This is the second part of my short series on free speech. If you have not read part one, I encourage you to do so before continuing with this one.
Unlike many philosophical debates, experiments testing the bounds of free speech has been tested. I think there are important lessons to be learned from our recent experiences on university campuses, public squares, and streets. Prominent examples of recent clashes on college campuses that raise free-speech concerns are the riots associated with the speaking tours of Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley and of Charles Murray at Middlebury College in Vermont.
When Hate Visits Campus: Milo Yiannopoulos and Charles Murray
Milo Yiannopoulos is a notorious neo-fascist associated with Breitbart and with known connections to the white nationalist group American Renaissance. His public writings frequently attack Islam and women’s rights. He has also called on vigilantes to shoot journalists and promoted pedophilia by arguing that it should be acceptable for men and women to engage in sex with 13-year-olds. The Berkeley College Republicans invited Yiannopoulos to speak at the UC Berkeley campus in February of 2017. Around 1,500 people came to protest, and the demonstration escalated into a full-fledged riot as windows were shattered, Molotov cocktails were thrown, and buildings were vandalized. Ultimately, the talk was canceled out of security concerns.
Charles Murray is a political scientist who wrote “The Bell Curve,” which is now recognized as a book full of junk science that purported to prove that, biologically speaking, white men are intellectually superior. His policy arguments—based on his unscientific and racist findings—include discouraging racial minorities from going to college (they would just fail, anyway) and eliminating social programs. The Southern Poverty Law Center labels Murray, a white nationalist whose ideas are rooted in eugenics. The Middlebury‘s American Enterprise Institute Club invited him to speak at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, in March of 2017. Like the Yiannopoulos event, protests erupted during the Murray presentation and turned violent.
While some campus activists may conclude they were victorious by shutting down or disrupting the talks by the hate-mongers on their campus, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be more fairly concluded that it was Murray and Yiannopoulos who won the day. They became martyrs to free-speech and garnered much public sympathy. Controversial speakers love being banned or protested. It gives them publicity and feeds the victimhood narrative (an aspect of fascism) they promote.
Rise and Fall of the Alt-Right: The Unite the Right Rally
Turning to the infamous “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, we see another example of what can happen when free speech is protected. The rally’s goal was to bring together neo-fascist groups from across the country, many of whom existed before as primarily internet chat groups, out into the open as a show of strength and unity. Such groups had shown a surge in numbers and felt newly empowered with the election of Donald Trump. Ultimately, the organizers hoped to continue the work of de-stigmatizing neo-fascism. The task had already been partly accomplished with the marketing campaign spearheaded by Richard Spencer to rebrand neo-fascism with the new term, alt-right. Other advances made to legitimize neo-fascism were Breitbart media’s success as a publisher of neo-fascist opinions and the elevation of such ideologues as Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller to White House positions.
The resulting rally was a brazen display of hate, bigotry, and violence. Neo-Nazi groups, Klu Klux Klan chapters, “Patriot” militias, and Proud Boys counted as attendees who displayed hateful symbols and shouted vile slogans. The rally culminated with one of the fascist attendees getting in his car and running over a crowd of counter-protesters, tragically killing 32-year old Heather Heyer.
Three years later, the so-called “alt-right” movement led by Richard Spencer is in tatters. Rather than making fascism mainstream, the world saw it for what it is and rejected it. Many of the participants lost their jobs, got banned from major social media, and was thrown off from fundraising sites. Lawsuits arising out of the violence have bankrupted, or at least crippled, many neo-fascist groups and members’ operations.
Marketplace of Ideas
Suppose the government had disallowed the organizers to hold the “Unite the Right” rally. In that case, the truth hiding under the thin veneer of respectability gained by Richard Spencer’s marketing campaign designed to make fascism more mainstream would not have been exposed. The aftermath of the rally vindicates the concept of the marketplace of ideas—which holds that the truth will emerge when ideas freely compete in public discourse.
When talks by Murray and Yiannopoulos were shut down by university activists, free speech lost, and ultimately the provocateurs won. Those examples highlight the necessity of brave spaces and the need for a strategic response that does not include property damage or violence. I believe the adage that the way to fight bad speech is to overwhelm it with good speech is as true today as ever. The Unite the Right Rally demonstrates the value to society of fostering speech, even that speech that is clearly distasteful. Rather than letting the vile stew that is the “alt-right” fester in the darkness, it was better to expose it to the light of day to be sterilized.
I grew up with the idealism behind the quote often attributed to Voltaire, that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I have always applauded the ACLU when they fought for hate groups’ rights to demonstrate as a proof of their commitment to freedom of expression. The civics lesson that free speech is only meaningful when it protects speech we hate was never lost on me. Recent history shows how censorship is an ineffective way to counter potential harm, and worse, does more harm than good.
My final thought on the subject of free speech is that if America were to retreat from its free speech values by expanding on what the government would be allowed to censor, it would be the less fortunate who would lose out—even if the intention was their protection. Citizens desiring to empower speech boards with the ability to decide whose speech is acceptable should be wary. They may assume such committees are sympathetic to them, but what, as is often the case, they are not. Any time we have limitations on speech by the government, the results serve the interests of power. It is better to find a compromise between conflicting values like I see in the brave space/safe space paradigm than to surrender speech rights. The way forward to healing our democracy must be engaged pluralism and dialog.
