Cedar Riener is a professor of psychology at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. In this post, he debates the dilemmas of free speech. What stance do you take when confronting fascists? Do you ignore those who bully the vulnerable in public? He uses the example of a rightwing provocateur who humiliates a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin by displaying photographs of her as part of a public lecture. Should hate speech be protected? Should incitement to violence be protected?
These are issues that once seemed antique. They no longer are.
As a reader pointed out recently, I wrote a book called “The Language Police,” which is a strong affirmation of free speech. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. But, as this angry reader told me, I block content on this blog that uses certain four-letter words, that insults me, and that I find offensive. I am walking a fine line here.
Cedar Riener tries to redefine the line. We are in new times. Should we protect the speech of fascists? Racists? Misogynists? Issues we once thought were settled no longer are.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Your freedom of speech does not mean the public is required to give you a stage and a fee to speak. Your freedom of religion does not mean I am forced to put money in your collection plate. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here.
If we have vouchers for religious schools, then taxpayers are forced to put public money into a collection plate of a particular religion, even if they disagree with it.
I wonder if a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” would help provide for a more thoughtful and less polarizing dialog.
Just came to me from a local politico….
Action Alert
(Please circulate widely)
Starting calling now …
Call the Senate Committee on Homeland Security to record your opposition to the appointment of Trump’s right-hand man Steve Bannon to the National Security Council. When you call, be sure to leave your name, state, and zip code.
202-224-4751
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security will be tallying support and opposition all weekend, so please put your call in to say something along the lines of “Having an anti-immigrant xenophobe on the National Security Council is unacceptable. Please take immediate action to prevent him from serving on the National Security Council, and to prevent the removal of more experienced staff from the National Security Council” or “A bigoted person who urges to that our government must totally collapse, should not be on the NSC, and only the Joint Chiefs should be giving the President information and advice, not this biased Breitbart agitator.”
If you get a voicemail, be sure to leave your zip code in the message. If you speak to a live person, they should request your zip code.
Note, those who serve on the National Security Council weigh in on targeted killings, both foreign and domestic!
Bannon is a disaster and has far too much power
I seem to remember an entry from the daily agenda of Trump’s first weeks indicating that Bannon’s position on the NSC requires Senate confirmation and is therefore at this point illegal. I guess their game plan is to overwhelm the system with so many illegal acts that no one could possibly file complaints against even half of them.
“I guess their game plan is to overwhelm the system with so many illegal acts that no one could possibly file complaints against even half of them.”
Or they are pushing something in secret and nobody notices them among all the distraction. Like mandatory Russian language courses for grades 3 and up, or mandatory Putin-Trump kissing pictures in every public school office and classroom.
Don’t forget lessons in groping.
Lloyd, Politico just confirmed that there will be an Executive Tweet on Sunday night allowing public schools to teach only the following courses, starting Monday.
STEM subjects
* Locker Room Experiments
Bible-based Science
Intelligent Design in 6 days
Immigrant Anthropology
Social sciences
US Televangelism
White America First
Pro-Life Choices
Christian Government
Art
Intelligent Design (interdisciplinary subject)
Digital Abortion Photography
Architecture of the US-Mexican Wall
Health
Prevention of the Muslim Cancer
The Joy of Abstinence for Women
Heterosexuality for Men
One small correction:
The joy of abstinence for women except when his glory, the greatest leader that ever lived, the smartest leader that ever lived, the most successful leader that ever lived, the most loved leader that ever lived, the malignant narcissist Littlefingers Donald Trump wants to grope, kiss or impregnate them that he will deny ever happened even if he Tweets about it.
Uh, I see, that’s the scholar handbook entry for AP 1st Right Law.
“But, as this angry reader told me, I block content on this blog that uses certain four-letter words, that insults me, and that I find offensive. I am walking a fine line here. ”
No you’re not. Your blog is not a public space; it is your living room. You are not required to invite any foul mouthed bully into your home. Such speech is not intended to advance a debate or contribute to a discussion. It is meant to threaten and belittle. You are not required to entertain them in your home.
I totally agree, speduktr.
There is a huge difference between speech/writing that is banned by the government, because that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and what bloggers choose to do on their own, privately owned blogs.
As you said, somebody’s blog is their living room. If they choose to kick people out of their living rooms and houses who are obnoxious, foul-mouthed, etc, they certainly have that right.
And, to my mind, if somebody is not happy with how Diane runs her blog, too bad, Diane has no obligation to continue inviting obnoxious people into her space.
(And it drives me crazy, the way ignorant people don’t seem to understand the First Amendment. It means that the government cannot censor or constrain your speech, except for a few limited occasions. It does not mean that someone who owns a blog, or a newspaper, for that matter, is obligated to publish whatever you have written. And if you don’t like it, quit whining and start your own blog, or newspaper.)
Zorba: Yes–such thinking speaks of a LACK OF DISTINCTION or a confusion of the legal and the socio-cultural spheres of life. BIG difference.
“Should we protect the speech of fascists? Racists? Misogynists?”
It’s obvious that was why the US had the Fairness Doctrine for the news reporting media that required them to report both sides to every issue and give equal time in the same space or time to alleged experts from both sides.
The Dark Prince, President Ronald Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and when Congress attempted to bring it back and add it to the law, G. H. W. Bush vetoed the bill that had passed through both Houses of Congress killing it for probably all time.
Ironically, the argument by the fascists under Reagan and the 1st Bush was that the Fairness Doctrine limited free speech.
What the Fairness Doctrine really did was limit the ability to lie and spread misinformation without being challenged in the same media.
We now see what that means with malignant narcissist President Littlefingers Donald Trump and his Rasputin Steven Bannon’s alternative facts while these two fascists demonize and scream at the media to keep its mouth shut and blindly support these alternative facts that the Fairness Doctrine would have challenged.
Agree Lloyd…and we in California, especially those of us who went to and worked at U.of Calif., witnessed a wild outburst this week against the ostensible FREE SPEECH of Bannon’s clone at Beirbart who wants to speak at our university to stir up the Bannon ‘hate of others’ and encourage a breakdown of all government in favor of total anarchy, but he was dis-invited.
Enough furious students broke the law to protest and almost burned down Sproul Hall, the site of many decades of real free speech.
Watching the encounter, horrified, I was torn and feared the escalation between the students and their supporters and the campus police. It seemed ripe for injury and even death. Thankfully the police understood not to advance on the protesters and it finally calmed down.
The fantasy of total free speech is a big worry here, and the campuses are suffering from the discussion, but the Bd. of Regents has clearly proclaimed a difference between ‘free speech’ and ‘hate speech’. Hate speech, much like that of Drumpf and Bannon, has NO place in a peaceful and just society, IMO.
THE CONFLICT: It’s a source of the deepest of tensions in a constitutional democracy such as ours: that is, those who would deny free speech to some, can use freedom of speech for all to advocate for that denial. And those who would deny freedom of assembly for all (diverse) groups of people can use that freedom to advocate for exclusion of some.
Some reflections on that tension: The shift of responsibility for maintaining our democratic (small d) political foundations (the ones that are being attacked as we speak) occurs as we enter adulthood and so as we go through our early educational experiences (both formal and informal). The shift is FROM the institutions that influence us throughout our development (family, education, culture) TO our own interior life where our questions form and where our decisions are made. So the above conflict between free speech and censored/ugly speech rests on this other tension between our upbringing and the developments (or lack of them) that occur there,
I heard the other day that Trump has unwittingly initiated a change where our young people (millennials) have transformed from being consumers to being citizens. I think that may be true. If so, it seems to me that the emphasis on reasonable and peaceful but spirited dialogue (under the free-speech notion), while no guarantee, is still the best way to preserve democracy, its institutions, and the civility that they embody, at least while we are in a time where time for thought is still available.
On the other hand, as the article suggests, if the Brietbart people want to destroy democracy, then, at Berkeley they were probably happy to see violent action and glad to be turned away (they may have planted it?) This means that their longer goal is being served by students’ rejection of their shorter goal.
Our students should at least be FULLY aware of what’s going on. This speaks to the above migration of responsibility and authority from the University to the interior lives of its students–both are essential but heretofore often neglected in democracies, and specifically in ours–until now? A democracy IS an experiment and so there is always the risk that young people will reject it.
My goodness–again, we come up against the need for early education that includes both history and civics. Wouldn’t you know it.
Again in agreement, Catherine.
The one constant for all US students must be a clear and consistent course in Civics, on how our government is designed, and how to be a productive citizen in a nation based on laws…and that should start in elementary school and repeat in middle school and high school.
Again I urge everyone to read Arthur Camins excellent article on this issue written on Huffpost a few months ago. Civics classes have been cut out of most of the curriculum for way too long and this loss is reflected in voting patterns, or NOT voting patterns, and in public behaviors. Ignorance of Civics leaves people ripe for chaos and for fascistic takeover.
Thanks for mentioning Berkeley, which I too discuss above.
Found it as a link to my own article months ago on Trump as Ignoramus…Arthur Camins article on Civics. Hope the link appears at the word ‘article’.
University educator Arthur Camins article says that perhaps the Trump candidacy has come about due to the fact that schools fail at teaching Citizenship Development. As an educator of public policy and an educational researcher of many decades, I agree. A great failure of public education is the sparse teaching and learning about citizenship and what it means to live in a nation of laws.
Ellen Lubic: The link didn’t take–I can find it–I keep all posts, but if you can try a re-post, . . . ?
Sorry it did not appear…will try again..and if Arthur is here today, please post it and comment.
Arthur Camins article…
“U.S. Schools Don’t Fail at Test Performance, They Fail at Citizenship Development
Schools in the U.S. are failing, but not in the way that advocates for test-driven accountability, charter schools, and vouchers claim. In fact, schoo…”
Read the entire article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/us-schools-dont-fail-at-test-performance_b_8570608.html
Ellen Lubic: Thank you!
I will teach about the rise of European fascism next week. One of the readings we will use quotes Hitler as suggesting that words are stronger than bullets.
Perhaps we should consider some of the laws now in place that outlaw things like libel and slander. Maybe Milo Y would shut up if the people he slanders brought a lawsuit or two.
Now, with all deference to Lloyd, Goebels might be a better comparison than Rasputin for Bannon, although I see the need to stay with Russian imagery. George F Kennan was noted for his assertion that Russia was acting like Russia always had, regardless of their Stalinist government. Now it would seem that Russia is still acting in its traditional way with a new kind of fascist.
Do we fight racism with fire or word?
Do we fight racism with fire or word?
That is up to each individual. We can’t force people to join America’s second rebellion to fight for freedom from the evil empire of a malignant narcissist known as Littlefingers Donald Trump and his Rasputin-Goebbels Steve Bannon. I think Bannon has the worst elements of both Rasputin and Goebbels. Does that mean Bannon is a mutant?
“Does that mean Bannon is a mutant?”
I think Nature weeds out bad mutants, especially in such big numbers as in the LF admin. So my science-based opinion is that we have been hit by massive genetic engineering.
(Are we getting close to locker room talk here?)
No, we are a long way from locker room talk. No bragging about groping females without warning or permission. No use of the “P” word.
Here is an NPR interview with two Berkeley students. Their views well represent the issues involved. Just click on the big white triangle in blue background in the upper left corner.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513105012/berkeley-students-debate-cancellation-of-milo-yiannopoulos-speech
Interesting link…good catch…thanks.
The repeal of the fairness doctrine and media consolidation lead to 98% right wing hate wing talk radio from sea to shining sea. A big powerful radio station like WABC 770 in “liberal” NYC morphed into an all right wing format all the time. One right winger after another spewed the right wing message. It used to have a few liberals but they were purged years ago. Both Pence and Bannon are former right wing radio hosts. Right wingers claim that liberals are boring and just don’t get the ratings that conservative/right wingers do. How would we know, since liberals have pretty much been banned from talk radio.
Thank you so much for sharing my post. I’ll add that as I have done more thought on this, I find myself coming to two conclusions:
1) Milo’s past speech has met individual institution’s criteria for harassment, both online and off, and he should be denied a platform at institutions of higher learning. He specifically opposes and undermines many of the other values that universities say they hold dear. I think he should not be called a “provocateur,” as I believe that is not what he does, and his speech should not be classified as merely provocative. His words at UW-M would likely meet criteria for harassment if a professor uttered them, I don’t see why his speech is more protected than a professor. Universities should recognize that free speech is one, but not the only value they should uphold and enact. He should not be invited or he should be disinvited, and I support protests against his presence at these universities.
2) Causing people physical pain is not an acceptable tactic for protesters to use. I don’t think it is moral, and I think its effectiveness is questionable and possibly counterproductive. Tactics that I would support (and be prepared to engage in, should such a speaker be invited to my campus) would include civil disobedience in a variety of forms, but stop well short of violence.
ps. also, would you mind switching the spelling of my name (to Riener). Thanks.
Appreciate this update and agree with you, Cedar. As a professor I know I could not incite my students to riot, to do emotional and physical harm to others, as does this Breitbart agitator, without losing my job. His goal is like Steve Bannon, to destroy America from the ground up, and then from top down to rebuild a society of easily manipulated clods who will adhere to a fascistic society that leaves the leaders in charge of robot workers. Milo is Bannon’s clone.
Cedar and Diane, Thanks for this post and the update. It has caused some of us to refresh our understanding of the laws bearing on freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. On the matter of free speeech and the law I found this helpful.
https://www.unc.edu/courses/2010spring/law/357c/001/HateSpeech/PolicyAlt.html
“Causing people physical pain is not an acceptable tactic for protesters to use.”
I am afraid there are no general rules this one. If a fascist starts making a speech in front of my kids’ school as they come out, there is no time for any of your recommended nonphysical acts. What if the guy starts showing genocide pictures, aborted babies, etc?
Mate…those who do their own brand of ‘pro life’ rioting actually do exactly what you say, they carry large signs showing aborted ‘fetuses’ (not babies) in front of schools, hospitals, and Planned Parenthood offices.
There is no ‘baby’ until birth…when in the womb, it is a ‘fetus’ which when grown to full term and is birthed, is a ‘baby.’
So you agree withe me, Ellen, that in this case, nonviolent techniques won’t work?
I agree with you, but I don’t intend to act out with violence and sacrifice myself unless I’m not alone; I’m one among millions who are also out to stop the malignant narcissist and his Rasputin-Goring Steve Bannon.
First Amendment law has long allowed for flexibility when it comes to “fighting words,” based on the circumstances. I don’t think we need to scrap the old approach yet.
NO…harking back to O.W. Holmes, one cannot call out FIRE in a crowded theater, and then claim it is protected free speech when it is used only to distort and lie, if there is no fire.
KellyAnne Conway tries to convince us all that there is “alternative truth” but this is not TRUE. As Gertrude Stein might say, ‘a lie is a lie is a lie’. The First Amendment does on protect inflammatory hate speech that leads to personal attacks and harm IMO.
Schizophrenics roam the streets issuing incendiary statements, but those who knowingly want to incite to violence, like Trump and Milo, owe a different level of behavior to society.
Trump calling out to his followers to assault people who disagree with him, used HATE speech, and that should have been addressed each time he did it…but the public and media seemed to think it was cute and funny ‘reality’ TV behavior…and look how it all turned out. If he had yelled out ‘kill that Jew…or kill that black guy’…would you feel so sanguine about the First Amendment?
You’re talking about “fighting words,” as distinguished from “pure speech.” I don’t know where the exact boundaries of free speech lie. It may be that what could be characterized as “inflammatory hate speech” should be protected, even when it leads to harm, depending on the nature of the harm and how attenuated it is. But We seem to agree on the premise that we already have the flexibility to weigh and balance the interests at stake.
“I don’t know where the exact boundaries of free speech lie. ”
Contents are too difficult to restrict. How about restricting the places where you can make public speeches? Certainly in front of state and federal buildings, and certainly not within 200 yards of schools.
Another problem with limiting free speech is that the online platforms like this one are impossible to regulate without draconian governmental intervention. Thus I will go with the suggestion I read somewhere here that time and place factor into the equation that we must balance so that our dissent is reasonable and logical.
To an extent, modern news has become a poll. When we vote in the media ballot box, our intensity is measured along with our vote. The pollsters, the various news outlets, know that they cannot present their most dedicated watchers with facts contradictory to their personal narratives about reality. That would shear away the most dedicated watchers and listeners. Thus the yellow journalism that created a host of problems around the turn of the twentieth century has returned in the guise of freedom of the press.
It is unfortunate that the logical evaluation of problems is bori to so many. It is horrible that man seems to need Lenin more than Kerensky, Robespierre more than Mirabeau.
Trump’s crime is that he does not understand where his words are taking us. He does not fathom the degree to which his retoric is legitimizing the violent right wing. He does not see that his demonizing of all who disagree with him is the prelude to fascism.
Or does he? Will free speech be its own undoing?
“To an extent, modern news has become a poll.”
I do not respond to most polls any longer. Either it means someone is going to inundate me with requests for money (or not) or they are going to make sure their message resonates with my “group” if there are a lot of us. What it ends up meaning is it is hard to find a news source that isn’t targeted. I don’t want a news source that is exclusively opinion pieces of one persuasion. I know the Chicago Tribune is extremely conservative, but I can get some news that is not too tainted by their perspective. I can avoid opinion and editorial pieces that raise my blood pressure, and for my own health that is often necessary. I still need to know what more conservative elements are thinking, but I can control my dosage, and it is written from their viewpoint, not through the lens of my more liberal leaning choices for reading. No matter how virulently I disagree with what is going on now, I have to try to understand why some people support these policy decisions. It is much easier to defend your own position if you know what you are defending against.
What Pie basically is saying that curbing free speech almost always backfires—as it happened at Berkeley. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miE-kwQM0mo
Similar things happened, but on the other side, in the senate when they shut Warren’s reading of a letter by MLK’s wife: by shutting her down, the whole incident and the content of the letter went viral. Now the country knows Sessions dirty past.
And Trump is allegedly twisting the protests to protect free speech into his reason for the need of martial law. Then the game is over because if martial law is declared, there will be no more free speech, no more freedom of any kind unless you are a billionaire and can buy your freedom.
The point is that curbing free speech almost always backfires. Martial law here would backfire with a big bang.
That all depends on how many in the public police and public military would follow the malignant narcissist’s orders.
I added “public” because there are now more private, corporate police than public police in the U.S. and even the military is being replaced by costly mercenaries from the private sector.
Would Littlefingers turn to Blackwater, now known as XE Services, and corporate police to implement martial law if the public police and military refused? And if that happened, would the public police and military end up in heated battles with the private sector corporate police and military?
“would the public police and military end up in heated battles with the private sector corporate police and military?”
your bloody questions, Lloyd. 🙂
I’m 71 and only getting older. I have arthritis. I’m not as fast or flexible as I once was as a young U.S. Marine back in the 1960s. I probably can’t shoot straight anymore, but if there is a bloody revolution to resist the GOP and the malignant narcissist, I’ll fight, but I won’t act alone. It must be a revolution where at least an estimated 5-percent (16-million) of the population rise up in anger, and someone else will have to fire the first of many shots. When I see many of our cities on fire and Washington DC under siege, I will volunteer to join the fight and probably end up in an unmarked grave on some battlefield.