America, land of free speech — sometimes

JOHN STOSSEL

Published Nov 25, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Nov 24, 2011)

We’re proud that America is the land of free speech. That right is recognized in the First Amendment, and we usually take it seriously. It wasn’t always the case.

In John Adams’ administration, the Sedition Act made it a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, “to write, print, utter or publish ... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government ... or to excite against (it) the hatred of the people ...”

Thankfully, Thomas Jefferson and other libertarians got rid of that law.

Under Woodrow Wilson, Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for calling for draft resistance during World War I. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court, led by that alleged civil libertarian Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Today, fortunately, no one goes to jail for criticizing the draft, or the U.S. government’s wars.

So we’ve made progress — in some areas. But in others, we’ve regressed.

I once interviewed someone who said words are like bullets because words can wound; this justified some censorship in his eyes.

Ugly words in a workplace can indeed make it hard for someone to succeed at work, and racism in school can make it hard to learn. But I say words are words and bullets are bullets.

Speech is special. We should counter hateful speech with more words — not government force.

I discussed this issue with lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who has devoted his career to defending speech. These days, he sees new threats.

“The old threats we managed to beat mostly in court and also in the court of public opinion,” Silverglate said. “So the censors have simply come up with new terms for speech they don’t like. They call it ‘harassment’ or ... ‘bullying.’”

The “harassment” attack on speech came from feminists who said sex talk in the workplace must be forbidden because certain statements harass women.

“They tried to restrict speech on the theory that harassment may make it impossible for somebody in a historically disadvantaged group to get their work done, to study and get an education.”

I pointed out that sexist speech might in fact do that — if you have a bunch of guys making cracks constantly about women.

“You’ve got a right to respond with horrible speech if you are attacked with horrible speech. As long as that’s a two-way street, the First Amendment has worked.”

Silverglate was once hired by faculty members at the University of Wisconsin who objected to a speech code intended to protect minorities, women and gays from offensive expression.

“I didn’t actually win that battle. You know who won it? A gay student got up and said, ‘If you’re looking to have a speech code to protect me, don’t do it, because I actually like knowing who hates me. It’s useful. It tells me when I should watch my back.’”

Silverglate started a group to protect speech on college campuses, FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His co-founder was Alan Charles Kors, with whom he wrote “The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on American Campuses.”

FIRE lawyers defended students at Northern Arizona University who wanted to hand out small American flags to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11. They planned to distribute the flags outdoors, but it rained. So they went inside the student union, where four different university officials told them to stop.

The students refused, and two were charged with violating the student code. FIRE helped the students get media coverage that pointed out that the First Amendment protects students at public institutions. The school dropped its case against the students.

Several colleges used to have rules requiring that all student protest be held in a small, out-of-the-way “free speech zone” on campus. FIRE mocked these as “censorship zones,” and colleges have gotten rid of most of these restrictive rules.

FIRE often strikes blows for free speech simply by bringing unfavorable publicity to a heavy-handed school. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”

To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.

Michael Stevens said:

I love free speech and I am a big supporter of using it. The thing with free speech though, it is a bit like driving a car, almost everyone can do it; however, some are a whole lot better at it than others. Though most honestly believe that they are the most competent and best �drivers� on the road, and I believe you should be allowed to exercise your right to free speech whenever it is appropriate no matter how bad you may "drive". I also believe that you have the right to �honk your horn� and squeal at other speech users who may not be �driving� all that safely. I know of at least one poster in these forums who feels it is perfectly OK to call 15-year-old girls �tramps� amongst other things. I know it is his right to make such claims, but I also feel I have the right to �honk� my horn and let him know how the using of his �right� makes me think of and feel about his character. Though all rights are left intact, maybe some hard feelings aroused but hopefully no permanent damage.I feel bullying though, is another animal altogether, Yes it can be wrapped intricately in free speech and if done well it can be insidious and hard to discern from the most inane of statements. Bullying can be very damaging to anyone at any age; however, members of our society from the ages of lets say, nine through twenty nine can be particularly vulnerable, already do to naturally occurring forces within their own bodies. Maybe instead of just putting the focus on punishing the reckless �drivers� we should train the bullied to be more competent and aggressive �drivers� themselves; however, that would probably only mean just more dangerous roads for everyone. I do not pretend to know the answer to this one, though I do believe any bully�s who have to hide behind their right to free speech, are not just only bully�s they are also cowards.
(Report Abuse)

Jeff Swett said:

The problem with harassment and anti-bully laws is that they can over reach and like the zero-tolerance laws (which have given cover for some pretty extreme and stupid actions) they allow the alleged victim to determine if something is harassment or bullying even when the supposed harasser/bully may not be intent on any such action. I am not saying that real harassment or bulling should be tolerated, it should not, however intent is also something that needs to be considered. All too often the "victim" intends to find some reason to be offended.
(Report Abuse)

Bob Lake said:

Why must we be subject to such dribble on a Thanksgiving weekend?By the way, except for the 3rd Amendment, the remainder of the Bill of Rights has been forgotten by our courts.
(Report Abuse)

Robert Rivett said:

Bob Lake, if you hadn't responded, there would have been no dribble.
(Report Abuse)

Spike said:

The problem with these laws is not just that they put the government in the business of passing judgment on the contents of utterances, in violation of the First Amendment, but that they put it in the business of enforcing unmeasurable goals such as social decency and non-threatening workplaces, and further let a person's expression of feelings be the standard by which obligatory rules of conduct are imposed on others--another transfer of power from the achiever to the excuse-maker.Let me return to a recent theme and note that the victims that this new government push hopes to protect, students of color and students who think they are homosexual (as opposed to, say, ridicule of over-achievers), occurs because the former groups have loud advocates at the State House. It is, at its heart, a political game of picking specific winners and losers.Michael Stevens, how did we know that your concept of the First Amendment centers around your "right" to act out behind the wheel? And Bob Lake, I too feel it is an affront that you are subjected to opposing opinions on any day; but fortunately, the proper course of action for you is obvious.
(Report Abuse)

Len Cannon said:

Free speech should be just that. Free, as in freedom. Today however, it seems protected speech is in the eye, or more appropriately, the ear of the beholder. Everyone is a victim today. Thick skin is not considered to be an honorable trait except in some non-protected groups. Just look at TV ads. I challenge people to find any ads where the complete, clueless imbecile in the ad is not a middle aged white guy. Why is that? We all know why. That particular group is more thick skinned and can recognize PC ads for what they are, imbecilic. We should allow all speech unless it specifically incites bodily harm to innocent people through some riotous behavior. Out side of that, the PC protected speech movement puts us on a path that will eventually limit far more than just freedom of speech.
(Report Abuse)

Michael Stevens said:

Even though I am pretty sure that you got it Spike. I�ll try to put it a little slower just for you. Almost anyone can drive, how well they drive, or how they handle the rather large responsibility that goes along with driving is subjective to the individual. Just because everyone has a right to free speech, this does not mean that everyone considers the weight of the responsibility involved in exercising that right.
(Report Abuse)

Michael Layon said:

Mr. Stossel began his article with mention of the alien and sedition act of 1798. Though this is a perfect example of a heinous violation of the first amendment, Mr. Stossel made no mention of very recent attempts to repeat those very heinous acts. It was only last year, that now supreme court justice Kagan spewed hatred for the first amendment, condoning limiting it anytime speech is deemed offensive to the government or is in particular directed against the government. One would think this filthy sophist nominated by the sophist currently occupying 1600 PA Ave would have been run out of town for proposing violating the very constitution she would interpret as a Supreme Court justice. No such thing happened, in fact our very own Sen. Shaheen went to bat for Kagan completely disregarding Kagan�s proposal to reinstate the alien and sedition acts. Do not be so fast to make this about democrats for our very own libtarded Sen. Gregg (now former) joined Shaheen in confirming Kagan. Who do these senators REALLY represent? It surely is not the people who elect them when the vote to suppress the natural rights of these very people. They become sophists the moment they argue it is for the good of the people. Towards the end of the article Mr. Stossel mentions free speech zones, which have been used right here in New Hampshire within the six weeks. At the Republican debate at Dartmouth College, the college conspired with the town to create free speech zone on town property. My alma matter dares call itself �liberal� yet colludes at every request with the state and local police. They are about as liberal today as George Orwell. Bob Lake, you are correct in observing that with the exception of the third, every amendment in the bill of rights has been violated. Why do YOU support those who violate them Mr. Lake? By providing your endorsement of such individuals, YOU are supporting such violation of these rights of your family, friends and neighbors.
(Report Abuse)

Daniel Waterhouse said:

This article started out strong and I had some hope it was going to bring up a serious topic. Instead it veered off into the old thread worn conservative bugaboos which while sometimes annoying are nothing compared to the real free speech threats going on in this country.How much more interesting this piece could have been if it concentrated on free speech "zones", or the several laws in congress aimed at anonymous speech on the internet, or Homeland Security's desire to take down entire web sites on its own authority, or - in a country where the Supreme Court defines money as speech - you can find yourself in prison on "material support" charges for giving to charity that is on some secret DHS list.
(Report Abuse)

Ross Mansfield said:

You picked the wrong forum to discuss free speech Mr. Stossel when words on here are constantly blocked, even when theyre not used in a derogatory way towards anyone.Now that we have hate speech laws the sky is the limit for anyone who wants to control speech by simply claiming their feelings were hurt. Lucky for us we have new courageous leaders today who of course are much smarter than the founding fathers protecting our freedoms and a society that as one poster mentioned can no longer handle the neighborhood bully on its own and needed government to create a law to do what generation after generation of others took care of on their own. Even hurtful words have their place in society and no place more than towards an ever intrusive and controlling government on the freedoms of the people to express themselves. Free speech today means the so called artist can insult Christians with vile art and the athiest can remove their free speech and expression from society but the Christians freedoms are limited and we wont see the ACLU standing up for them.
(Report Abuse)

Bob Lake said:

Michael - are you able to educate me on whom should be my choice in order to protect the Bill of Rights. Certainly not republican or democrat, right? Have you noticed the police forces nowadays who "protect" public and private property? Would appreciate your comment.
(Report Abuse)

Tom Sheffield said:

Funny how Frank Zappa testified before Congress for free speech and against cencorship because of a battle against free speech being waged by Al Gore's wife Tipper and a gaggle of conservatives. That must have been the last time there was true bi-partisanship in this country and it was in order to fight the Constitution. The enemies of freedom aren't overseas.
(Report Abuse)

Spike said:

Ross Mansfield, the First Amendment protects you from government retaliation based on the contents of your utterances. It does not permit you to swear in my house nor prohibit the Union-Leader from blotting out obscenities when people file here.Bob Lake: Your best choice to protect the Bill of Rights is the Libertarian Party. There's just one little problem.Tom Sheffield: Yes; many enemies of freedom aren't overseas (though some are), and "politics makes strange bedfellows," if you can stand the mention of Tipper as a bedfellow.
(Report Abuse)

Stephen Boyington said:

Len Cannon: those things on TV that are populated by dumb white male imbeciles aren't commercials... they are sitcoms. They are the most popular sitcoms on television.... particularly with white males. See, some people have a sense of humor. Others, not so much. I don't feel like a victim when people make fun of people like me. Why do you?
(Report Abuse)

James Goodgame said:

@Stephen and LenEverytime I ask for the remote, my wife says that is a true and accurate portrayal. I can either sue for divorce or pretend to forget and throw her underwear in the laundry with my jeans. Two can play that game.
(Report Abuse)

Len Cannon said:

Stephen: I didn't mention sitcoms in my comment. I referred to the commercials. But now that you bring it up, this sewer called sitcoms that you correctly point out are so popular, is another example of social engineering by our friends in Hollywood. The shows are not any better than the obnoxious commercials and are often worse judging from the trailers I see. You couldn't pay me to watch them. Also, I don't consider myself a victim in the least nor have I written that. I merely pointed out that some groups are unprotected from constant ridicule. If you have eyes and ears, it's hard not to notice that. However if you, being a member of the most maligned group in media, enjoy being the buffoon in these shows because the shows are so popular, so be it.James: Your analogy with the remote control and the laundry confuses me.
(Report Abuse)

Ross Mansfield said:

Spike I did not claim the union leader does not have the right to control posts on its own blog. I simply stated because the UL chooses to do so it is not protecting freedom of speech and is most likely making censorship more acceptable in society. You can disagree of course but I want to know exactly what the person in front of me is really thinking. I cant even write k i l l the bill because the software considers it a threat or God only knows what because software only knows what some person told it to do. Its bad enough those with bad intentions try very hard not to slip up when posting or speaking to the public and they don�t need any help deceiving the public as to what their intentions really are. Imagine the language being spoken as the founding fathers were debating the constitution and bill of rights as if such debates should not get heated and full of all sorts of rhetoric. Again it is their site and they can do as they wish and I am free to stay or leave. I am also free to like or hate the software.
(Report Abuse)

James Goodgame said:

@ Ross Even more absurd to software that can't distiguish noun from verb, is the bigot UL hires to promote their left wing agenda by way of an online sock-puppet. It's more than limiting posts that affect a readers preception of concensus, presenting ideas in bad faith ( the role of a shill) also serve to keep this forum uninformed. @LenYes Len, I was unclear in my silly late night remark. I was merely making the statement that my wife and I argue over the remote control when such subject matter as you discuss comes on the television. She always wins, and rather then to be subjected to the indoctrination of white male bafoonism, something she pretends to be blind to, I find something else to busy myself like doing the laundry. If she really aggravates me, I call the company secretary and pretend to get "caught-up" on what's been going on, my wife is convinced that the woman flirts with me.
(Report Abuse)

Harriet Cady said:

To often people attack the person rather than the statement's which is the right of each individual in a Free society. I don't expect all to agree with me and even enjoy good debate but absolutely hate when I am attacked for a belief or statement of our founding fathers without any backup as to why its wrong.
(Report Abuse)

Michael Layon said:

Mr Lake, I agree wholeheartedly with Spike in oberserving Libertarians are staunch supporters of the constitution AND individual rights. There is one candidate running for president who fits this bill-Ron Paul. Though I am big supporter of his and had a meet and greet with him where over 200 people showed up despite a torrential downpour which was totally ignored by the UL-I realize he is but one facet of restoring our personal freedoms as laid out in crystal clear terms in the constitution. I am confident, based on his past speeches, books, ther publications, bills sponsored and co-sponsored, sources of money for his campaigns over the years and constantly being the lighthouse for liberty (standing up to republicand and democrats alike) he will serve well as our next president. He is not going to fix all of the damages doen to our constitution by himself, nor will he try as many powers are delegated to a specific branch of government. Look at the fools, Perry, Cain and Gingrinch proposing new tax structure! Taxes are levied by congress-who in congress today is willing to sponsor a bill to rewrite our corrupt tax code? Look at the fool Obama, he took it upon himself to undermine the second amendment and when caught it has barely caused a ripple in congress. Who best can defend the constitution? Every individual who cares about it. That includes you and I-we need not agree on all points, and I know that is the reality of the situation. However if we both resolve to hold our elected representatives accountable for their oath to the constitution-including all ten amendments in the bill of rights-their behavior WILL change. You and I do not have to agree to stand up for the rights of the other-that is how we unite and how we retain our own personal beliefs. I know that my congressman, Guinta and immediate predecessor Shea-Porter know me well by name-they ought to know a LOT more constitutionally minded individuals by name-Pick up the phone and call your congressman or senators, call or email your state reps and state senator. Encourage your friends, family and neighbors to read the constitution-it outlines their rights and both establishes and limits the federal government in order to secure those rights. When it comes to voting-get out and ask candidates questions important to you-not what has been asked f them a thousand times already by the media or people wh like to parrot talking points of other candidates or the media-dig into their voting record and where they get campaign investments from. Suggest your own ideas for restoring liberty to your congressman and state reps (try too with senators-though I have yet to find one in NH who supports individuals and the constitution to which they take an oath over their own wallet and big business campaign donors) One recent example involving free speech comes to mind: The Pittsburgh G20 meeting. Thousands of protestors were rallying against capitalism, a message I find disgusting and entirely misinformed as that which they called capitalism is really fascism. These protestors were violent, nor were they undertaking behavior unbecoming of ladies and gentleman, but they were emphatic to be heard. The US and the city of Pittsburgh responded with brutal force, sound cannons (LRADS) tackled women on bikes not even part of the protests, chased students into a stairwell and pepper sprayed them and the list goes on. I was mad as he11 that the US government would respond in such a manner. I do not agree with the protestors, though myself find the G20 a disgusting franchise and support unwaiveringly EVERY person's right to free speech in all 50 states. Sadly, my congresswoman at the time Carol Shea-Porter's staff thanked me for my call and letters and did nothing. I d wonder thoughw hat would hapen if she had received a thousand calls, or herself possesed an ounce of allegience to the constitution-no one said it is going to be an easy battle to restore our constitution, but it is absolutely worth doing everything in our powers to make it so
(Report Abuse)

Bob Lake said:

Michael, thanks for your response. The problem is that Wall Street will not support Ron Paul and without its support, nobody becomes President in this country. Ron Paul is polling in the top three on every poll yet gets no attention from the media. Why do you think that is? It's obvious - the media owners don't want Ron Paul. No publicity - no votes. It's that simple. Wall Street will support both Obama and Romney because they are the same in their eyes. Both YES men. And even if Ron Paul became President, one still has to deal with 535 representatives who are also paid for by Wall Street. Your solution is fine, just improbable or maybe even impossible. But, there is nothing wrong with a dream. I, too, become angry when I see police abuse demonstrators no matter what they are for or against. But, that is what we have created - a police state - to protect the haves and the powerful. If France had created a Homeland Security, there would not have been a French Revolution.
(Report Abuse)

James Goodgame said:

Your not entirely correct Mr. Lake, media publicity no longer controls the message and with those still dependent on national media for information, many don't vote. In my seniors group there is not one who hasn't heard that Ron Paul plans no change in Social Security or Medicare. Most have never owned any more of a computer than a calculator. Check-out the students at UNC and see where their vote is going, and yes, they vote. They understand that they have the most to loose if this nations continues on the path it is on now. National media will never saddle a free people with more wars, endless spending, and the idea that we must be seached on every street corner. The citizens of America have been exploited by patriotism, terrorism, and insiderism to the point where Ron Paul, and the many Ron Pauls to come that will be elected to congress from across this nation will return this nation to a soverign and free people once again.
(Report Abuse)

Bob Lake said:

James, sadly, you are in denial. Good arguments, but poor conclusions.
(Report Abuse)

John Fincher said:

WANT TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY?It is time that we think of ways to save America As We Want It! The News Media is quick to report everything (right or wrong) that will sell their viewers or subscribers on continuing to use their service... Politicians can not wait to point out the short comings of their opponents and members in their opponents political party. Main Stream Americans can not figure out why our country should be in such an economic slump. What if we make Iraq pay us back for the war we conducted there to liberate their country? Why should we not require Iraq to pay us for our Billions on Billions of dollars that the USA spent there? Would that help save Social Security? After all, we all know that Iraq will make lots of money on the oil they are going to sell. Just require Iraq to pay a percentage of their oil revenues each year to the USA til war paid for. Help me spread the word to require Iraq to pay USA back for the War. Please Forward a copy of this letter to at least 10 of your friends. We need to make Congress and the President hear us! Thank You, John FincherCanton, GA
(Report Abuse)

Home » Opinion » Columns

America, land of free speech — sometimes

Comments

Post a comment