Let’s begin with the understanding that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. That has been settled law since the founders first signed the Constitution of the United States in 1787. Yet, on college campuses all across the United States, the First Amendment rights of commencement speakers have been repeatedly violated by those who think they have a First Amendment right to forcefully silence any speech they don’t like.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this response, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel cites her 5-year-old daughter’s definition of the First Amendment: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.” How have we arrived at the point where so many of our college-educated citizens now have the perspective of a 5-year-old?
This trend became downright embarrassing during the spring of 2014 when such prestigious institutions as Brandeis University, Rutgers University, Smith College and Haverford College all failed to protect the First Amendment rights of their invited commencement speakers, especially since each guest speaker represented some allegedly persecuted minority—religion, race, gender or gender preference. In other words, these incidents had nothing to do with identity politics.
When even the benign voices of Charles Murray, Betsy DeVos and Mike Pence became triggers for barbaric outrage in the spring of 2017, it was obvious this trend was getting completely out of control.
Recounting her own experience at Claremont-McKenna College, Heather Mac Donald has warned that others should always “expect ‘traumatized’ students to try to disinvite any remotely conservative speaker.…This soft totalitarianism,” she explained, “is routinely misdiagnosed as primarily a psychological disorder.” Instead, she argues, it is “at root” ideological.
But even that characterization may be too generous, for it ascribes rationality to the perpetrators. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson characterized it more accurately when he recently observed, “Violence is what separates politics from war,…It’s when hurt feelings become dead bodies, the point at which countries become ungovernable.”
Those who have seen the video of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ polite but completely futile attempt to address the graduating class at Bethune-Cookman University in May of this year will understand how scary this level of tribal behavior really is. In witnessing such an event, one can’t help asking, “Whose hate speech is this?” Perhaps, more to the point, we should ask, “Whose safe place is being threatened here?”
Writing of this event in The Wall Street Journal, African-American columnist Jason Riley has provided a chilling account of the deliberate planning behind the DeVos incident: “The petition that garnered more than 50,000 signatures opposing Mrs. DeVos’ commencement address wasn’t started by students and alumni but by the Florida affiliate of the National Education Association, the nation’s biggest and richest teachers’ union. And it was a state chapter of the NAACP that hired lawyers for the effort and actively helped organize the protests.
“Both the teachers union and the civil-rights organization oppose Mrs. DeVos because she supports school choice. Never mind that large majorities of black families have long sided with the secretary on this matter, according to polls.”
Meanwhile, President Trump toured the Middle East and successfully enlisted the Muslim world’s support in the war against ISIS. The reaction of the progressive left news media? CNN’s Kathy Griffin displayed for all the world to see the hideous effigy of our president’s severed head, and Manhattan’s Shakespeare Festival cast a Trump look-alike in a terrifying performance of “Julius Caesar” where Roman senators in modern dress slashed at their leader like mad dogs in an Elizabethan bear baiting. Shakespeare in the Park used to be a safe space for genteel New Yorkers. Guess not so much anymore.
Veteran New York Times journalist Michael Goodwin has called out his former employer as a prime mover in all of this: “The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.”
Even so, Goodwin affirms, “there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not yet represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.”
So, fellow citizen journalists, keep on writing those letters to the editor and freelance op-eds. Let freedom ring.
Bruce Robinson is a writer and former Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Good piece Bruce.
We have created in this nation a generation of snowflakes that are unwilling to hear alternative opinions, promote violence as a method of silencing those opinions and then turn around and declare themselves to be ‘open-minded.
Glad you liked this, Dennis. Just hope my appeal to more patriot journalists is heeded. Given President Trump’s inspiring speech in Poland this week, there should be plenty of encouragement for a return to sanity.
Very good Bruce. Keep them coming.
What exactly is scary or chilling about students turning away from Devos during a speech? Are we really going to be so sensitive that we demand that, when speaking, everyone must pretend to act interested and engaged?
Also, political commentary implying death of the sitting President is practically American Tradition. We’ve got Ted Nugent in recent memory. We also have Michael Ramirez’s catoon depicting a pan aiming a gun point-blank at G.W. Bush’s head. We can go backwards to nearly any point in history and find that no matter who is in charge, people have been angry and indignant, and typically a few, either tongue-in-cheek, or more seriously, imply death might be the right option. What happened that suddenly made Americans so frightened, when this is the same usual stuff we’ve seen?
B.B You have to remember that any vile behavior, especially by the right, that happened before the Trump Regime, does not count.
Also, DeVos is highly mock-worthy in her words and actions. The students turning away from her was surely deserved.
The other troubling claim is that speakers are having their 1st A rights violated. I believe that only the government can violate 1st amendment rights. I, for one, can do anything I want, short of infringing on the individual liberties of others, to deny you from speaking. This whole snowflake thing is shifting to the right.
All in all, Obama was met with plenty of criticism as well. A lot of it woth violent implication, both from random individuals, as well as more well known figures. I agree, that how we say and act, barring potential violation of autonomy, doesn’t need policing. It feels a bit silly to suddenly be upset by how Trump is treated now, and have never spoken up before, I guess.
Your opinion that Devon is mock worthy.
My opinion is Obama is mock worthy. So I should be free to turn my back on him, threaten him by stating we should blow up his residence, carry a mocked up severed Obama head … after all it’s deserved. Correct?
Yeah, of course you are. Obviously, Secret Service will contact you if they believe your threat is legitimate (which is the case now), and you may lose your job or reputation for such a publicity stunt (Which has already happened to Griffin). In fact, you wouldn’t even be the first!
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/62c57865-41b8-463a-8864-6f657681266f/740ae56b-3c4f-452d-b955-adf6c5787ce8_560_420.jpg
BB though the point of your post has an element of validity, it also ignores the level, the wide spread response and vile reactions of both many in the media as well as publicity seeking Hollywood types.
I cannot recall a time before in our history when we have had wide spread masked anarchists creating the levels of response we saw on Inauguration Day as well as after.
Shouldn’t the media and “Hollywood Types” (Unsure what that’s supposed to mean, they’re also Americans) be free to criticize and mock as much as they want? If they are truly bring so unreasonable, then they would simply have no audience.
The increased efforts of anarchy groups is dangerous indeed. However, public response and how people in “The Media” (Again, I fail to see why we are choosing some Americans as not being allowed to speak their opinion) are not the same as these. The specific examples given in the article have no physical victims. Nobody is really being stanbed in a Ceasar enactment. Cathy Griffin did not procure a real severed head (for all fairness, I also have zero problems with her getting dropped from most of her networks and deals. Her choices were not too professional, and, same as she can, others have the choice to mot work with her.)
I’m just not sure what the proposed solution is. Do we want people to pretend they like Trump, so that others don’t have hurt feelings? We already have laws that are followed if someone does start to cause harm. I don’t think you would agree that Bush, Obama, and Trump are entitled to smiles and applause because of their position alone.
It does appear you believe in violent behavior. very strange.
Example?
BB read your second paragraph
Sounds like the trolls are at it again. Apparently. I hit their sweet spot.
I fail to see how asking questions is “trolling”. Isn’t the entire purpose of posting your opinion online for discussion? Kind of sounds like you suddenly don’t like negative public opinion of a President now that it’s someone you like.
BB It is highly possible that Bruce does not know what a troll is.
He does know what a troll is. We have two on this run. Guess who. ? I am not one nor is DDL or Matter. Think you now can figure who the two are.
Can you not act immature for a bit? Not only are you jumping into conversations where you aren’t involved, all you’re offering is grade-school namecalling.Do you have anything relevant to say, or are you just writing for the sake of being antagonistic?
You just proved what I said. Always looking for an argument. Who are you to say who belongs. Troll on.
Whatever you say, Bobby. If you want to act childish, and prefer to be rude than have a discussion, that’s your choice to make.
What discussion would you like to have, More than willing.
Shouldn’t the media and “Hollywood Types” (Unsure what that’s supposed to mean, they’re also Americans) be free to criticize and mock as much as they want? If they are truly bring so unreasonable, then they would simply have no audience.
The increased efforts of anarchy groups is dangerous indeed. However, public response and how people in “The Media” (Again, I fail to see why we are choosing some Americans as not being allowed to speak their opinion) are not the same as these. The specific examples given in the article have no physical victims. Nobody is really being stanbed in a Ceasar enactment. Cathy Griffin did not procure a real severed head (for all fairness, I also have zero problems with her getting dropped from most of her networks and deals. Her choices were not too professional, and, same as she can, others have the choice to mot work with her.)
I’m just not sure what the proposed solution is. Do we want people to pretend they like Trump, so that others don’t have hurt feelings? We already have laws that are followed if someone does start to cause harm. I don’t think you would agree that Bush, Obama, and Trump are entitled to smiles and applause because of their position alone.
My reply to DDL. In short: of the complaints given, the only one that really seems to hold any water is individuals acting violently in the streets. However, there’s a whole set of issues the author has suggested, such as mocking, criticism, and more vile statements made towards the current President. What I want to know is, has he, and you by extension of your agreement, also raised issue with this during the Obama administration, during which there were street protests and violent threats ( http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/62c57865-41b8-463a-8864-6f657681266f/740ae56b-3c4f-452d-b955-adf6c5787ce8_560_420.jpg )
Personally, I didn’t ever talk about it, because as far as I am concerned, no matter who currently leads, they will always have a fringe set who wish to do harm and hate them vehemently. However, the author feels the need to do so, so I pose the question: what should be done? Should there be a punishment when comedians mock Trump? Should students face legal penalties when they turn away from DeVos? To suggest there’s something wrong with disrespecting someone simply because of their government position seems anti-freedom to me, but it seems the author believes these are “bad” things, which implies they should be corrected.
I also invite Bruce to reply to this, but if he’s going to be childish and resort to calling people “trolls” (By the way, you’re using the terminology VERY loosely. I understand you may not have the online knowledge to have really known the origin and usual uses, but disagreement is not “trolling”), then there’s clearly no way we can discuss.
B B my comment and DDL were positive and about the article. It then went down hill. Your free speech is protected as are others that commented in favor of the article. Because we may not agree with you does not mean you do not have the right to comment as you usually do. You said I was childish, rude and jumping into a conversation where you were not involved. You questioned his article. You did not like the term troll. You made negative comments about the only two that agreed with the article. So just what is your beef. I do not think you have any. This article is not about DDL, Me, BB or Petersen., BB if you are going to come after me I will come back.
The “two” what?
Is one of them Bruce?
I’m just suprised by the sudden hostility. Doesn’t the author state “Let Freedom Ring”? I didn’t imagine open dialogue would be so threatening.
Bruce it is very simple. All they want to do is pick a fight. Let them have at it. They are all alone.
Yes, Bob. That’s one of the many distraction tactics trolls love. But these guys are rank amateurs. They should sign up for the Wall Street Journal and try matching wits with a few pros. They won’t do it, though, because they would have to give up the anonymity the BH site allows them to hide behind.
Do columnist for the Wall Street Journal chime in on the comment sections of their own columns? No, because they are not “rank amateurs”.
How would you know? Do you subscribe to the Wall Street Jou7rnal?
No it’s not, you are.
Bob, can you point out which comment I made about any person’s character BEFORE being dismissed as a “Troll” by Bruce and yourself? I called you childish for that, and only that, because instead of he or you engaging in discussion, you instead talked amongst yourselves about “Trolls”.
If you can show where I insulted you or someone else PRIOR to the comments made towards me, I will happily apologize. However, I will not apologize for calling out someone for responding to legitimate questions with dismissal in a rude way.
Always wanting to pick a fight with me. Have at it.
I’m not, though. You said I’m “coming after you”. As far as I’m aware, the first comments towards anyone in particular was You and Bruce. If I’m wrong here, please show me, and I will genuinely apologize. I’m not looking to fight with you. However, I do not see where I was attacking you, aside from in response to yours towards me.
Anyone who doubts there exists a rampant censorship movement on our university campuses today is simply in denial. One cannot put forth a conservative viewpoint without attack. This is clearly evident to the very casual observer.
We are in a very dangerous societal position as only one viewpoint is allowed.
Matter one columnist I read on a regular basis is: Mike Adams. (He can be found at Townhall.com). For those who may not be familiar he is a tenured professor at UNC Charlotte and a Christian. He regularly documents the attacks on free speech, Christians and Conservatives.
The facts are out there for those who look.
Wow, I don’t comment much on these sites, but that guy Bob the owl sure is full of himself. He sounds really immature. BB has given facts and supporting arguments and Bob’s response is typical of conservatives, calling BB a troll. Looks like Bob is the troll!
No Sue I am a very fact driven sound minded person. You may not like my approach just because I am a Conservative. That is your only reason for commenting about me. You know very well who I am. It is just because I am a Conservative that you comment as you did. By the way what is your full name. Are you afraid to use it. I am not afraid to use my name..
No, I don’t know who you are and I don’t want to. You present yourself as a know it all narcissist, but when pressed by people like BB to present facts, you retreat to your old, sad, rehearsed mantra about how much you know, and everybody thinks so, ad nauseum. Trump has the same problem, narcissistic, ego driven old men are the cause of most of the world’s problems.
you left off: “white”
/sarcasm
At least I am not afraid to put my name out their. You call me names and then go into hiding. Come forward or are you a coward. I gave BB the facts. Just read what I said and others also. Sorry Sue you are way out of touch as no name very far left leaning Socialist Progressive. I do believe I am correct on that statement. If not prove me wrong no name.
If you’re going to use my name, the least you could do is respond to my questions directed at you. Any reason why you don’t want an apology? I offered you one if you showed me where I started a fight before you did.
Let’s make this interesting and change the subject. Some foks in congress now want to use taxpayer money to provide free transgender conversion surgery for our men and women in the armed forces.
Question–how will that enhance our national defense?
It doesn’t. It doesn’t need to, though. Having VA to support retired veterans with healthcare and jobs doesn’t help our national defense. Offering them good food or comfortable accommodations doesn’t offer much in way of security either. All the same, we provide these things, since it’s appropriate to support those who work for you.
If we wanted to focus on defense funds for the sake of defense being the only bottom line, We may as well remove all benefits for all veterans as soon as they aren’t enlisted.
Bruce baby! You want to change the subject. Let’s talk about life expectancies and social security.
Life expectance is going up and S/S is working and will be there for all. Tell us if you think that is true.