By Charles C. W. Cooke
Saturday, August 19, 2017
In the New York
Times, UCLA’s K-Sue Park proposes that “the A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free
Speech”:
After the A.C.L.U. was excoriated
for its stance, it responded that “preventing the government from controlling
speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” Of course that’s
true. The hope is that by successfully defending hate groups, its legal
victories will fortify free-speech rights across the board: A rising tide lifts
all boats, as it goes.
While admirable in theory, this
approach implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some
point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real
democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression.
I volunteered with the A.C.L.U. as
a law student in 2011, and I respect much of its work. But it should rethink
how it understands free speech. By insisting on a narrow reading of the First
Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes.
More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind
logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.
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.
Don’t bore me with your objections. Park is a smart
woman, and she knows what “hate” is. We all do. Hate is hate. It is not speech; it’s hate. Sometimes hate is violence, even
when no action is attached. How do I know, you might ask? I know because hate
is, by definition, hateful, and that means it’s not speech. And why isn’t it
speech? Because it’s hate, and hate isn’t speech. This is basic common sense,
rejected only by haters.
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. As Park makes clear, it was the ACLU’s
insidious monomania that “led the organization to successfully sue the city of
Charlottesville, Va.,” which, had it been left to its own devices, would likely
have made the right call.
That this has to be said in 2017 is truly remarkable. The
United States did not fight two global conflicts and a bloody civil war to
permit the Bill of Rights to flourish. Nor did countless Americans expend their
time, blood, and energy to allow unpopular people to speak without the vigorous
superintendence of whoever temporarily commands the public’s support. On the
contrary: Those battles were fought for one reason, and one reason only: To
permit Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump to shape our society as they in their
eternal prudence see fit. If that dream is finally to be realized, the ACLU
must dismount its high horse and get the hell out of the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment