Free Speech

For the record and to put my cards on the table, I'm an old-school free-speech advocate. Even speech I don't agree with or that I personally find deplorable. I'm apparently out of step with the times.

Quick digression: Several years ago, a group of neo-Nazis were denied a permit to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which I understand at the time had the largest population of concentration camp survivors in the United States. The ACLU got involved to help obtain the permit for them, not because they were sympathetic to the non-Nazi cause (far from it), but to defend the constitutional right of assembly and free speech, no matter the content. I can't imagine the ACLU taking a similar case today, but that's what I mean by "old-school free speech."   

If not for free speech, how are we ever going to talk about things and reach any sort of mutual understanding, even of an "agree-to-disagree" sort?

If you're a climate-change denier and want to say that you think global warning is a big hoax, fine, that's your right. But don't expect me to agree with you and don't expect your unscientific views to  be accepted as equally valid as those of a researcher who's studied the matter. You may feel that you've "done your own research," i.e., scrolled social media until you found a tweet that reinforced your predisposed opinions, but it's not the same.

I read that a recent YouGov.com poll found that a quarter of Americans under 30 believe the holocaust is "a myth." It wasn't a myth and actually happened based on an abundance of documented historical evidence, but you have a right to express your ignorance and to suffer the indignation and disgust your comments will cause. I'm not saying you can't express your opinion - I'm saying don't expect to not suffer the consequences.

"You have the right to free speech," The Clash sang, "as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."   

But if we deny people the right to express their opinions, as wrong as they may be, we drive that speech underground where it can't be discussed or critiqued or corrected, and it fosters and metastasizes into "urban myth," and then "alternative facts," and finally, to some, as just plain facts.

How can we ever find a lasting solution to peace in the Middle East if we can't discuss the mistreatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government without that discussion being branded "anti-Semitic?" Without demands that a person expressing sympathy for the plight of oppressed Gazans leave the conversation immediately? I have sympathy for the Israeli victims of violence and terrorism, not just on October 6 but for decades now, and that sympathy is not "Islamophobic." Why is sympathy for oppressed Palestinians considered "anti-Semitic?"  

If our reaction to the deplorable events of October 6 is to ignore the plight and the suffering of those non-Hamas Palestinians who were in no way responsible for the events, and who have been suffering under both the tyranny of Hamas rule and Israeli oppression for years now, then we're denying their humanity just as much as the terrorists denied the humanity of their Israeli victims.

If our reaction to Israel's current actions in Gaza requires us to ignore the plight and the suffering of the innocent Israeli victims, and the quite understandable instinct of a country to eliminate the source of the violent aggression against them, then we're denying their humanity just as much as the terrorists did. 

I understand that some 1,200 innocent Israelis died in the October 6 attacks. The last I heard, some 15,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza, including 10,000 women and children, in Israel's counteroffensive. The numbers on both sides are heartbreaking.

Should I be silenced and not allowed to speak if I express sympathy for the Israelis killed on that awful day? Should I be banned from the conversation if I'm concerned about the Palestinians killed in the counter-offensive, and the probability that the cycle of violence shows no sign of abating?

We need free speech and we need to be able to talk about these things.

I bring all this up because this week the presidents of several elite universities have gotten into trouble over Congressional testimony in which they weren't able to strongly denounce calls for anti-Semitic violence and even genocide, saying their reaction would be "context specific" and other legalistic mumbo-jumbo. There are some saying those presidents should either resign or be fired for not agreeing with the prevailing public sentiment, and the universities are losing donor funding as a result of the testimony.

Of course (of course!) any calls for genocide of any persons - Jews, Palestinians, Armenians, indigenous peoples, etc. - are reprehensible. But sadly, some people hold these views, some out of deep-seated hatred and racism, and some in reaction (or over-reaction) to recent events, like the October 6 attacks and the Israeli reaction.

If we're really going to tolerate free speech, we have to acknowledge that some people might harbor some deep-seated animosity for other groups of people, and even think violence towards those others is justifiable under certain conditions. The Israeli government seems to feel that way right now toward the people of Gaza, and there are people sympathetic to the Gazans who apparently feel that way about Israelis. 

To express that anger, even the feeling that violence is justifiable, is free speech but one better be prepared for some intense blowback if that opinion is expressed.  What can't be tolerated under any circumstance, what isn't free speech, is to incite violence, to say "those people must be killed" or "let's go kill those people." That's violence, that's criminal, and that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I'm sorry if I'm not on board with Congress' position that those university presidents should be condemned and punished.  Politicians, especially Republicans,  have long been hostile and suspicious of education and institutions of higher learning, and I suspect that the hearings and the specific questions were all calculated to further alienate those "egg-head, know-it-alls" from public support and popular opinion. The Republicans have long been accusing colleges of "indoctrination" and "grooming," and turning out "woke" (whatever that means to them) neo-liberals who will vote Democratic. The hearings were only more of the same, just more effective that the previous complaints about "drag-queen story hours."

But those are merely my opinions. I'm stating what I believe. It's my right of free speech.  You may disagree. That's your right. I don't expect everyone, or even anyone, to agree, and I fully expect many won't even understand due to fixed opinions already in their heads. But you can all go express your own views to whoever you like in any manner of your own choosing. That's free speech.