America’s Free Speech Problem
– By Howard Sierer –
Who’d a thunk it? The New York Times has at long last recognized that free speech in our country is being systematically attacked by the very progressive extremists it supports.
In a surprising editorial, the Times wrote, “For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.”
It went on: “Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech.”
Right on cue, progressive readers of the Times responded to this editorial on Twitter demonstrating the very cancel culture that the editorial had decried:
One reader: “I served on active duty to defend the right of any person to say stupid, racist [expletive]. That doesn’t mean I have to respect or coddle people who say stupid, racist [expletive]. I have the right to shame and shun people who say stupid, racist [expletive]. Get it New York Times?”
Another: “This is appalling. The both-sidesism of The New York Times comes out in full force from its editorial board as it equates the left criticizing hate and the right burning books. Pure moral panic.”
One reader’s Tweet that called for the Times to “add more columnists who write about the rise of fascism instead of adding more who always complain about cancel culture” was forwarded by almost 10,000 followers.
How could these and the thousands who re-Tweeted these and other irate comments not realize they were demonstrating the very cancel culture mindset that the Times called intolerant and unenlightened?
The New York Times defending free speech should not have been as surprising as it was to progressives. The legal protections of the First Amendment and societal tolerance form bedrock foundations on which freedom of the press is based. Most liberal-minded writers, thinkers, and publications took them as the norm until recently.
The very cancel culture the Times denounced was in full force recently when law students at Yale chanted and shouted down an invited speaker with whom they disagreed, requiring police to escort the speaker out of the building to safety. Students at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law mocked and shouted profanity at Georgetown Law Professor Ilya Shapiro with whose views they disagreed. Who are the fascists?
These are students at prestigious law schools who aspire to clerk for federal judges on their way to important government assignments, political office or their own judgeships. That makes their disrespect and even disdain for the First Amendment all the more shocking.
Universities have been at the forefront in attacking freedom of speech. Increasing numbers of students and even faculty members call for silencing or firing those with whom they disagree. This despite rules ostensibly supporting freedom of expression.
For example, Georgetown University’s policy states that speech “may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived.”
Yet Georgetown placed Professor Shapiro on leave for expressing views its faculty disliked; Princeton University faculty, ignoring that university’s free speech code, called for faculty member Professor Joshua Katz’s dismissal.
The cancel culture’s impact: far too many universities have become academic echo chambers where only approved progressive viewpoints are expressed in classrooms and faculty publications.
A 2021 Knight Foundation study reported that most students continue to say colleges should allow students to be exposed to all types of speech, including political speech that is offensive or biased, rather than prohibiting speech they may find offensive. The only exception: racist speech and slurs. Only a quarter favored disinviting controversial speakers. Yet the study showed that 65% of people on college campuses feel they are prevented from speaking freely.
That the Times editorial board would publish its thoughts is a refreshing change from what its former executive editor admitted was its blatantly biased news reporting of the last six years. Ever since Donald Trump’s candidacy gained traction, the Times seriously compromised its claim to be the world’s “newspaper of record.” The news side of its business was no longer distinguishable from its op/ed side.
The Times and other progressive news sources fell prey to what liberal political scientist and author Ruy Teixeira calls the “Fox News Fallacy.” He explains “This is the idea that if Fox News (substitute here the conservative bête noire of your choice if you prefer) criticizes the Democrats for X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often. The problem is that an issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it.”
I join many social conservatives in decrying the demise of free speech and rise of the cancel culture, especially on college campuses. While I may lack his courage, I join French philosopher Voltaire who has been credited with saying, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
Howard, you’re missing a major point. While I may agree that unpopular speech has to be accepted in a democratic society, it doesn’t have to be given credence. So much of what the wing-nuts on the right profess (stolen elections, pedophilia, racial superiority, etc.) is so blatantly and provably false that it can’t be given the same acceptance as fact-checked reporting. People watch Fox News and crazy websites and believe that what they’re seeing is true. That’s where the real danger comes in. If such blather is accepted by the mainstream, then the future is indeed grim. It has to be identified as the trash that it is.
Mr. Smith, you’re missing a major point. While I agree that unpopular speech has to be accepted in a democratic society, it doesn’t have to be given credence. So much of what the wing-nuts on the left profess (Black Lives Matter, The 1619 Project, rioting and shouting down speakers, defunding the police, racial quotas everywhere) is so blatantly and provably false that it can’t be given the same acceptance as fact-checked reporting. People watch MSNBC and CNN and crazy websites and believe that what they’re seeing is true. That’s where the real danger comes in. If such blather is accepted by the mainstream, then the future is indeed grim. It has to be identified as the trash that it is.
Do you remember when balance was guaranteed in broadcast journalism — the “fairness ” doctrine? And when fact checking was routine in journalism? And when journalists were actually professionals who reported not just what they thought or what they perceived to be true, but what could be proven? Perhaps that was the good old days, or at least a more responsible time. We both know that both sides use innuendo and assumptions, and that’s fine if “reporters” are working to build an audience rather that tell what is proven fact. Personally I’ll accept truth that is fact checked and reported by responsible journalists, as are found on real news programs on NBC, CBS, ABC and particularly PBS. If I want to hear reporting that is slanted to the left, I’ll turn on MSNBC. If I want right-wing slanted “news” I’ll turn on Fox. In both cases, I’m watching political entertainment, and it’s slanted, though one side does use fact-checkers and the other doesn’t. One side believes in a reasonable political theory, and the other used to, (Remember when Republicans just wanted small government and individual freedom?) but has been converted to a new, nonsensical populism that incorporates Trump, Q-anon, and paranoia. Somehow, I think you’re above that. Both sides have a radical fringe, but one side has adopted their fringe as mainstream, and that’s sad. I was even a Republican once…
Mr. Smith, I am in agreement with much of your comment above. If you’ve followed my columns, you’ll know that I have no use for Donald Trump. Nonetheless, it’s fairly clear to most observers that NBC, CBS and ABC lean left albeit more subtly than Fox slants right. BTW, I can’t recall the last time I went to the Fox News web site although I’ve ended up there following hyperlinks from other sites a few times. I’m happy to report that I know nothing about Q-anon.
Paranoia sadly is evident on both the right and the left. I submit for your consideration that far too often, liberal web sites express fear of incipient fascism ready to spring from the right yet are silent about the left’s Antifa. Not knowing any fascists myself, I worry far more about so-called “democratic socialism” advocated by Bernie Sanders and apparently endorsed by many otherwise-responsible leaders in the Democratic Party. There has been no democratic socialist experiment in history that either didn’t retreat from the failed experiment (Britain under Thatcher, Sweden in the last several decades) or evolve into a dictatorship (Nicaragua, Venezuela and others). Democratic socialists have a track record of abandoning democracy when their prescriptions inevitably fail. Nancy Pelosi, who I thought would know better, recently encouraged Pres. Biden to implement rejected “Build Back Better” programs with executive orders! Her apparent reasoning: if the people and their Congress aren’t smart enough to enact this, we’ll force it on them anyway. Does worrying about this kind of politics make me paranoid?
How about progressive mayors city councils who not only condone but applaud rioting and looting? How about progressive prosecutors who refuse to bring criminals to trial. Am I paranoid for worrying about our country’s future and the rule of law under progressive elected officials ? Am I a fascist for opposing them?
I’ve expounded about BLM and The 1619 Project in prior columns. Both are endorsed by progressive elites who ought to be able to see though the smoke screen to realized these are radical political movements, not racial justice movements. Instead they fear being labelled racists if they speak out. Does that thinking make me paranoid?
Thanks for the dialog. Have a nice day!
It’s nice to have a discussion in which neither person becomes defensive or combative. Fairly rare in America now. If it’s okay with you, I’d like to keep this going — perhaps on individual emails or the email at the Independent — neither of us would want to have our boxes filled with the sort of vitriol common today in political discourse, which we’d be open to if our private emails became public. My preference, if you’re interested, would mean an occasional – maybe weekly or monthly – note. If you’re not interested, I completely understand.