By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, April 03, 2016
I spent part of the week speaking on several college
campuses in Texas, and my subject was free speech and the threats against it on
campus and beyond. The students were in the main shocked and dismayed at the
revitalization of censorship as a political ideal and by the widespread support
for censorship among so-called liberals. Most of them were genuinely unaware of
just how far and wide the war against free expression currently ranges.
This is strange, because the war on free speech starts on
campus.
In March of 2014, Professor Lawrence Torcello of the
Rochester Institute of Technology, the seal of which appears alongside the
definition of “second-rate” in many dictionaries, published a short article
online calling for the criminalization of what he calls “climate denial,”
meaning the holding, perpetuating, and, especially, the financial support of
heretical ideas about global warming. A few articles were written criticizing
the article, and the response was the expected one: “It’s just one crank nobody
professor from some second-rate philosophy department publishing a blog post,
don’t make such a big deal about it!” Professor Torcello subsequently denied
that he had argued what he plainly does argue, namely that legal protections
for free speech should not encircle those who dissent from the received dogma
of global warming. “Misguided concern regarding free speech,” he wrote, should
be no impediment to imposing criminal sanctions on those whose activism
“remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action” on the issue.
We’ve taken this ride before: An obscure academic writes
something loony. We withstood “feminist physics” and “queer algebra,” and we’ll
get through this, too.
Unless we don’t.
Shortly after Professor Torcello’s tentative exploration
of criminalizing political disagreement, Gawker
published an article by Adam Weinstein bearing the straightforward headline:
“Arrest climate-change deniers.” Building on Professor Torcello’s argument,
Weinstein called explicitly for the imprisonment (“denialists should face
jail”) of those working to further particular political goals (“quietist agenda
posturing as skepticism”) on climate change. Never mind that protecting people
and institutions attempting to further a political agenda is precisely the
reason we have a First Amendment. Weinstein dismisses the First Amendment out
of hand, with the expected dread cliché: “First Amendment rights have never
been absolute. You still can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t
be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all
saying the same thing.”
Yelling “balderdash” at the conventional wisdom has a
very long and proud tradition. (Not that it should matter to this debate, but I
suppose I should here note for the record that I hold more or less conventional
views on climate change as a phenomenon but prefer mitigatory policies to
preventative ones.) The name “Elsevier” is not beloved on college campuses (the
modern company is a publisher of academic journals and sometimes is criticized
for its pricing), but it is to that company’s spiritual ancestor, the Dutch
printing house of Lodewijk Elzevir and his descendants, that we owe the
publication of, among other articles of samizdat,
the works of Galileo, at that time under Inquisitorial interdict. (The story of
Elzevir’s 1636 covert mission to Arcetri to meet with Galileo and smuggle his
manuscripts to Amsterdam, a city that was then as now a byword for liberality,
would make a pretty good movie.) It isn’t that it’s likely that our
contemporary global-warming critics are doing work as important as Galileo’s:
It’s that no one knows or can predict, which is the practical case for free
expression, which should be of some concern even to our modern progressives,
self-styled empiricists and pragmatists who reject the moral case for free
expression.
I raised some alarm about the Gawker article at National
Review, and once again the response was the predictable one: “It’s just Gawker, and it influences no one
possessing any intelligence. No sensible person takes Adam Weinstein
seriously.” That is all true enough, but it is not only or mainly the
intelligent and the sensible who move the world of public policy. We have
Kennedys to consider.
The subsequent developments are relatively well known:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., speaking at a large climate-change march in New York,
called for the imprisonment of those holding impermissible views on global
warming and those who with their financial resources support and spread such
views. New York attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman opened a case against
Exxon, and the attorneys general of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands
announced their intended participation in this inquisition. (Al Gore was
present at the announcement.) Schneiderman’s prosecution, in the words of the New York Times, would focus on “the
company’s funding, for at least a decade, of outside groups that worked to
dispute climate science.” This is straight from Professor Torcello. The goal of
course is to bully institutions, corporations, and particularly donors and the
nonprofits sustained by them. Torcello: “The charge of criminal and moral
negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive
funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding
of scientific consensus.” Kamala Harris, the California attorney general who is
seeking a Senate seat, announced an identical investigation of her own. The
Obama administration has referred the federal question to the FBI for possible
prosecution; currently, progressive strategists are pushing for prosecution
under the RICO law, a racketeering statute used to prosecute sprawling
organized-crime syndicates.
“The First Amendment,” Schneiderman proclaimed, “does not
give you the right to commit fraud.” Which is of course true. It is also true
that the invocation of “fraud” in this instance is something very close to
fraudulent. But once the censors work up a head of steam, it is difficult to
stop them. This week, Senator Elizabeth Warren bemoaned the fact that
businessmen have “become accustomed to saying whatever they want about Washington
policy debates,” and she is pressuring the Securities and Exchange Commission
to file fraud charges against businesses that lobby against regulations that
they believe would hurt them. Senator Warren charges that the businesses in
question exaggerate the costs of regulations when lobbying against them in
public and do not do so when communicating with investors and shareholders —
which is to say, she wants to make a felony out of what amounts to at most
hyperbole or political spin.
These would-be censors are all Democrats, it should be
noted, professed liberals at that.
The First Amendment was expressly designed to protect
political speech, the right to criticize one’s government and its actions. The
Supreme Court blessedly has reminded such aspiring Torquemadas as Senator John
McCain and President Barack Obama of this from time to time, the most famous
recent example being in the Citizens
United decision. Among the fiercest critics of Citizens United is Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is no surprise: At
question in the case was whether the federal government, acting under the guise
of “campaign finance” regulation, could censor a movie about Mrs. Clinton — a
film that cast her in a poor light and hence constituted “electioneering”
subject to federal regulation. Mrs. Clinton is unsure of her own mind on many
subjects, but she is quite positive in her belief that Mrs. Clinton should have
a very strong say in writing the rules under which Mrs. Clinton may be
criticized and under which unwanted and untimely criticism may be a federal
crime.
There has been a great deal of daft argument about this,
including the insistence by some on the left that the idea that corporations
can enjoy civil rights is a modern right-wing innovation. But if the First
Amendment prevents the federal government from censoring the New York Times, then whose rights are
being protected if not those of the New
York Times, which is a corporation? With the death of Antonin Scalia, whose
purported right-wingery made him one of the great free-speech champions of his
age, the so-called liberals believe, not without some reason, that they now
have an opportunity to enact federal censorship rules to suppress political
criticism.
In the wake of Citizens
United, Senator Harry Reid led an effort in the Senate — backed by every
single Democratic senator — to repeal the First Amendment and thereby enable
federal censorship of political criticism. That fact — the fact that one of our
two major political parties has made gutting the Bill of Rights and suppressing
political speech one of its top priorities — should be the central debate of
the 2016 election. But it isn’t, to our national shame.
Lodewijk Elzevir risked his life and the possibility of
torture to defy the Inquisition and bring out the works of Galileo. We
Americans, who have as our cultural capital a city that once pridefully
declared itself the New Amsterdam, and who arrogate unto ourselves through our
president the grandiose title “Leader of the Free World,” won’t even stand up
to a couple of creaky old grandmas, the great minds who brought you the Hulk
Hogan sex tapes, and a couple of peon lawyers in Albany and Sacramento. If Areopagitica were a new Greek porn star,
we might rouse ourselves to bother for a moment about the prospects of
government censorship. But free speech as a principle? Of course, unless we
don’t like it. The Founders knew that liberty is never really popular, and that
it cannot be entrusted to elected officials who must answer in the end to the demos, which is why they put the first
liberties first, right there in the
First Amendment. If we are willing to let a low-rent carny like Harry Reid take
those liberties away from us, or a sanctimonious old crook like Hillary Rodham
Clinton, or Elizabeth Warren, the most wooden Indian of them all, then maybe we
didn’t deserve those first liberties in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment