Free Speech Is For Everyone, Just Don’t Say That
How free speech is limited but can be powerful
I remember learning about the bill of rights my junior year of high school. It gives permission to basic human rights, including the freedom of speech. Initially, the constitution was established for white men only, but in today’s world it is supposed to be for everyone. My U.S. History teacher in high school stressed the importance of practicing free speech because without it, radical change would not have happened. Now, as a college student, I wonder if radical change in the future is really possible. I see protests all the time, but I also see people being reprimanded for speaking out. Is this not a violation of the first amendment? Or is the first amendment not applicable when the government believes we are overstepping our boundaries? Clearly there is a blurred line when discussing the term “free speech.” People certainly do not have to agree with anyone’s views, and can protest if they wish to do so.
Another question came to mind when I was learning about free speech. How exactly does a person’s words become powerful enough to make change? Martin Luther King practiced the right of free speech, and he was assassinated for having opposing views. He had a large following, and many other protesters continued to speak out for change. Furthermore, there was a free speech movement back in the 1960s, years after the first amendment was enacted. The protest was focused around civil rights which was barred at UC Berkeley. Students were prohibited from distributing flyers from major issues of that time period. Students set up an information booth about civil rights, which the administration attempted to shut down. The students fought incredulously to continue the fight for civil rights. Was it their resistance that helped them achieve their goal or their actual words themselves? I’d say a little bit of both. The students were clear that they would continue to push for civil rights and speak against opposition.
Michel Foucault writes about free speech, in particular, parrhesia. It is a term that translates to “to say everything.” To use parrhesia successfully, the speaker must be clear and concise about everything he is saying so his or her audience comprehends fully. Foucault further explains that there is truth behind the speaker’s words because he or she truly believes their words are indeed truthful. Courage is also a requirement of parrhesia because the speaker could potentially be speaking dangerous words if the majority does not agree. Foucault presents the idea that parrhesia is only among those considered to be inferior. To use parrhesia, the speaker must be addressing those in power and not vice versa. This leads to risking his or her life because he or she may face death or a severe punishment. Protests use parrhesia as long as their message is for those who see themselves as superior.
An example of parrhesia and a testimony of free speech is Irvine 11, a protest that took place back in 2010. Ten Muslim students, three from UC Riverside, protested Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador’s speech in Irvine. In case you were unaware, Israel occupies Palestine and has stripped Palestinians of their basic human rights (fun fact: the U.S. funds the Israeli military). So for Muslims opposing the occupation, Oren was seen as a bad guy. Each student interrupted Oren, made a comment of dissent, and peacefully walked away. Once they exited the room, they were arrested and cited. The students appeared in court pleading not guilty. Those for Oren believed the students violated his right to free speech, and those fighting for the charges to be dropped believed the students were practicing theirs. Foucault would consider this parrhesia because these students risked their education and possible incarceration to stand up for what they believed in. The students practiced free speech, yet because their comments challenged a governmental leader, it was considered wrong. Is it because those in charge like to wield power or were they truly hurt that their rights had been violated?
I do not believe free speech is actually free. Yes, people should not exactly say things like they feel like blowing up a building, but being arrested for telling an ambassador that Israel is guilty for mistreating an entire population is quite extreme. We are silenced when those in charge are threatened by our words. Free speech is a paradox. Donald Trump can advise men to grab women by the pussies (last time I checked it was considered sexual assault), but the Black Panther Party were constantly surveillanced for practicing their rights listed under the first amendment. Free speech is something we need to continue practicing, especially in recent times. It will continue to be a challenge to remove the limitations we face when dealing with opposing views, most importantly in political or societal issues. Those in power want us to feel like we fully have free speech, as long as we do not question their authority. We speak out on the wrongdoings and if we are not punished, we are hit with “alternative facts.” The USA, land of the free, until we decide to speak up.
