“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:
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Beasley
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.
... "Appropriate limits" to speech only serve to spare individuals from the responsibility of thinking for themselves.
I'm trying to avoid the sort of individualism you seek--by emphasizing the rights of those important institutions in between the state and the individual (what Russell Kirk called the "little platoons of society").
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Mark Wilson
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? · Jan 18 at 5:34pm
There are objections that could, and should, be raised. But a Constitutional one? No.
Aug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Freedom of speech is important because allowing governments to regulate speech is a power that experience has repeatedly shown will be abused. When someone speaks out against freedom of speech, I take it as given that that person cannot be trusted with power. There is no doubt in my mind that if this woman were given a veto over freedom of speech, she would abuse it, and her desire to do so is precisely why she takes this position in the first place.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
A case could be made that Brison's opinions are a form of hate speech.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
Mark Wilson
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? · Jan 18 at 5:34pm
There are objections that could, and should, be raised. But a Constitutional one? No. · Jan 18 at 5:55pm
It sounds to me like you don't really believe in free speech.
What's the point of guaranteeing free speech at the federal level if you allow local authorities to abridge it however they want? You can only believe that if you don't believe free speech is actually a right. Constraining the federal government in this case is just a practical consideration because you don't trust a distant government. You trust a state or local government to graciously decline to restrict your speech?
Mar '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Nathaniel Wright: 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.
Hamilton didn't want that pesky bill of rights because he wanted a government nearly as powerful as England's, only run locally by an American he agreed with. He's the one that wanted America to have a "President for Life", and depending on who you believe, bandied about a proposal to make George Washington our King. Hamilton was no great defender of individual liberties.
I call Hamilton "the Worst Founder" for good reasons.
Aug '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
I have no problem with this. I don't think it's a free speech issue to want the pejorative connotations of certain words to stay in place. The whole re-appropriation thing, especially when only certain groups have the right to use the re-appropriated term, is a great mischief.
Feb '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
We are perplexed by the use of the term "real academic work" and by any implication that this term, much like the word "intelligent" or the phrase "worthy of being taken at all seriously" should be re-appropriated.
Oct '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Precis of her argument:
Nice work, if you can get it.
Dec '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Emily,
Your post is extremely informative and relevant to the current intellectual climate in America. However, I will respond in an eccentric way. I will relate to you a story from my youth when I was at University. I will post it on Member Feed. It will be entitled "Dave's Girl__A Short Essay for Emily".
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 9:15amAug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
It is astonishing how far left the academics have dragged the Democrat party. I can't see any other activist group within that party that has the kind of influence of the academics. The radicals on the campus when I was there never left the campus , and for that matter, never matured past the twenties. They are virginal almost in their ideological lives.
Combine with that money and new causes like environmental , gender, and speech/rights issues and you have the complete ouevre of a frustrated anti-war dopesmoking narcissist with an insatiable Mick Jagger-look-at-me addiction.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:53pmAug '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
sorry doble there,
with Bill Ayers as their demigod leader, who unfortunately missed his calling: either a utility exec like his dad, crummy pro golfer, or martyr.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:42pmMay '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Mark Wilson
It sounds to me like you don't really believe in free speech.
What's the point of guaranteeing free speech at the federal level if you allow local authorities to abridge it however they want? You can only believe that if you don't believe free speech is actually a right.
The states, as they exist in their current form, are altogether too bloated and grotesquely large to make decisions like this. So I would recommend states pass their own limitations, prohibiting such a broad impingement on freedom.
You're absolute correct in one sense. I don't believe freedom of speech is an absolute right. To be even more honest, I think talking about "individual rights," while sometimes helpful when in the context of a behemoth government, has proved dangerous in other contexts, often limiting the "rights" (if I may be so crude) of intermediary institutions.
I grant such talk would be very strange to someone who is sold--hook, line, and sinker--on the concept of individual rights.
Meet traditional conservatism. Not every conservative is a Straussian or a Libertarian.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
Mark Wilson
It sounds to me like you don't really believe in free speech.
What's the point of guaranteeing free speech at the federal level if you allow local authorities to abridge it however they want? You can only believe that if you don't believe free speech is actually a right.
The states, as they exist in their current form, are altogether too bloated and grotesquely large to make decisions like this. So I would recommend states pass their own limitations, prohibiting such a broad impingement on freedom.
You're absolute correct in one sense. I don't believe freedom of speech is an absolute right. To be even more honest, I think talking about "individual rights," while sometimes helpful when in the context of a behemoth government, has proved dangerous in other contexts, often limiting the "rights" (if I may be so crude) of intermediary institutions.
Are you saying free speech is something that can be granted or rescinded at the discretion of state governments (although you'd "recommend" that they favor freedom)?
What is the difference between a right and an "absolute" right?
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Yes to the first question
The second question is tricky, so bear with my disjointed explanation. We speak of natural rights (like the right to life and property). A traditionalist or Burkean conservative is willing to accept these as natural rights since they can be deduced from negative injunctions (thou shalt not murder or steal). Still, he would rather not have the emphasis be on rights. Such talk stresses human autonomy and arbitrariness rather than duty, responsibility, and order. It is no light matter that the emphasis in the Bible is on duty, not individual rights.
The real problem is when we start talking about the "right to free speech," or the "right to bear arms."
A Burkean conservative would argue that, in a technical sense, we have a "right" to self defense (that's part of your right to life). But that doesn't always and necessarily translate, in every culture, place, or time, to an absolute right to bear arms. What inevitably happens is that the "rights" of important intermediary institutions is ignored--again, because the emphasis is not on duty and responsibility.
Hope this helped.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 9:29pmMay '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
Yes to the first question
...
Hope this helped. · 5 hours ago
I guess it helps me understand some of your answers, but what is a "right" in your view?
And what is a "good" reason to restrict speech, if you're going to allow state or local governments to punish their citizens for speech or exercise prior restraint at their discretion?
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Mark Wilson
I guess it helps me understand some of your answers, but what is a "right" in your view?
And what is a "good" reason to restrict speech, if you're going to allow state or local governments to punish their citizens for speech or exercise prior restraint at their discretion? · 3 hours ago
In its unqualified form, a "right" is something that is inherent to an individual, by nature of being human, that may never be impinged upon by outside institutions or individuals.
At least, I think that's what most people would consider "natural rights." You can see why I find the term dangerous and (sometimes) pernicious, given my political philosophy.
In answer to your second question, I could see a local government wanting to limit libel, public obscenity, forms of expression that are overtly sexual, false advertising, mental abuse, etc. The list could go on much longer than this short one.
The problem for every conservative is when a behemoth State starts restricting speech. But not every conservative believes local limits are necessarily evil.
Edited on January 20, 2012 at 6:01amMay '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Brandon Zaffini
In its unqualified form, a "right" is something that is inherent to an individual, by nature of being human, that may never be impinged upon by outside institutions or individuals.
At least, I think that's what most people would consider "natural rights." You can see why I find the term dangerous and (sometimes) pernicious, given my political philosophy.
In answer to your second question, I could see a local government wanting to limit libel, public obscenity, forms of expression that are overtly sexual, false advertising, mental abuse, etc. The list could go on much longer than this short one.
The problem for every conservative is when a behemoth State starts restricting speech. But not every conservative believes local limits are necessarily evil. · 2 hours ago
Well, I suppose the difference between viewing free speech as a right or treating it as "something that can be granted or rescinded at the discretion of state governments" (my wording which you agreed with) is that the former requires a compelling reason to make an exception to it, and the latter seems to be open-ended.
Apr '11
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
In quest of structure:
A right is a freedom you require in order to fulfill your responsibilities and execute your duties.
One's free speech rights are derived from one's responsibilities to be self-governing, which, as we are social creatures, has a social aspect; that is, self-government is in part political. As Aristotle said, the purpose of politics is good government. Since I need to both gather information and speak up for the right course, I have a right to free speech for myself and others. This is the freedom of speech that Congress shall not abridge. Understood this way, free speech, even under the Constitution, is not absolute. Not only is the Constitution not a suicide pact, but pornography, flag burning, and braying "Born to be Wild" at 2 a.m. have nothing to do with self-government.
The First Amendment places no direct restrictions on states and other levels of government regarding free speech. However, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" (Art. IV.4), and since a republic requires free political speech, the Federal government can constrain lower levels to that extent.
May '10
Re: “Free speech is not a special right."
Mark Wilson
Well, I suppose the difference between viewing free speech as a right or treating it as "something that can be granted or rescinded at the discretion of state governments" (my wording which you agreed with) is that the former requires a compelling reason to make an exception to it, and the latter seems to be open-ended. · 8 hours ago
Yes, that's true. But your safeguard should not be the fact you have a theoretical right (which is open to redefining and a new interpretation), but the fact that the decision making process on these issues is local.