Hate speech and slander

While driving up to Dad’s house on Thursday I listened to the NPR program The 1A, hosted by Joshua Johnson. The topic was free speech, appropriate for a program named after the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The topic was also timely, coming the morning before white supremacist Richard Spencer spoke at the University of Florida. I thought the program was well done and covered several aspects of the issue, so I’m sharing a summary with you. I wish I was able to take notes while I was listening, but … I was driving. So I listened to it again. The whole thing is 47 minutes.

In the studio with Johnson were Sanford Ungar, Director of the Free Speech Project at Georgetown University, and Angus Johnston, professor and historian of American student activism and student life at City University of New York. Yes, this discussion features a Johnson and a Johnston. Throughout the show Johnson added comments from listeners. I’ve included some of them.

Johnson said the issue is appropriate because students are now shouting down speakers (usually conservative) they don’t like. In response some of these speakers have threatened violence (or worse, see Charlottesville) and there is now a public safety aspect to these events.

Johnson talked to Mitch Emerson over the phone. He is the co-organizer behind “No Nazis in UF.” His group planned a non-violent protest. He noted that when the protesters outnumbered the supremacists, everyone remained safe at the event and went home. When supremacists outnumbered protesters (such as at Charlottesville), there was violence. Ignoring them, letting them speak to empty rooms, isn’t working. Also, the student body at UF will be present, on campus, if not in the room, and is diverse. Some of the students will feel threatened by what Spencer says.

A commenter from Gainesville (where UF is located) noted Spencer’s followers intend to spread terror through the community. Their method of operation appears to be to incite violence then whine when the community responds.

Ungar noted that Spencer wasn’t invited by a student group. No one can say students invited him, let him speak. He invited himself. He is playing the system. The university saw no way of stopping him without opening a big can of legal issues.

Johnston noted that UF has a policy that anyone can rent college facilities. If UF didn’t have that policy they could deny Spencer as other universities have done. Johnston sees Spencer’s actions as a weaponization of the First Amendment, use the openness of the university to harm it. Universities will have to be careful of their policies.

Emerson said that lots of students are quite disappointed in UF arranging related events doing what my friend and debate partner says is countering bad free speech with more free speech. They’re also disappointed because UF charged Spencer $10,000, yet it (and the taxpayers) will have to pay a half million for extra security.

The show interleaved comments of two callers who had called earlier at the host’s request. One noted that when a speaker asserts dominance over others (such as people of color or LGBT), these people feel less safe and the ability to learn has been compromised. The other said the point of a college education is to equip students with the ability to refute ideas they disagree with. I note that Emerson said that UF was not doing this around Spencer’s visit.

Johnson talked to Danya Abdelhameid over the phone. She is a senior at the College of William and Mary and an activist with Black Lives Matter. She was part of a protest that shouted down a speaker from the ACLU. Their protest was because they felt the ACLU protects white supremacy. Their issue is that free speech protects hate speech. She is annoyed with liberals and their view that free speech is absolute, that everyone be allowed to speak. But doing so means supremacists have a platform. These supremacist views promote violence and deny the humanity of certain people. You are complicit if by supporting free speech you don’t consider the humanity of those targeted by supremacists.

Ungar responded that it is extremely difficult to determine which speech should be protected. Shouting down speakers only undermines free speech.

Danya said the issue isn’t debating ideas. She returned to her main point of speakers who have the intent of denying the humanity of marginalized people. Dialog isn’t worth having when it is about questioning the humanity of someone. She added that in the incident with the ACLU speaker the College of William and Mary did not use it as an opportunity to present opposing viewpoints. Also, when Black Lives Matter issues are presented to the college administration, they are dismissed.

A listener tweeted his opposition to the heckler’s veto. Instead, one should use reason or silence. Base your debate on facts, not feelings.

Johnston said that one problem of free speech is that the students feel they are not heard and the supremacists are. The 1st Amendment isn’t being applied equally. It is tilted towards the far right. He also said there are times when it is absolutely appropriate to disrupt speakers. That is also a core part of the 1st Amendment.

Johnson posed a question. Refusing to engage with the opponent, as is done when shouting down a speaker, seems like forfeiting a match. It isn’t a win. So how does disruption advance the cause?

Johnston noted that the ACLU shoutdown didn’t advance the debate at William and Mary but it did get Danya on this show with a national platform and it did prompt the ACLU to discuss within its leadership whether to take on free speech cases that have a violent component.

Ungar responded by saying the voice that shouts the loudest seems to prevail. That’s not a good way to resolve great issues. We don’t get dialog and we don’t get communal agreement.

A commenter noted there are better speakers to present ideas about racism and supremacy other than the ones who bring an element of violence. Universities should be liable for that violence.

Unger noted that if someone disagrees with Spencer, even with some pretty good arguments, Spencer isn’t going to change his views, neither are his followers. They just go underground. It is better to hear Spencer’s views and responding to them.

Johnson sees a troubling issue ahead. Universities don’t appear to be equipping students to take on the bad guys, to “stay in the ring” in a debate, rather than to shut down the power to the arena.

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.

Johnson talked by phone to Naweed Tahmas, a senior at UC Berkeley, VP of Berkeley College Republicans. He has invited several prominent (and combative) conservative speakers to campus.

Tahmas started by saying it has been socially acceptable for conservative students on the Berkeley campus to be harassed by more liberal students. Tahmas has seen posters of himself described as a fascist. He decries that universities have backed away from hearing all viewpoints and have become a liberal echo chamber. He says he invites speakers because of their relevance and not their combativeness. He decries liberal groups for refusing to work with him. He offered to let them pose the first question to the speaker, but they wanted to protest instead.

Johnston noted there is a difference between free speech issues and policy issues. Ungar adds that with the well known conservative speakers it seems almost like a shadow play, in which nobody, including the speaker, expects to actually say anything. Better to invite some of the lesser-known speakers.

Johnson asked perhaps Spencer should broadcast his speech from a remote location. Johnston replied that Spencer wants the notoriety and the university’s seal of approval. He is rich enough he has a huge number of ways to get his message out other than exploiting campus policies.

Now for my thoughts and reactions.

I’ve heard my friend and debate partner say several times that the proper response to annoying speech is more free speech. It is disconcerting to see some universities are not embracing that concept. They aren’t teaching what free speech means, how to debate, how to hone an argument. They aren’t presenting other viewpoints. They aren’t helping students refute toxic messages.

I heard reports on NPR of what happened at Spencer’s appearance at UF. It was loud and he was combative, pulling many of the conservative tricks, such as telling the audience you don’t like free speech and opposing me proves it. I’ll let you do your own search for those stories.

So, yes, people like Spencer are weaponizing free speech. They aren’t after discourse. They are after exploitation. They are bullies. But don’t bullies deserve free speech too?

As Danya said, in a lot of speech that comes from conservatives these days, the goal isn’t about declaring ideas. The goal is to dehumanize the other person. When that is the case I believe that it falls into a category similar to libel and slander, which are not protected forms of speech. I looked them up: Libel is written or printed words (not spoken) that defame or maliciously or damagingly misrepresent. Slander is the same meaning for the spoken word rather than the written. Perhaps hate speech, which has the intent to dehumanize, should be classified as slander. It defames another person by claiming they are not human.