“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:
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
So when can we expect these advocates of "free speech skepticism" to announce that they are so committed to their cause they intend to support it by silencing themselves?
Aug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Once again Jeff Daniels plays a university professor. And Debra Winger evidently plays her husband.
dont mean to cause a flap , but the leather jacket affectation is over the top and the right ring finger holds a promise ring to Lenin ?
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
I'm pretty much an absolutist on free speech, but even that has to be tempered with a respect for the Government's need to keep secrets. Everyone who has access to such information has to be cleared, and is required to sign a copy of the Espionage Act.
The Supreme Court has found in the past that no one has a right to speech that puts anyone into "clear and present danger." Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the prevailing opinion: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." The funny thing about that is that the case involved an anti-war protestor speaking out against WWI.
So, yes, the Government can limit free speech, but I don't think that Ms. Brison's feelings being hurt represents a clear and present danger to anyone other than Mr. Brison.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Exactly!
May '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
A right which collapses just when you need it most is not a right. I cannot think of a way in which speech would actually do harm to equality, even if we set them on the same ground, as equality demands the ability to speak back.
I agree that there must be some boundaries, such as crowded theater/imminent harm or fighting words doctrine, but that it is (as seen) ridiculously easy to expand these through emanations and penumbrae into "hate speech" and "dignity" constructions.
It is supposed to be an uneasy and shifting balance, yes, but way over there, at the interplay between actual rights, not where we are now, mired in a leftist swamp of undefined terms and unsupported arguments.
I have always thought that the "Muhammad Cartoons" responses are themselves dire warnings about the state of freedom here and in Europe.
May '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Roberto
So when can we expect these advocates of "free speech skepticism" to announce that they are so committed to their cause they intend to support it by silencing themselves? · Jan 18 at 3:23pm
Ah, Roberto, it is only your speech of which they are skeptical.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
The first amendment was intended as a support for political freedom. Without freedom of speech with regard to public policy, political freedom is not worth much.
Pornography is a completely different kettle of fish. Right now, thanks to the Supreme Court's deliberate misreading of the First Amendment, political speech is regulated -- especially when it matters most, on the eve of national elections -- and apolitical "expression" is piously -- and I use the word advisedly -- protected.
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
This is from a philosophy professor?
Alright, I'm merely an engineer. I've had training in symbolic logic, not the nonsymbolic kind, so I might be all wet, but if we have a right to equality, and we can express ourselves, it follows that we have an equal right to express ourselves. So she needs to posit not merely a right to equality (I demand to be equal to Michael Jordan...I have a constitutional right to a 25' fade-away jump shot!), but also a right to not have her feelings hurt.
I can't help her with that. I guess I just lack sufficient empathy, or maybe I just don't want my rights determined by her feelings.
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
I agree that there is "ample grounds for adopting free speech skepticism." It gives too much power to people like Susan Brison to bore us with their gender/race/culture/equality/defining identity theories.
Jan '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Sometimes philosophers try to accomplish more with attitude and self-assurance than with actual reasons.
I know I've tried ...
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
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.
Am I interpreting this correctly, that you would prefer to allow individual state governments to put any restrictions they want on speech?
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 1:02amRe: “Free speech is not a special right."
Reading the letter I nearly drowned in liberal buzz words. I struggled to get the point.
I think the point was, "Good cause, but using the word slut is something we don't want to do, because we don't want it to become an acceptable word in the mainstream."
Like pimp. Pimp my ride, pimp my house, Al Sharpton is a poverty pimp, etc.
The second point was truly weird: "Poor us, we Black women, we've been beaten down so much we don't have the luxury you white women have of calling ourselves sluts."
Errr.... what?
Of all the victimology I've ever read, that one has to be the strangest. If there was less prejudice against black women they could comfortably refer to themselves as sluts? Only prejudice is stopping them? Do they really feel they've been cheated out of something here?
I take this to mean the radical black women's movement (didn't know there still was one - guess I've been away from college campuses too long) has no real issues to complain about.
Someone get Angela Davis on the phone - your life's work seems to be completed, my dear.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 12:54amMay '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Mark Wilson
Brandon Zaffini
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.
Am I interpreting this correctly, that you would prefer to allow individual states to put any restrictions they want on speech? · Jan 18 at 3:53pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:53 pm
No, but also yes. I wouldn't "prefer" state restrictions on speech. But I think states, and especially other institutions more local, should have the right to limit certain forms of speech. The details, as with most things, should be made at the local level.
Dec '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Soooo..... Am I to understand that she wants to silence speech she doesnt like, and she justifies this because she doesnt like it so its illegitimate?
Jul '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Tommy De Seno: Reading the letter I nearly drowned in liberal buzz words. I struggled to get the point.
I think the point was, "Good cause, but using the word slut is something we don't want to do, because we don't want it to become an acceptable word in the mainstream."
Like pimp. Pimp my ride, pimp my house, Al Sharpton is a poverty pimp, etc.
The second point was truly weird: "Poor us, we Black women, we've been beaten down so much we don't have the luxury you white women have of calling ourselves sluts."
Errr.... what?
Of all the victimology I've ever read, that one has to be the strangest. If there was less prejudice against black women they could comfortably refer to themselves as sluts? Only prejudice is stopping them? Do they really feel they've been cheated out of something here?
I, my dear. · Jan 18 at 3:53pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 03:54 pm
Yeah that gal seems really deep in the streets with her oppressed brethren. If only we could all just drink Rombauer together.
Dec '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
... I wouldn't "prefer" state restrictions on speech. But I think states, and especially other institutions more local, should have the right to limit certain forms of speech. The details, as with most things, should be made at the local level. · Jan 18 at 4:00pm
I think your headed in the right direction but don't go far enough. I like the idea of "local" control, but think it should be down at the level of a family or individual.
There may be a case of the truly protective power of limitations on speech but I don't know if it could stand up to challenge. "Appropriate limits" to speech only serve to spare individuals from the responsibility of thinking for themselves. There are many obscene things in the world but discernment is a better gift than ignorance and serves people better.
Even inciting a mob to violence is not an issue of what is said, but that individuals of their own free will choose to act on it. It is a messy consequence of individual liberty, but I'll take it over the alternative.
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Yup, Guru. I'd say that pretty much sums it up.
Nov '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Silence the opposition. That is what this is about. If you disagree with me, you must be silenced.
Jan '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
A right to equality?
How can you have a right to something that's measured by how everyone else is doing? Rights aren't graded on a curve. You either have them or you don't.
A right is something that depends on the notion of equality. (Even if you don't believe in God or natural law, a right is something you enjoy because you're as human as any other human.) You can't have a right in the first place unless you already use equality as a premise. Therefore, the notion of having a "right" to "equality" is more rhetoric than anything else.
In this case, the rhetoric is gibberish.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
Mark Wilson
Am I interpreting this correctly, that you would prefer to allow individual states to put any restrictions they want on speech? · Jan 18 at 3:53pm
No, but also yes. I wouldn't "prefer" state restrictions on speech. But I think states, and especially other institutions more local, should have the right to limit certain forms of speech. The details, as with most things, should be made at the local level. · Jan 18 at 4:00pm
I'm kind of surprised to read that. I mean, to take a perfectly plausible example, if California were to make it a crime to deny climate change, you wouldn't raise a constitutional objection to that?