The protests and violence in Charlottesville last weekend have reignited the debate about free speech and its possible limits. If this were a couple of years ago I would side with the free speech hardliners who constantly trot out the same “I don’t like what you have to say but I’ll defend your right to say it” quote. Over time, however, as altercations have continued, the hardliner arguments have, in my opinion, become more and more flimsy. A few articles (and a couple of responses to one of them) led me to the conclusion that free speech hardliners may be doing damage to free speech rather than helping it.
First off is a couple of responses to
The Intercept’s article defending the ACLU. A commenter by the name of Milton Wiltmellow discussed in several comments how constantly defending free speech in theory, as part of a hardline stance, has harmed free speech in practice. He brings up the fact that the ACLU supports Citizens United, which has led to a massive influx of corporate cheddar into politics which drowns out other voices. The
ACLU’s statement on Citizens United offers an explanation that they support a “comprehensive and meaningful public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate” alongside more disclosure rules and reasonable limits on campaign contributions. What the ACLU ignores is that those reforms, the public financing, disclosure rules, and limits, will likely never exist because of the cheddar being poured into politics via the Citizens United decision that they defend. Another commenter, Taylor Howard, brings up how the constant providing of platforms for the rhetoric that white nationalists in Charlottesville and elsewhere use has a normalizing and fomenting effect that can lead to hate crimes based upon said normalization.
Second is a pair of articles from Quartz. The
first article discusses how white nationalists and Neo-Nazis are using MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT AND DISREGARD ALL CONSEQUENCES TO WHAT I SAY and peacable assembly to create an environment of fear that damages the ability for other people to exercise their own speech rights. The
second article discusses the problems with free-speech absolutism, and how defending peoples’ rights to free speech without a specific commitment to anti-bigotry and anti-racism is meaningless. One thing the article also points out is that the ACLU of Virginia came to the defense of Unite the Right (the organization seeking to hold the rally) in a lawsuit involving the city of Charlottesville and prevented the location of the protest from being moved from the center of town. The City of Charlottesville wanted the location moved away from the center of town, Emancipation Park, because of safety concerns. Turns out that the city was right.
In general, this whole ordeal has left me exhausted with people who argue for free speech in a dogmatic and absolutist fashion as well as the ACLU, which is full of said people to the point where they ignore basic and justifiable safety concerns in order to uphold a fantasy purist version of the First Amendment.