There are limits on freedom of speech. For example, it cannot be used to incite a riot or to advance a specific unconditional threat against another.
But words can be interpreted differently. And some people have different ideas and use different reasoning.
As far as anyone getting “on a high horse about freedom of speech” , such freedoms make up the foundation of our country.
@MWolf Well, let’s see. I used to be against gay marriage while having nothing against gays per se. Following your logic, any time I stated my views it should have been perceived as a personal threat by some LGBT person. Credible personal threats are something that can end in police being called, expulsion from college, being fired from a job etc. Do you want to go there or are you just employing a rhetorical device?
As it actually was, I met a few LGBTQ and straight people who eventually made me change my views by using reasoned arguments.
Let’s look at the issue from another side. There is a lot of people on college campuses who denounce “Zionists” and support Palestinian intifada. They are supporting actual targeting of peaceful Israeli citizens, including my friends and relatives. Should we look at these views as personal threats and disallow them on campuses?
I’m not trying to argue any of these specific issues, and this thread is already in danger of being closed anyway. However, I think the kind of reasoning you employ here is extremely dangerous because it can basically be used to justify pretty much anything, and is actively being used by the same “racists” you are talking about. We are rapidly getting to the point where it’s not going to be safe to express your even relatively moderate views unless you know your listeners agree completely. I happened to grow up in the Soviet Union. I know many fellow immigrants who are suspicious of anything that even remotely smacks of socialism, and I’m usually the first to laugh and say that America is a very different place, reasonable regulations are not the same as a state takeover, and asking people not to offend each other is not the same as prohibiting any dissenting speech. But there are lines I’d rather not see this country cross.
The U.S. Bill of Rights exists to protect minority rights. In the case of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of unpopular speech. The majority, which may be defined as ”privileged,” does not need protection because they are in the majority. Their speech is popular and accepted. What may be the majority opinion on campus may not have that same controlling powerful position off campus. Giving minority opinions the same rights and privileges as the majority is what makes America so so special.
If you ever heard some of the things judges have said to me during a hearing, you would think that I would support stricter limits on freedom of speech.
But I do not.
And one of the reasons that I do not is because I appreciate honesty. How can one reason with another unless they truly know the other’s point of view ?
@MWolf, Your comment, while clearly well-meaning, is unfair, for we are not necessarily white, straight, Christian males. Let me just make one short point. Your post is premised on the central thought of why “some racist homophobe should be allowed to make a speech about how laws against gay people or PoC should be allowed, since “there is no such thing as LGBTQ, and PoC are oppressing the White majority”.”
That was not the (stated) intended subject of his speech. If it was, I suspect that all or nearly all of the posters in this thread would agree that the school had every right to bar or stop it. If, in the middle of the speech, he switches subjects, then you put an end to it.
Maybe this was a set-up from the beginning, intended to arouse this exact response from Middlebury to bad press–who knows? But I must wonder, to return to my earlier point: Should we bar the work of artists, musicians, novelists, and actors because they had distasteful views? If we can separate their personal viewpoints from their creative works, then we should be able to separate this speaker’s personal beliefs from the content of his talk–yes?
Here is an article from “Inside Higher Education” on how Colgate University is addressing the issue of free speech on their campus. Middlebury please take note:
@yucca10 I understand your concerns, and that the definition of threat and harm need to be narrow. However, I believe that it is justifiable to limit speech which can directly lead to attacks on members of the community. Anti-Israeli speech that is likely to encourage attacks on Israeli Expats or Jews, or, alternatively, anti-Palestinian speech that is likely to encourage attacks of Palestinians or other Muslims should be limited.
BTW, I grew up in Israel, and have served in the IDF in regular and reserves, long enough to hold the rank of first sergeant, and I was a combat soldier for all of those years. I met and married my wife in Israel, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we could trace connections through the Russian immigrant community.
@RayManta You’re right, it was unfair, and I apologize for that. The point I wanted to make is that it is easy to dismiss danger to other people. In this particular case LGBTQ people and minorities were being targeted, so I wanted to present the group which is least affected by the type of policies this guy espouses.
There is a difference between “distasteful”, and “dangerous to others”. Would you find it acceptable for representatives of NAMBLA to be invited to speak at a campus, or people who claimed that rape should be legal? I think that these create danger to people. On the other hand, I find fundamentalist religious beliefs to be distasteful, same for Tea Party politics, NRA, supply side economics, and a thousand other ideologies. However, I’m not advocating from banning them from campus, or anywhere else.
My main criterion for what I think should be banned is: does this ideology/lecture, point of view, etc, point to a specific group of people, defined by religion, ethnicity, skin color, etc, and say that these people are bad for society, and they should be targeted for loss of rights/oppression/violence, etc. That type of speech can very easily lead to violent action against that group. However, even there, the group needs to be vulnerable to that type of activity.
In my opinion, this type of speech can endanger members of the campus community, and a private college is justified in denying use of university facilities and space to speakers who regularly engage in this type of speech.
@AriBenSion: The article which you referenced makes some interesting points including :
“Listening is an essential component of free speech.”
“Never before has the need for listeners been more necessary than it is today.”
@MWolf Yes, in my experience Russian-Jewish immigrants usually have at most three degrees of separation 
You say “loss of rights/oppression/violence”. I see a very big distance between “loss of rights” as in “against gay marriage” or “against abortion” and actual violence. I think it’s an important distinction.
If we’re not talking about actual calls to violence, I feel it’s not the content that should be used to draw the line, but whether these views are espoused by a significant part of the society. If they are, students have the right and in fact the obligation to consider these views in an academic setting. They need to know the country they live in. I wouldn’t exclude even the views that are odious to me, as long as they are widely shared and have some argumentation behind them. I would probably prefer these views to be expressed in a debate format rather than just a talk.
Last but not the least, I appreciate your willingness to listen.
@MWolf. I am a queer Jew who supports the right of anti-semites and homophobes to speak in public. Living in a free society means being able to listen to those whose views don’t align with ones own. It means tolerating genuine difference and plurality, and part of that entails hearing out even those whose views you find abhorrent or bigoted.
@Aspiringacademic I appreciate your opinion, but my ideas of progressiveness do not hold freedom of speech as being paramount among all other principles, so I’m willing ti accept more limitations on that, if it means protecting other principles. Another thing that also informs my views is that I am a parent of a queer Jew, and I am a lot more protective of my child than I ever would be of myself.
I think that a lot of the attitude towards Freedom of Speech has to do with history. Europe, Asia, and South America have had a number of total, or almost total, cases in which democratic countries were overturned by populist leaders who were allowed public venues to express populist views which blamed all the woes of the country on specific groups. I guess that it depends on what you see as the worst case scenario. If your worst case scenario in the 1950s Red Scare, your view is that the consequences of populism are not nearly as bad as those of the loss of free speech. If your worst case scenario is the multiple European countries which moved from democracies to fascism or totalitarian regimes, with horrific loss of life, you see the freedom to scapegoat minority or vulnerable groups as something which is much more dangerous than limits on free speech.
My parents, who grew up in the USA, hold your views. I grew up in Israel, where democracy was established by Europeans and which is full of survivors and refugees from the different countries in which democracy collapsed in face of populism. So where you see McCarthy or Mitchell Palmer, I see Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin.
I don’t believe in a First Amendment right to a private podium. I think many people do so as a matter of philosophical consistency, but, aside from a loose analogy between the punitive powers of a college administration and the police powers of government, the analogy breaks down. The same speaker denied access to Middlebury’s hallowed halls has only to step outside, climb on a soap box, and deliver the exact same address, free of harassment so long as the footpaths and grassy lawns are considered public space. IOW, Middlebury does not operate within a closed universe. But, I will offer the following thoughts from another angle; the idea of speech or conversation, not as a right, but, as a pragmatic choice:
I like the Weil quote above.
I disagree that free speech will lead to totalitarian regimes. I think limitations to free speech, free press, and other democratic rights will do so. As soon as a majority can silence a minority, we are in trouble.
Wow- I am stunned how many people do not believe in freedom of speech.
I fear the collapse of our democracy coming, as democratic norms are being eroded on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. If we do not believe in and live for the principles on which our nation is founded- separation of powers, checks and balances, freedom of speech/press/religion, etc.- then what remains to unite us as a nation? We will fracture into groups by ethnicity, religion, or political viewpoint, and a strongman will arise, and whoever does not belong to that strongman’s group will not be safe (physically).
The fault lines on college campuses are frightening. The silencing of viewpoints on college campuses is frightening. And I am not talking about outside speakers. I am talking about students silencing other students. I am talking about students who have been forbidden by their student government to form a club that meets all the rules for club approval but does not match the prevailing political orthodoxy, and students and professors who live in terror of saying one thing that comes across as politically unorthodox because it can bring their life crashing down (like the Yale professor who said the administration should not be involved in putting restrictions on Halloween costumes).
@TheGreyKing: “I am stunned how many people do not believe in freedom of speech.” I agree.
I view it as a fear of the truth & of a fear of dealing with reality–or of a fear of acknowledging the reality of others if it differs from one’s own.
Fear of the truth in that I believe that there are at least three sides to every story = yours, mine & the truth. Essentially this is recognized as the foundation of trials in our legal system. That is why we have direct examination, cross examination and a finder of fact (judge or jury).
P.S. As I read through this thread, I wonder if the fear of free speech is actually a lack of confidence in the students’ ability to handle opposing viewpoints & distasteful thoughts.
It has been shown that the most formative years that determine the political views of a person are between 14 and 24. I do not want kids growing up in the USA to learn to accept that racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc are acceptable, and take that message with them through their lives. If a person is invited to speak at a college, is given college space, and resources to speak, students will accept that this person is presenting a legitimate point of view.
There is a difference, though, between not inviting a racist to share their views on campus as a hosted speaker, and banning all presentations of their words and speeches. Mein Campf should be available in the Library, and students should have access to Hitler’s speeches. But universities should not allow student groups to invite NeoNazis to give speeches in the student center. There should be safe spaces, but those should be places to which a person can retreat if they need to get away, not placed centrally, so that the rest of the campus needs to tiptoe around them in their daily activities. Places like houses of worship, meditation spaces, or meeting spaces.
What I think has happened is that students have looked at the religious universities such as Liberty University, and are trying to model their own universities in a similar manner. Liberty, BYU, etc, are absolutely full of “Safe Spaces” in which students are not exposed to views and ideas which make them feel uncomfortable. In fact, most of these campuses are made up of such safe spaces. People with opposing views are banned from being invited, and it is even difficult to gain access to recordings. The students simply figure that, since this is legitimate for conservative and religious schools, and it works to ensure that the students are well indoctrinated in their ideology, why should they not run progressive colleges in same manner?
@TheGreyKing All speech that was pro socialism or pro-Communism was banned for decades, and yet that did not end democracy in the USA, so I wouldn’t worry THAT much. I mean see how dissent with the “acceptable” ideologies was treated on campuses into the 1970s. Nothing the students want is close to that.
The “fear” IMO is that as such hate speech has been given a platform, it has become more and more legitimized, excused and overlooked. As it has become normalized, we have already seen spikes in some types of outright violence that had been lower in amount previously and pushes even from within our own government for reductions in rights. Racists, homophobes, misogynists and bigots seem to be becoming more and more emboldened.
It’s also disturbing to me how the right to free speech keeps being twisted and used as a weapon to claim its violation in criticism of others even when that’s not what it really is.
Part of what I fear is the apparently ever widening circle of ideas or issues that are considered no longer open for discussion on college campuses. Examples: is there a gender wage gap? Should all claims of sexual assault be believed? What should the burden of proof be in sexual assault claims and what if any due process rights does the accused have? Is it fair for transgender athletes to compete against biological females in competitive sport? If you deviate from campus orthodoxy on these and many other issues you are a misogynist or rape apologist or transphobe or fascist and your mere appearance on campus will do violence to students even if they don’t have to listen to you. Therefore you must not be given a platform. Demand the speaking invitation be withdrawn. If that doesn’t work blockade the entrance. If that doesn’t work, pull the fire alarm. If that doesn’t work, bring air horns. Don’t let the speaker be heard by anyone. Also, if the speaker is guilty of any wrong thinking on any topic, he/she/they can’t even speak on an unrelated topic.
@mom2twogirls : What is your definition of “free speech” ?
How do you define “hate speech” ?
My understanding is that the US Supreme Court interprets “free speech” via limitations.
For example: No direct, unconditional threats & cannot be designed to incite a riot & if something is deemed obscene / no socially redeeming value whatsoever.
Of course, the difficulty is in defining any limitation on free speech. Some may view any discussion of abortion, for example, as obscene. If one proposes closing our southern border, does that constitute hate speech against Hispanics ?
Also, have you read the proposed speaker’s writings ? Presumably some at Middlebury College have & determined that the speaker should be heard.
There is a very good reason that free speech is the first amendment of the Constitution.
As soon as you give in to free speech restrictions on campus or anywhere else, then you get new demands from the speech police. Unfortunately, there is no compromising with them.
Attacking with slurs like racist, homophobe, etc is a means to control and shutdown anyone opposing the liberal orthodoxy. Just think about the type of person typically slurred as a homophobe and then think about the group that actually persecutes homosexuals but gets a free pass.