest offense comes to us in a more local publication--the pages of Dartmouth's daily newspaper. There we learn that she celebrated Martin Luther King Jr day on campus by delivering a talk called, "Hate Speech and American Exceptionalism."
Here is a little gem from that talk:
“Free speech is not a special right,” Brison said. “There is no sound philosophical basis for giving such a right a priority when it comes in conflict with other values, such as the right to equality.”
What makes this statement particularly outrageous is that Brison is purportedly a scholar of legal theory. But never mind the bill of rights, the first amendment, the founders, and all that stuff, why can't we just be more like Europeans already in our approach to free speech?
“In the U.S., the First Amendment is so central to our self-conception that it is taken as a defining feature of our national identity,” she said.
Other countries do not view free speech in the same way we do, according to Brison. France and Germany instituted laws prohibiting Holocaust denial and included certain restrictions on discrimination, while South Africa prohibited hate speech after the Apartheid, she said.
When these laws were first created, the American scholars helping to draft them had a “missionary zeal,” she said. However, other countries were resistant to adopting what she referred to as American “free speech absolutism.”
Brison attributed this to the differing histories of individual nations. While European nations were faced with the immediate history of the Holocaust and South Africa with apartheid, the framers of the American Constitution were concerned with preserving as much personal liberty as possible, according to Brison.
This approach has held over time but should be reconsidered, she said.
“There are ample grounds for adopting free speech skepticism,” she said. “To hold that there is a right to free speech is not, however, to hold that it is absolute.”
Sigh. Brison is a philosophy professor so you'd think that she would be able to carry her chain of reasoning through to its logical conclusion and address what would happen if our judiciary decided to "reconsider" the first amendment as it is currently conceived.
Does she, for instance, seriously believe that Martin Luther King Jr, the very person whom she is ostensibly celebrating by delivering these remarks, would have made any kind of dent in history if free speech were not as fiercely protected as it is in this country? Of course he wouldn't have. His political activism was defined by free speech--speech that needed to be protected given the tense political and racial climate that he was operating in.
- Comment (61)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
We have always been at peace with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Oceana.
Free speech...except...
Isn't free speech at all. A lack of free speech is a lack of freedom. Then again freedom and equality of outcomes often clash.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Ugh.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Well, to be honest, as crazy as she might be on other subjects, she actually has a point here. Freedom of speech is not absolute, unfettered, or however else you want to put it.
The First Amendment originally applied only to the Federal government, not the states (it wasn't applied to the states until the 14th Amendment). Additionally, this "right" has been fraught with controversy from the start, as the in-fighting over the Sedition Acts quickly demonstrated. Since then, the Supreme Court has found clever ways to restrict speech with their "ingenious" multiple-pronged tests.
Wherever you stand on this particular issue, it is not cut and dry. One thing is very clear--freedom of speech is not, and was never intended to be, absolute.
Her remarks regarding a "right to equality" are, well, normal liberal silliness. Nothing exceptional or extraordinary there.
Edited on January 18, 2012 at 11:51pmJul '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Oh goodness. A right to equality? Does this mean her opinion has equal weight as John Stuart Mill's.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini: Well, to be honest, as crazy as she might be on other subjects, she actually has a point here. Freedom of speech is not absolute, unfettered, or however else you want to put it.
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:49 pm
Look, I don't think she's talking about restricting crush videos--she's talking about restricting "hate speech," which has come to mean (especially on college campuses) any speech that pushes the against boundaries of the politically correct.
Edited on January 18, 2012 at 11:53pmAug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Ah Brandon...
There is a reason that Hamilton didn't want that pesky Bill of Rights. It's because it blurred the concept of what Rights really are. Freedom of Speech should indeed be unfettered save where it violates other rights. Political speech should always be unfettered and absolute.
I tell you what. You live in a state where the state can decide through various tests etc. what is or isn't allowable. I'll live in the sinful land of pornotopia where most of the speech that exists is vile and reprehensible, but where I am free to speak out against it.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily Esfahani Smith
Brandon Zaffini: Well, to be honest, as crazy as she might be on other subjects, she actually has a point here. Freedom of speech is not absolute, unfettered, or however else you want to put it.
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:49 pm
Look, I don't think she's talking about restricting crush videos--she's talking about restricting "hate speech," which has come to mean (especially on college campuses) any speech that pushes the against boundaries of the politically correct. · Jan 18 at 2:53pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:53 pm
That's probably the case. And I'm sure your representation is accurate. I just don't want to combat one error with another error.
The absolutizing of this "free speech right" has created its own problems
Jun '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Let's see: the founders put free speech in the First Amendment. Don't see "equality" in there anywhere.
Jul '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 12:00amRe: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
Emily Esfahani Smith
Brandon Zaffini: Well, to be honest, as crazy as she might be on other subjects, she actually has a point here. Freedom of speech is not absolute, unfettered, or however else you want to put it.
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:49 pm
Look, I don't think she's talking about restricting crush videos--she's talking about restricting "hate speech," which has come to mean (especially on college campuses) any speech that pushes the against boundaries of the politically correct. · Jan 18 at 2:53pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:53 pm
That's probably the case. And I'm sure your representation is accurate. I just don't want to combat one error with another error.
The absolutizing of this "free speech right" has created its own problems · Jan 18 at 2:58pm
created its own problem like....?? I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to free speech, so I'm curious about where you see it going off the tracks.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; )
Sep '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily Esfahani Smith
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; ) · Jan 18 at 3:02pm
To a man?
Jul '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
My 16 yr old gets to potentially ask Biden a question tomorrow at high school. I was thinking something like," Can you still legitimately stand by your statement that we had to spend money to make money considering the failure of the stimulus and our spiraling national debt that ensures my financial slavery?" Any better ideas?
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Leslie Watkins
Emily Esfahani Smith
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; ) · Jan 18 at 3:02pm
To a man? · Jan 18 at 3:05pm
From what I understand, yes, to a man. She's references him here.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily Esfahani Smith
I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to free speech, so I'm curious about where you see it going off the tracks. · Jan 18 at 3:01pm
Some of the arguments in relation to this right have been over what constitutes "speech." Is it merely expression? What kind of expression? And if expression is free speech, does a local municipality have no ability to restrict "speech" that it deems inappropriate to its community?
What if you are writing pamphlets urging the violent overthrow of a local municipality or even a larger government?
What if you are using a local radio program to speak obscenities?
These are just a few, of many, examples the Supreme Court has already faced. Without saying where I come down on any particular issue, I would merely argue that leaving this right unfettered will of necessity limit the rights of local governments, communities, organizations, associations, etc. to monitor unwanted material.
A libertarian would not consider this outcome a problem. But then again, I'm not a libertarian. Neither were our Founders.
Jul '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily Esfahani Smith
Leslie Watkins
Emily Esfahani Smith
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; ) · Jan 18 at 3:02pm
To a man? · Jan 18 at 3:05pm
From what I understand, yes, to a man. She's references him here. · Jan 18 at 3:06pm
My bad. Silly me for getting my hopes up.
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily Esfahani Smith
Leslie Watkins
Emily Esfahani Smith
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; ) · Jan 18 at 3:02pm
To a man? · Jan 18 at 3:05pm
From what I understand, yes, to a man. She's references him here. · Jan 18 at 3:06pm
Poor guy.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon--I agree with you in theory about these matters, but in practice, I just don't trust government officials to draw the line. I'd rather deal with the occasional obscenity and not lose the controversial novel or piece of art. Know what I'm saying?
Sep '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
I was joking—kind of. I completely share your annoyance. Tenure has ruined the humanities. Where is it written that equality is a formal right? It's from the church of dogmatic utopian leftists, who spout nonsense as if their private, agreed upon meaning is so obviously true that a barking dog understands. Now I see why you like Paglia so much. Sexual Personae was an absolute eye opener for me (to be honest, I read through the Greeks and then went to the last chapter on Dickinson, not knowing any of the paintings she discussed).
Emily Esfahani Smith
Leslie Watkins
Emily Esfahani Smith
DocJay: Hey Emily, is she single? I know a few real traditional manly men looking for a stay at home wife to have barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Oops, I just got arrested by her and Maddow's thought police force for that. · Jan 18 at 2:59pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:00 pm
She's married, Doc ; ) · Jan 18 at 3:02pm
To a man? · Jan 18 at 3:05pm
From what I understand, yes, to a man. She's references him here. · Jan 18 at 3:06pm
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
I do. And to avoid either predicament (as in, either abuse of this right), the First Amendment would have been better left as a limit on the federal government.
Just my opinion though.
I also refuse to argue that freedom of speech is absolute, even if it makes bashing a liberal professor much easier. Other leftist talking-heads have viewed freedom of speech as absolute, and they have used this idea for their own liberal ends.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 12:30am