By Conor Friedersdorf
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
When free-speech advocates point out that the First
Amendment protects even hate speech, as the attorney Ken White recently
observed, they are often met with extreme hypotheticals. For example: “So, the
day that Nazis march in the streets, armed, carrying the swastika flag,
Sieg-Heiling, calling out abuse of Jews and blacks, some of their number
assaulting and even killing people, you'll still defend their right to
speak?"
In Charlottesville, he declared, something like that
scenario came to pass: “Literal Nazis marched the streets of an American city,
calling out Jews and blacks and gays, wielding everything from torches to clubs
and shields to rifles, offering Nazi slogans and Nazi salutes. Some of their
number attacked counter-protesters, and one of them murdered a
counter-protester and attempted to murder many others. This is the ‘what if’
and ‘how far’ that critics of vigorous free speech policies pose to us as a
society.”
Nevertheless, he wrote, his civil-libertarian views were
unchanged, his belief in constitutional protections for hate speech unaffected,
because the countervailing hypothetical that free-speech advocates have always
raised in reply to dark scenarios about hate speech––that it is shortsighted to
give the state “the power to choose what speech is acceptable and what speech
isn't, and use its vast power to punish the difference,” because that state may
one day be controlled by a leader “who overtly relishes the power to punish
people who think like you do, encouraged by supporters who hate you”––applies
every bit as much to the present moment.
The Nazis and the KKK marched.
Yet even now, at the bottom of the slippery slope, a
broad reading of the First Amendment is still
the framework that best protects ethnic and religious minority groups. In fact,
marginalized groups—street activists, Muslim immigrants, Black Lives Matter
protesters—would suffer particularly at this very moment if the faction of
progressives who want to limit free speech got their way.
Charles C.W. Cooke captured why in a
satirical response to a recent New
York Times op-ed in which K-Sue Park called on the ACLU to change its
approach to free speech, arguing that it provides help to hateful causes and
that “the legal gains on which the ACLU rests its colorblind logic have never
secured real freedom or even safety for all.”
Cooke wrote:
Park is correct.
It is high time that the ACLU moved
onto the right side of History and abandoned the “narrow reading” of the First
Amendment that is the result of 50 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent.
In lieu, it must focus on working toward more diverse and productive ends, such
as giving Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump the robust censorship powers that they
so richly and urgently deserve. The United States federal government is now run
at every level by Republicans. So, indeed, are the lion’s share of the
governors’ mansions, statehouses, and localities. If the ACLU really knuckles
down, it can ensure that these figures — and not pernicious “neutral” principle
— determine the edges and contours of America’s civil society.
He added:
The ACLU insists that “preventing
the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion
of equality.” But more sensible thinkers grasp that quite the opposite is true.
As Park notes, any defense of the status quo “perpetuates a misguided theory
that all radical views are equal.” They’re not, and, in consequence, an arbiter
is necessary. At first, that should be the ACLU, which should simply let some
censorship be – or, even better, start endorsing it. And eventually, having
been freed up by the ACLU’s backing away from what Park notes correctly is
“only First Amendment case law,” the government itself should assume that role.
Then, and only then, will some space have been cleared for the wise.
We have an array of differing views
in this country, but I think we can all agree that nobody could be better
suited to that oversight role than Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump, and
the thousands upon thousands of state-level Republicans who have been recently
swept into office by the infallible will of the people. Furthermore, we should
all be able to unite around the appealing chance to hand more power over to the
police.
Donald Trump is a man marked out
for his wisdom, scholarship, and judicious temperament. But, exquisite as his
judgment is, he is able to direct prosecutions only on a macro level. To make
the scheme work in practice, America’s police officers must enjoy the legal
opportunity to determine what — and who
— sits outside of the law’s protection. By insisting upon a consistent
application of the First Amendment — and, most problematically, by defending
“the legal gains on which [it] rests its colorblind logic” — the ACLU is
depriving our cops of this vital first-line oversight role.
In the wake of Charlottesville,
that must change.
The faction Cooke is parodying really is that
shortsighted.
If rules forbidding hate speech were passed into law and
approved by the Supreme Court, they might well prohibit Nazis and Klansmen from
marching to anti-Semitic chants, or waving flags with swastikas, or marching in
a torchlit parade through the streets, causing some white supremacists to stay
home and others to become more radicalized, as happens when groups are
prohibited from seeking political remedies.
Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions, the two most powerful
law-enforcement figures in the federal government, already draw equivalences
between white supremacists and the counterprotesters who meet them on the
streets; and they conflate Antifa, a movement that explicitly condones
extralegal violence, with Black Lives Matter, a movement dominated by people who
reject violence.
Yes, those equivalences are false. And that wouldn’t
matter.
Under a legal regime where hate speech was not considered free speech, Trump and
Sessions could likely punish words used by members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Do you think
he’d police their speech more or less vigorously than white supremacists?
Under a legal regime that treated more kinds of speech as
incitement, on the theory that Nazis and other white supremacists are pushing
an inherently violent ideology, Trump would very likely use the same rules and
precedents to target, say, imams at whatever mosques Sessions judges to be
inciting Islamist violence; or Twitter activists who tell their followers that
punching Nazis is woke. Those whom Trump has taken to calling the “alt-left”
would be most at risk.
And the shortsightedness knows no bounds.
“As college presidents try to figure out whether the
First Amendment protects conservatives’ right to create political spectacle and
instigate violence,” Jennifer Delton writes in the Washington Post, “it might be useful to recall another time when
American liberals were forced to sidestep First Amendment absolutism to combat
a political foe: the 1940s, when New Deal liberals purged U.S. communists from
American political life.” The argument is a perfect illustration of a failure
to see what is before one’s nose: an alternative theory of the First Amendment
is said by the author to have enabled a bygone faction to purge a leftist
minority from political life; and this professor suggests reviving that theory
while Trump is in the White House and public university systems mostly answer
to Republican legislatures.
It’s been almost 25 years since Henry Louis Gates wrote,
The critical race theorists must be
credited with helping to reinvigorate the debate about freedom of expression;
the intelligence, the innovation and the thoughtfulness of their best work
deserve a reasoned response, and not, as so often happens, demonization and
dismissal. And yet, for all the passion and all the scholarship that the
critical race theorists have expended upon the problem of hate speech, I cannot
believe that it will capture their attention for very much longer... The
advocates of speech restrictions will grow disenchanted not with their failures,
but with their victories, and the movement will come to seem yet another
curious byway in the long history of our racial desperation.
And yet the movement will not have
been without its political costs. I cannot put it better than Charles Lawrence
himself, who writes: "I fear that by framing the debate as we have––as one
in which the liberty of free speech is in conflict with the elimination of
racism––we have advanced the cause of racial oppression and placed the bigot on
the moral high ground, fanning the rising flames of racism." He does not
intend it as such, but I read this passage as a harsh rebuke to the movement
itself. As the critical race theory manifesto acknowledges, "This debate
has deeply divided the liberal civil rights/civil liberties community."
And so it has. It has created hostility between old allies and fractured
longtime coalitions. Was it worth it? Justice Black's words may return, like
the sound of an unheeded tocsin, to haunt us: "Another such victory and I
am undone."
With Trump in the White House, that warning is even truer
today. A weakened First Amendment in today’s climate would be marshaled against
Trump’s opponents, even as it robbed them of their ability to fight back. It
would be a gift to white supremacists, not a blow against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment