Loose Lips: The dichotomy of free speech in Trump’s America.
“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.” — U.S. Constitution
The concept of free speech as it is interpreted by the masses has been deeply confusing me for the last few months. I am not a free speech absolutist, in that I do think there should be consequences for speech (such as yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater) that succeeds in its intent of chaos and/or violence. However, I do embrace the concept. But it’s a a lot more complicated than people will have you believe. Right now, there seems to be a divide regarding who values free speech more and what free speech entails. But aren’t we really celebrating the same thing? Let’s explore:
Free speech argument #1: Politically correct speech
OVERVIEW: Many on the right view “political correctness” as an enemy of free speech. Many liberals say this is bullshit — but there is a kernel of truth there. Politicians in days past were far less careful about what they said, and often had more distinct “sides” on an issue, which is how we have the awesome Lincoln-Douglas debate format for high schools all around the country.
Trump supporters seem to like this return to “honesty” (I use the sarcastic quotation marks because Trump lies like 80 percent of the time) while other politicians skirt the truth about what they believe, only to be outed on hot tapes and in Russian-hacked emails. This, in some part, is the reason Trump got elected. People say that Trump’s negatives are right out in the open, while other politicians are snakes in the grass, with our citizens never knowing what they really think.
WHEN THE RIGHT IS WRONG: The problem with this theory that political correctness limits free speech is that being “P.C.” isn’t a government mandate. While there is a general increase in tendency towards political correctness in the last few hundred years, there is still no laws forcing politicians to be “P.C.” and individual speech is still protected under the first amendment. So, if someone calls someone else the N-word on social media and inevitably comes under fire for use of the word, that person’s free speech isn’t being limited. Others who are offended by the term may speak up, as is their right under the first amendment, but, guys — other people telling you to shut up isn’t limiting your rights. You can still keep talking — we’ll just keep telling you to shut up. See! First amendment — works for both sides.
WHEN THE LEFT IS WRONG: Some liberals have called for limitations to free speech and expression, but expect their own voices to be heard above the rest. Here’s the thing: I agree with pretty much all of their points. I really wish people would stop using their religion as an excuse for intolerance. I wish people would stop using the word “retard.” But when an individual does so, I have to say that is his or her right. Just like it’s my right to share the shit out of their comments on social media with my liberal snowflake friends until they hopefully crawl under a rock. I wish the world was better, but it isn’t, and we need to make sure we also aren’t demonstrating hypocrisy.
Free speech argument #2: Hate speech
“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.” — U.S. Constitution
OVERVIEW: Hate speech is tricky in its protections. While simply stating you don’t like members of a race, religion or orientation would be protected under the first amendment, there has always been an exception for what in the olden days would be called “fightin’ words.” So, while a person may be able to stand in front of a person who is gay and say “I hate gay people,” they cannot say it in the form of a threat or imply violence against that person. One can also not incite or encourage violence when expressing themselves. That speech is not protected.
EXAMPLE: One very public example of hate speech is Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopolous, who is recently in hot water, but somehow not for the metric fuck-ton of other crap he’s said. Recently, a conservative group at UC Berkeley invited Yiannopolous to speak, and the college put out a statement in support of the campus group’s right to freedom of speech and assembly. Like other government entities, they pointed out that the opinions expressed were not endorsed by or in line with the campus’ general statement on inclusion and diversity but they did make an official statement protecting the groups’ rights to freedom of speech and expression. When the campus canceled the appearance (citing public safety after a riot overtook a peaceful protest of the event), Trump and many conservatives accused the college of limiting free speech.
WHEN THE RIGHT IS WRONG: Again, many conservatives find themselves making generalizations about the limiting of free speech without addressing its complexities. In the example above of the Black Bloc anarchist riot at UC Berkeley, Trump supporters immediately used the event to claim that left coast “libtards” were limiting Yiannopolous’s right to free speech, as well as the conservative group’s right to freedom of expression.
They used videos depicting masked agitators assaulting Trump supporters to prove their point. However, most failed to note the difference between a peaceful protester at the event and a violent agitator. Message boards lit up with claims that all progressives are hateful and violent, because a group of extremist progressives disrupted both the protest and the event.
Here’s the thing, though: the right can say anything they want about liberals (‘COS FREE SPEECH, BITCHESSSSS) but they might want to take a look at the inherent hypocrisy in claiming all liberals are rioters while claiming “liberal hate” when Trump supporters are lumped in with the alt-right. Both are relatively small in proportion, extremist groups that hold many of the same principals as the party they support, but whose extreme views and actions are not condoned by the party as a whole.
I CALL SAME.
WHEN THE LEFT IS WRONG: There is a definite attitude among some on the left that we should not be held responsible for the actions of rioters. However, I’ve seen the same outspoken progressives claim that all conservatives are racists and Nazis. So … samesies? The Black Bloc states that violence is inherently needed to precipitate change. While I don’t think arrests during protests are necessarily an indicator of crime and violence (Look at MLK and Rosa Parks), I don’t believe that violence is the right way forward.
However, I have to own that, on some level, the Black Bloc and I want some of the same things. I absolutely stand by UC Berkeley and I believe that, no matter what anyone says, they were trying to protect the students, both liberal and conservative, when they canceled the event. However, I don’t think we can state with total impunity that no liberals are engaging in violence. We CAN, however, point out the hypocrisy of the right when they claim we are the only violent ones. ‘COS FREE SPEECH, BITCHESSS!
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Free speech argument #3: Businesses and free speech
OVERVIEW: The concept of businesses and free speech gets really muddled. Yes, an individual has freedom of speech, and religious expression. But does a company? Employees who work for the government have the right to free speech (with the usual exceptions, as well as any local, county or state laws therein) but private sector employees don’t necessarily have the same rights. A private company can have its own standard, and may fire someone for making a public statement that doesn’t follow that standard.
EXAMPLE: A mom and pop bakery can verbally refuse service to a gay couple because their marriage doesn’t jibe with their religion, but are they allowed to put a sign in the window that says “no gays”? What if the bakery has several employees, many of which don’t hold the same convictions?
WHEN THE RIGHT IS WRONG: Again, this mostly comes down to government mandate. Many conservatives claim that social media liberal takedowns of small businesses like the example above are an affront to the first amendment and religious expression. But, last I checked, a social media campaign isn’t a law, and Zach Braff and Donald Faison offering to cater gay weddings isn’t a prison.
No one is being jailed or executed because of what they say (and remember, in some countries that IS a thing). In these cases, conservatives are mistaking consequences for a violation of rights. Same goes for an employee of a private company getting fired. That is a consequence, not a violation. If you want that mom and pop bakery to keep excluding gay couples (and, honestly BAD CALL because you’re gonna miss out on some crazy moolah there), then you need to accept that some companies will have a discrimination policy, or its own set principals regarding hate speech.
WHEN THE LEFT IS WRONG: Many liberals believe that the mom and pop bakery should be punished by the government for their discrimination, but I couldn’t help but notice how many liberals of that thinking jumped forward to defend Simon & Schuster when they dropped Milo Yiannopolous’s book after his pedophilia remarks because it’s “their right as a company.”
Hate to say it because I personally think it’s awful to deny service based on race, religion, gender, etc., but we can’t have it both ways. Instead of saying that the mom and pop bakery doesn’t deserve free speech protection and this publishing company does, we need to address the issues within the issues when it comes to businesses and free speech (for example: how does this connect to corporate personhood?).
But simply claiming that one company is wrong for refusing to offer birth control citing religious beliefs and another company is a hero for firing someone who make antisemitic remarks isn’t enough. We need to ask the questions and dig deeper, not make it easier for them to cry hypocrisy. Being on the right side of history doesn’t mean shit until history books are written.
Free speech argument #4: Commercial speech and celebrities
OVERVIEW: Commercial speech, or speech done on behalf of a company or with the intention of making a profit, is a less protected form of speech under the first amendment. Most would just call this advertisements, but it has a nice long and wordy definition so there you go. There has been a widespread confusion about what commercial speech entails.
What it pretty much refers to is false advertising; what it has started to be perverted to cover is actors and athletes who have an opinion. Many people on the right rail against celebrities who state liberal opinions (again, that’s their right, but it’s also my right to point out how stupid it is) and do so as if they expect that person to represent the film, clothing line, national sports league, etc. and NOTHING ELSE.
EXAMPLE: Meryl Streep and Colin Kaepernick.
WHEN THE RIGHT IS WRONG: You’ve seen it on Twitter feeds, you’ve seen it on Reddit — fans who are displeased to learn that the show they like contains actors who are human people with their own opinions. (Side note: I am equally displeased to like the same shows and movies as a bunch of total d-bags).
With Meryl Streep’s speech, many on the right cried that actors should stick to acting. Colin Kaepernick fans burned his jersey and called him “Un-American.” I hate Tomi Lahren with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. If hate were people I would be China. Ohhhh, do I hate her. But I do agree with one thing she said. It is Colin Kaeperick’s right as an American to protest, just as it is her right to “shred” him for it.
So, volleying that ball back to my court to shred the right for it: celebrities are human beings, not jesters enslaved by a collective ruler that is the American people. They have the same rights that people do, because that’s what they are. Would you tell a banker who decided to form a nonprofit group to help kids with cancer that he should “stick to banking?” I didn’t think so. So, shut up. Again, I’M telling you to shut up. Now the law.
WHEN THE LEFT IS WRONG: Many leftists believe that celebrities are people, rather than shills for the sports teams and studios that bring us entertainment. Wait … yeah, they’re not wrong on this one. Sorry / not sorry guys!
To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. — Frederick “apparently alive” Douglass
I hope you’ve enjoyed my free speech primer. If you like, please click the heart doobly-doo and if you don’t like, feel free to tell me so: ‘COS FREE SPEECH, BITCHEESSSSSS!
