Megyn Kelly and Free Speech

Sometimes The Right Decision and the Popular Decision Aren’t the Same

Camerani Zincite
Jul 22, 2017 · 8 min read

Much public attention has been paid to journalist and TV news host Megyn Kelly in the past year or so, given her somewhat tumultuous departure from Fox News and the beginning of her new show on rival network NBC. Almost immediately, Kelly announced plans to interview noted conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones on her program. While I believe Kelly purposely chose a particularly controversial figure to interview in order to attract attention and viewers to the new show, and that this was her main intention in conducting this interview, the controversy around this decision sheds important light on modern America.

To me, this is at its heart an issue of freedom of speech and the way opposing and often unpopular ideas are treated in America. So, I must further preface this piece by clarifying a few things about freedom of speech as it applies here. I recognize that, as it is written in the Constitution and law, no freedom of speech would have been violated if Kelly and NBC had caved to public pressure and canceled the interview. Megyn Kelly, as a private individual, has a right to decide who can appear on her show. NBC, as a private broadcaster, has the right to decide who can appear on its airwaves. I am making an argument in favor of the decision to go ahead with the interview, based not on de jure First Amendment rights but on the less rigid principles of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Alex Jones believes and propagates a number of conspiracy theories rejected by most of the American public, but the one that caused the greatest controversy surrounding this interview was his claim that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 was organized by the US government. Without defending it, one can see that this claim at least has a literal possibility of being true, unlike some other conspiracy theories. While Jones’ version of the events at Sandy Hook is highly unlikely, it is not on the level of shape-shifting reptilian aliens controlling the world’s governments (this idea comes from British conspiracy theorist David Icke). Therefore, though some may insist that Jones’ message should be kept from mainstream network TV simply because it is not “serious” or “real” opinion (regardless of its political persuasion), this argument simply does not hold up. (More on that later.) However, I am not here to debate the merits of Jones’ claims, but to defend his right to make them. As Voltaire biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall summarized in a quote commonly misattributed to the Enlightenment philosopher himself: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The most vocal backlash to the interview comes from parents and other family of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, who are not only opposed to the idea of Jones discussing his views on network TV but offended by it, to the extent that they have hired lawyers to attempt to stop it. Upon examination of the argument these lawyers and their clients have prepared, several red flags become apparent. It is one thing to be opposed to someone else’s viewpoint, but another to be offended by it. Though, through their own freedom of speech, they have every right to be offended, this brings them into dangerous territory. Namely, this brings them an inclination to try to suppress the expression of said viewpoint. If they fall to this temptation and take action towards this purpose, the result is a slap in the face to the principles of freedom of speech, even if it is not a de jure violation. This is precisely the situation that these families and their lawyers have created, though I do not believe it was their intention to do so. These families’ actions are driven by emotion, the strongest and most gut-wrenching emotion one could experience, and not sociopolitical inclinations.

So why is a situation like this so dangerous? It sets worrisome precedents regarding freedom of speech and the expression of controversial ideas. It enforces the idea that the mere expression of a certain idea is offensive, and should be limited in order to protect people from being harmed by it. The statement released by the families’ lawyers argues that airing the interview “exponentially enhances the suffering and distress of our clients” and holds NBC responsible, urging the network to cancel the interview. Though the emotional element in this case is much stronger and more justified, the language and ideas in this statement bring to mind the blog posts and Facebook statements of the collective group of left liberal-minded college students often known as “snowflakes.” These activists display a similar pattern of thought in many now notorious cases of campus protest: they are emotionally “triggered” by the announcement that a speaker or group with whom they disagree and take offense to is coming to campus to discuss his or her views. They then go to great lengths to shut down the event, on the grounds that the ideas being presented will cause them emotional and psychological harm and therefore should be banned. Over time, a system arises where speakers of certain persuasions are not invited at all (or groups not allowed to hold events), creating a climate of limited expression of ideas.

Through this process, free speech is being eroded at campuses across America, in writing as well as in principle. That step is an easy one to make. Though unlike many of these students the Sandy Hook parents are motivated by legitimate and extreme emotional pain, they have in their own way followed essentially the same dangerous and inappropriate path. Where college students took issue with a speaker coming to campus, they take issue with a figure coming into their community’s homes via a major TV network. Where cash-strapped college students staged sit-ins and occupied campus buildings, wealthy Connecticut suburbanites hire a law firm. Though each has its own methods to fit its situation, the ideology driving these two groups is of the same strain.

Those demanding the interview be canceled also fundamentally misunderstand an important aspect of journalism. As for this interview specifically, I don’t believe I could do a better job than Kelly herself explaining her reasons for interviewing Jones, which can be seen at the beginning of the piece (link below). I’ll leave those particulars to her. In a more general sense, it is a journalist’s job to report on important and controversial issues and people on the national scene, even if the majority of the public finds them offensive or repulsive. It is also important in journalism to give both sides of the story a say, a chance to explain their ideas and rationale. Therefore, just because a journalist reports on, interviews, or takes a statement from someone, this does not mean that he or she endorses or agrees with the person’s viewpoints. The failure of those opposing this interview to understand this crucial aspect of consuming news media is demonstrated in a series of frankly disturbing tweets from some Sandy Hook family members, who have gained a large social media following in the wake of the tragedy. The most egregious reads “This piece of actual garbage encourages people to call my mom’s death a hoax and harass other Sandy Hook families. Shame on you Megyn Kelly.” This person seems to believe that by merely interviewing Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly is encouraging harassment of these families who have been through so much. A grave misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the media and its role is evidently not limited to the alt-right. I reiterate that rightful emotion is likely clouding judgment, but errors of this magnitude demand to be examined and refuted.

The rebuttal to this from those opposed to the interview is, as I have predicted and encountered (and mentioned above in brief), is that even if Megyn Kelly is not endorsing Jones’ views, she is “legitimizing” him by “giving him a platform.” To the extent that we can assess his “legitimacy” given the extremely ambiguous meaning of the word as used by these critics in this context, it is clear that after this interview Jones is no more “legitimate” than before, since just as before he is still found repulsive by most of the American public. Furthermore, this rebuttal rests on the belief that some opinions are “real” or “serious” enough to be worthy of dissemination through the media and others are not; and that Jones’ views fall into the latter category. The inevitable question this raises is: who says what’s serious and what’s not? There are two answers, both unsavory.

First, the government could decide. Theoretically, in being above popular whims and panics the government would do a better job making such decisions. But there is no guarantee that government officials would make the decisions impartially, and this situation is a small step away from the government deciding which stories to deem fit for publication based on their portrayal of the government. Even regardless of principles, this would be a severe violation of freedom of the press.

Second, a much more attractive option is to let the general public decide. Although less readily apparent, this option also leads to disastrous consequences. Under this system, unpopular and minority viewpoints are at risk of suppression due to their opponents, the majority, deeming them (accurately or not) to be not serious or worthy of debate. These days, many Americans of both liberal and conservative leanings seem to place greater value on attacking and shutting down those who disagree with them than the inalienable right to freedom of speech that all Americans possess.

Therefore, it is quite likely that in this situation America would soon become a “tyranny of the majority,” one of the Founding Fathers’ deepest fears. In a tyranny of the majority, society appears democratic on the surface because the majority rules, but in reality all political and ideological minorities are systemically oppressed in an egregious affront to the principles of democracy and freedom upon which this nation was built. Though there are others regarded more seriously, Jones stands as a prime example of the type of minority opinion that would be most harmed in this situation. Most Americans not only disagree with him but do not take him seriously. In fact, they detest him. But this is no justification for limiting his right to speak. As philosopher Noam Chomsky said “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

Freedom of speech is designed to protect the expression of unpopular ideas. Additionally, in fundamental principle, it is not true freedom of speech unless it applies to everyone, even and especially those whom society holds in the lowest degree of esteem and seriousness.

The piece can be watched here

Excerpts from the Sandy Hook families’ statement can be seen here and other sources

More details on the Sandy Hook backlash, including tweets from the family members, can be seen here

As a footnote: This piece is meant to focus on the nature and reasoning of the interview and why NBC was right to go ahead with it, not as an assessment of the contents of the interview. However, I will note that while watching the interview it is readily apparent that Kelly is taking a doubtful and critical tone against Jones from the beginning. Whether this is of her own choice or at NBC’s request in order to limit public relations fallout, is up for debate. Regardless, this is a far cry from encouraging Jones’ views or the harassment of Sandy Hook families.

Taking a trip down the political rabbit hole

)
Camerani Zincite

Written by

Your Morning Peanuts

Taking a trip down the political rabbit hole

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade