Liberals and Free Speech

It would be unfair to tar all liberals with the brush of this madness.  The problem with it, however, is that there are many liberals who behave this way if not actually utter the same words.  The mantra Do as we say, not as we do, is the unspoken motto of liberalism.  But this latest article takes that to new lows.

Unsurprisingly, it comes to us from a senior undergraduate student at Harvard University named Susan Korn. Apparently, Ms. Korn finds opposing viewpoints offensive.  One would think that with the SAT scores she must have achieved, combined with her advanced high school curriculum and sundry life experiences that qualified her for matriculation into Harvard, she would be familiar with the Voltairean concept of I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it which, when examined closely, is an awfully liberal approach to life.  While Ms. Korn may be familiar with the notion, she roundly rejects it.

Ms. Korn's argument can be distilled easily:  Instead of academic freedom, she proposes it be replaced with a concept she calls academic justice.  Essentially, this passes as academic code for the repeal of the First
Amendment.  Why?  Because opposing views that don't meet with Ms. Korn's sensibilities are oppressive to her perspectives of justice, otherwise known as freedom.  It's a preposterous idea, but what do I know?  I was only educated at substantially inferior institutions, studied constitutional law in law school and practiced law for nearly a quarter century.  By no means should I contest the esteemed words of someone who's about to graduate from such an august university.

Lest anyone think that the brush with which I paint is overly broad, consider this:  The Obama administration has sought to inject the FCC into newsrooms to see how stories are chosen for publication, has seized the phone records of James Rosen of Fox News and those of his parents, has defended accusations that the Department of Justice hacked Sharyl Atkisson's computer by saying To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised..., has had the IRS targeting conservative groups who filed not-for-profit applications, has gone after nuns who don't want to comply with Obamacare's dictates to provide artificial contraception coverage to employees and other lesser assaults on First Amendment rights.  To say that Ms. Korn is delusional is barely scratching the surface.  To say she's disingenuous is closer to the truth. To say that she's engaged in cognitive dissonance is hitting the nail right on the head.

The truth of the matter is that many liberals, of whom Ms. Korn is the latest poster child, descry any conservative attempt to air its viewpoint.  For liberals, conservative thought is necessarily and dangerously pernicious and should not be allowed.  

Ms. Korn would do well to learn some history at Harvard, starting with a couple of very famous and accomplished alumni of its law school.  First, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment does not protect all speech, and gave the example that a person does not have an unfettered right to shout fire in a crowded theater.  That implies that certain actions that would be injurious to the public weal will not be tolerated and therefore protected.  That is, there can be no prior restraint unless it is known that the speech presents a clear and present danger to the public. Without hearing different viewpoints, how can it be known whether it they present a clear and present danger?  Certain speech, like sedition or advocating the killing of the president, certainly qualify.  But if someone opposes affirmative action, is that sufficient for prior restraint?  That there will be people opposed to that viewpoint is unassailable, but that doesn't mean there's a clear and present danger presented.  

The other foremost alumnus with whom Ms. Korn may want to familiarize herself is Louis Brandeis.  He advocated that sunlight is the best disinfectant, suggesting that if allowed to be aired, a particularly noxious viewpoint will be cleansed by its airing.  Actually, it refers to transparency, but it can be applied to speech, as well.  Prior restraint of disagreeable speech only allows it to fester.  Had Skokie suppressed the Nazis' right to march in a largely Jewish neighborhood, who knows what could have become of the Nazi movement in the States?  Instead, Skokie made the enlightened but difficult choice, despite the large number of Holocaust survivors who resided in Skokie, and the skinhead movement in this country is mostly marginalized. Compare that to Germany, where even Nazi symbols are banned.  Such bans are emotionally understandable, but they're counterproductive.  Germany probably has one of the largest per capita rates of Nazism in the world.

Ms. Korn is deluded by her intellect.  She probably believes, earnestly, what she propounds.  The problem is that her argument has the potential to boomerang on her, just as Senate Democrats face that prospect by changing the Senate's rules on the filibuster.  I firmly believe that when the Republicans are in power and they use the Democratic party's new filibuster rules, there will be howls from the other side of the aisle.

But with speech, I don't believe conservatives would ever resort to such a strategy.  Typically, when confronted with an opposing viewpoint, conservatives would rather destroy it rather than hide it.

For all her intelligence, Ms. Korn is sadly mistaken, as are many of her liberal friends.  

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles