Free speech and its cost

My most recent post last Friday about free speech did indeed prompt a response from my friend and debate partner. He adds a bit to the discussion.

I wrote:

[Panelist Angus] Johnston responded saying there is a difference between fighting the bad guys and debating the bad guys, which is what Johnson is really talking about. Debating the bad guys doesn’t work. If you disrupt the public presence of fascists, some of their supporters do fade away. This isn’t a 1st Amendment way, but it is an effective way of fighting the bad guys.

My debate partner responds:

We must face down bullies to render them powerless.

Which is what the protesters were doing. But that leads to the question (and a major part of the discussion of the previous post) of what is the best way to do that?

The audience for [white supremacist Richard] Spencer's speech isn't the people he is talking to, nor does the person he might debate with reasonably think of Spencer as his/her audience. No one is going to change Spencer's mind. The wider society is the audience addressed by both sides. Refuting racist and hate speech helps the public choose the appropriate side in the discussion – an important public good.

I see his point and expand on that a bit. The audience in this debate is the general public. Part of their interpretation of what they hear is how the speakers act. They see Spencer being a bully. They see his opponents as being … what? Bullies as much as Spencer? How does that affect their perception to the watching audience?

I wrote:

[The students are] also disappointed because UF [University of Florida] charged Spencer $10,000, yet it (and the taxpayers) will have to pay a half million for extra security.

My debate partner responds:

We are not powerless in the free speech arena: Free speech rights are not absolute. Extensive case law over more than 200 years has established one major exception: When free speech disrupts public safety, public officials / government may block it.

Actually, I think other major exceptions are slander and libel, part of my point in my previous post.

Also, free speech isn't free. We pay for the paper and printing we use to put out flyers, for the venue we speak in, etc.

Spencer's events plainly threaten public safety and require security arrangements. It seems fair that those who create a threat to public safety should pay the cost of the security they need to exercise their free speech rights. Spencer creates that threat; the protesters who respond to him do not. Without Spencer's initiative to speak, there is no threat.

I think UF (and other public institutions) should institute a policy that parties who wish to rent UF facilities must put in escrow as a condition of rental the amount of money that UF believes must be spent for security arrangements, including setup for the event and cleanup after it. The amount should vary depending on the event; I imagine that, in some cases, a court would have to rule on the "reasonable" amount UF could charge. If event-related costs turn out to be less than predicted, funds not spent from the escrow account return to the renter.

That might or might not dissuade Spencer from renting UF space and speaking. But it would lift the burden and grievance that comes with a $10,000 rental fee vs. a half million in security costs.

On to another area of free speech I didn’t mention in the previous post.

Spencer is gaming – “weaponizing” – free speech, as I put it before. My friend summarizes Spencer's goals using a phrase straight out of ranking, which I discuss frequently: “I deserve free speech rights but you don't.”

This is only a step away from what a large number of GOP Congresscritters and the nasty guy’s administration are doing – trying to eliminate free speech protections. We see it in the nasty guy describing all news that doesn’t glorify him as “fake.” We see it in his threat to pull the license on NBC (which doesn’t need a license, though each of its affiliate stations do). We see it in the latest gold star family controversy when an administration aide said essentially, how dare you question a four star general! These are only a few of the recent incidents.