In October, 2017 white supremacist Richard Spencer gave an uninvited speech in my adopted state of Florida on the campus of the University of Florida. As happened at the Charlottesville, Virginia event where Spencer spoke, white supremacists engaged in violence. While this time shots were fired at those protesting the white supremacists, no one was hurt. Three suspects were arrested and charged with attempted murder. As might be suspected, there have been efforts to keep Spencer from speaking. Spencer and his lawyers, however, have been able to successfully appeal to the First Amendment in their lawsuits. While the lawyers and courts will settle the legal aspects of this matter, there is also the moral aspect of free speech.
As a matter of principled consistency, I always apply Mill’s principle of harm when it comes to rights and liberty. The basic idea is that the collective has no right to restrict the liberty of an individual expect when the actions of the individual would cause harm to others. Sorting out all the details of any specific application can be challenging, but the basic idea is simple enough and is justified by Mill’s moral theory of utilitarianism. This is, of course, the view that the morality of an action depends on the value it creates for the morally relevant beings. Roughly put, an action is good when it creates more positive value for negative value (for those that matter morally).
As recent white supremacist rallies have shown, allowing white supremacists to express their views in public tends to create considerable harm. In the case of Charlottesville, a person was killed and others badly injured when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd. As noted above, Spencer speaking in Florida lead to three white supremacists being arrested for attempted murder. While I normally disagree with Florida Governor Rick Scott, he was right to declare a state of emergency in Florida and prepare for violence. The University of Florida also decided to step up its security, spending $600,000 of public money. Because allowing such events to take place has resulted in death, injury and attempted murder, the principle of harm would seem to justify denying white supremacists the right to engage in public speaking. The fact that dealing with likely violence costs large sums of public money also supports this conclusion: while speech should be free, those whose speech costs the public such large sums should not be permitted to engage in the sort of events that require such security expenditures.
It can be objected that restricting white supremacists would be unfair. After all, other controversial speakers have drawn violent elements. To be consistent, the principle would need to be applied consistently: if a speaker is likely to draw followers/supporters that engage in violence, then the speaker would need to provide funding for adequate security to protect the community. If they cannot ensure the safety of others, then the right to not be hurt or killed (the right to life) of the people likely to be affected trumps the speaker’s right to free speech. The use of public money also brings in property rights, which can also trump free speech rights.
This, of course, leads to an obvious concern: speakers can draw “followers/supporters” that they do not want nor endorse. For example, a conservative speaker might attract white supremacists who support him, but he does not want their support or presence. On the left, a speaker might attract violent anarchist “supporters” who engage in violence and vandalism. It would be unfair to restrict freedom of speech because a person happens to have bad “supporters.” The challenge is to sort out cases in which a person is drawing “supporters” they do not want and cases in which they are pulling true supporters. In some cases, this will be rather difficult, while in others it will be easy. For example, Spencer’s remarks indicate the sort of people he wants as supporters and these are the sort of people who have engaged in violence.
It must be noted that restricting speakers because they might offend members of the audience or make them uncomfortable would be unjustified. While people do not like being offended or upset, these are not strong enough harms to a person to warrant restricting a basic right such as free expression. That said, a speaker who engages in threats can cross over into real harm by making people legitimately fear that they are in danger. While people like Spencer speak of “peaceful ethnic cleansing”, white supremacy is, by its very nature, a threat to everyone who is not perceived by the supremacists as white. As such, it is reasonable to assume, until proven otherwise, that any white supremacist speaker’s speech on the matter is a threat and thus a harm that warrants restriction. To use an analogy, if a person wants to speak in favor of molesting children or committing murder, it is reasonable to regard them as a threat and to not allow them to express such views.
While the burden of proof rests on the white supremacist, they could make the case that their views are not a threat of harm against others. If this case can be made, then they should be free to express their views. Naturally, the same principle should apply consistently. For example, if a speaker wanted to speak for black supremacy and urge the “peaceful” cleansing of whites, then the same principle would apply. But, supremacy of any stripe seems to be a threat of violence against everyone else.
“In October, 2017 white supremacist Richard Spencer gave an uninvited speech … “
My first question is, “In what way was this uninvited?” The speech was preceded by an increase in police presence, it took place at the Philips Center, a public venue with a stage. I don’t know of a world where anyone can demand to have a venue at a university, show up uninvited, and deliver a speech. If what you say is true, then Spencer is guilty of trespassing.
Not too long ago, I made a suggestion to the president of the university where I work, proposing a particular speaker for an upcoming commencement ceremony. He was very congenial, listened to my informal “pitch”, and then said, “I don’t think that his views align with the message we want to deliver at commencement”. End of conversation. (The proposed speaker had nothing at all to do with politics, BTW).
Was he “repressing” free speech? I don’t think so. He was thinking of the value of the lesson being delivered relative to the situation and making a judgement call.
The message of a white supremacist might be a different story, but one would hope (I did not say “expect”) that especially at a college campus, intelligent people should be open to all ideas, no matter how heinous, and learn to debate in-kind – with ideas, with logic, with historical precedent. Sadly, those hopes are mostly pipe-dreams.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-wisconsin-students-protested-the-schools-abraham-lincoln-statue-with-a-die-in/article/2638013
So I guess, using your example of John Stuart Mill, the question is “Where do we draw the line?” I personally place the blame on the protesters, in both this case and in Charlottesville. They reacted to ideas with violence, which has very little chance of reaching a positive outcome.
I strongly disagree with the implication that any blame lies with people exercising their right to free speech, no matter how much I might hate what they say.
The event could have been protested far more effectively if people had just not shown up for the speech. Or, if there was a concurrent speech at another venue, espousing a different point of view. Or, better yet, (it is a University, after all), if there had been another speech at a different time, so that the University could make a point about critical thinking and free speech.
If we begin to make judgement calls about whether or not to repress or disallow speech based on the reaction of an angry mob, then we are in serious trouble. I would be far, far more wary of some kind of law, sponsored by the government, to this end than I would be about anyone saying anything in a public venue.
And those who would incite violence by their actions should be arrested.
Just one more thought – there is recent history in this country about violence erupting during protests at abortion clinics. Abortion, like free speech, is a federally protected right (albeit not a constitutional one). Would you apply the same reasoning in this situation? The act of performing abortions incites violence in some people; this presents a clear danger to others – should we take steps to curtail abortions, or deal with the violent protesters? Or does it just have to do with whether or not “we” (“We The People”) agree with the actions, the speech, or the protests more?
No one associated with the university (faculty, student or staff) asked him to come to campus. Since the school is a public university and has explicit rules about allowing free speech, anyone can go to campus and speak. Ohio State had a similar setup when I was a student there-people would go to the green areas and give speeches to anyone who would listen, which was usually pretty cool and fun. In general, I think this approach is a good one-live public forums can be a good way to encounter new views.
Interesting. Well, I would say that based on policy and law, there was an implicit “invitation” to Spencer. Even though no one at the university sponsored him specifically, it’s kind of a mis-characterization to say that he was an “uninvited speaker”. Without looking it up or asking the question, the implication is that he forced his way on to campus against everyone’s wishes.
I think it’s really a shame that UF had to spend a half-million dollars for security to protect (as you describe it), a “live public forum intended to encounter new views” against the actions of a mob.
On the UF web site page dedicated to Spencer’s visit, the Supreme Court decision, as written by Justice Harry Blackmun, was cited:
“[s]peech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”
In looking at the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK_999sTgU, it looked as though many of the students had the right idea – the hall was far from full. Sadly, those in attendance couldn’t stop chanting “F-you- Spencer!” Hardly a forum for new views. Pretty shameful for people associated with an institute for higher learning.
What is your thought about selectivity in enforcing a ban based on content? If violence and danger are the determining factors, should it be applied uniformly, so that we can bar both White Supremacists and abortion clinics if they both incite violence? What if NFL fans rose up in protest against those who kneel for the National Anthem? Should they then be disallowed from kneeling? (You already know my views on the topic – that they are encroaching on the rights of those who have paid for the venue, and ought to take their right to free speech elswhere – at a venue they pay for themselves, or perhaps even UF).
However you slice it, it’s a slippery slope.
Answers to many questions can be easily found with a little googling, here:
https://freespeech.ufl.edu/qa-for-1019-event/
In much of the hullabaloo over this, there was not much interest in the SCOTUS decision referenced at the above link, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_County_v._Nationalist_Movement
Does anyone know what Richard Spencer actually believes? Does he advocate violence?
Also, I can’t believe that Mike has thrown in the towel on the first amendment.
What? Ole HandsUpDontShootIsNotALie Mike? The FA means only what some academics can redefine the words for them to say it means. Speech is violence. Or in this case, ideas are violence. It’s like Uncle Tom’s Cabin…or something.
Integrity, TJ. It all comes back to integrity. Without that, philosophy is absolutely meaningless.
So many paths to chase here. I will briefly touch on:
1. I don’t know much about Spencer, but he clearly played rope-a-dope with all and sundry, and swept the board, so I suppose we ought to congratulate him on a total victory. I can’t see how anyone responsible could have done better though, which might merit some thought about the best handling of the same situation in future. The protestors could have refrained from feeding him, but that would be like expecting the scorpion to refrain from stinging the frog carrying him across the river.
2. While we use the convention frequently in casual conversation, it is always an error to refer to a whole person by one of his or her attributes, and can lead us to erroneous thinking.
3. The main point, however, is the question of how we are to judge whether and when speech is a legitimate threat. And who is to be the judge. In history, we can find situations where a speaker against slavery might have been seen as a legitimate threat. Or a speaker for the reality of evolution, or for the earth going round the sun. All of these could reasonably, by the assumptions of the time, have been construed as speech that could cause social upheaval leading to violence, and thus legitimate threats.
Imagine someone speaking in favour of the theft of private property of the innocent, with penalties of violence and imprisonment for those who fight to preserve what’s theirs, or even those who try to hide it. That’s called taxation, and it is a real threat that does real harm to many people right now. Should we prohibit speech in favour of taxes? (Might not be a bad idea….)
The state needs to limit its interference with speech to cases where the threat is immediate and the target is specific. Anything at all can be considered a threat at a long enough reach.
Hey guys, let me know if Mike ever gets around to his long overdue piece on black supremacy…on college campuses, no less…members of the faculty, of course…
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/38304/
You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…or am I?