FREE SPEECH, A FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT
By Harmony Grant
27 Feb 07
Today, the political left is aggressively seeking to limit freedom
of speech for those who disagree with them. NPN readers are aware
of the threatening “anti-hate” bill, HR 254, but may
be less versed in the widespread thought control of university speech
bans or of another threat now looming over talk radio. This third
prong of attack is the Fairness Doctrine, a broadcasting rule that
would shatter talk radio’s freewheeling retorts to mainstream
media leftism.
The Fairness Doctrine, enacted in 1949, required licensed broadcasters
to devote time to important issues and, when they did, to represent
both sides. The Supreme Court said the government can require a licensee “to
share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers
and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” The
Supreme Court here unjustly privileged consumers over producers'
rights. The court's decision forced risk-taking entrepreneurs to
spend their time and money providing expensive broadcast services
to their ideological opponents!
The Court’s horribly wrong decision was overturned in 1987,
allowing talk radio to double with the soaringly popular careers
of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Dr. Laura, and other conservatives.
The right’s fresh radio voices provided a counterpunch to left-dominated
mainstream TV networks and galled the left no end.
America wanted the conservative voice that broke out on talk radio,
not more left-wing looniness. Al Franken’s “challenge” to
patriotic talk radio, Air America, was a flop that has ended in bankruptcy.
What’s the left to do when people won’t buy the ideas
they want to sell? Resort to force. Earlier this year, Senator Bernie
Sanders and Representatives Kucinich, Hinchey, and Slaughter announced
their support of legislation that would bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Many conservatives have spoken out against this legislation, and
we can hope press secretary Tony Snow was right when he said it isn’t
likely to pass. The Fairness Doctrine would bring back to the airwaves
the kind of mind control already exercised on university campuses
across the nation.
We Teach Tolerance…so Shut Up!
University speech bans—enacted in the late eighties and early
nineties—remain perhaps the most successful mind control tool
of the political left in America (although their horrible power would
be nothing compared to a thought police bureaucracy enacted by a
federal hate law, such as HR 254).
Speech codes rear our most educated class to think political correctness
and social harmony trumps truth—and enable academics to ban
dissent while teaching the wackiest political and social falsehoods
(such as that motherhood is an invented cultural value—no,
I’m not kidding).
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) released
a devastating report on campus speech codes last December. Their
17-page report details scandalously restrictive speech bans on universities
across the United States.
FIRE gave a school a “red light” rating if they had
at least one policy that “unambiguously infringes on protected
expression,” which means banning speech that public schools
are Constitutionally bound to protect. Out of the 334 schools FIRE
reviewed, a whopping 229 deserved this red-light failing grade. Ninety-one
earned a yellow-light rating, meaning they enacted speech codes that
weren't as explicit but could be interpreted as limiting protected
speech.
“The data showed that, despite a legal obligation to uphold
the First Amendment rights of their students and faculty, public
schools were actually more restrictive of speech than their private
counterparts.” (p6) Speech codes were struck down by federal
courts at universities in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and
other states. But universities have not complied with this legal
precedent; speech bans have actually increased since these court
rulings.
“If universities applied these rules to the letter,” comments
FIRE, “major voices of public criticism, satire, and commentary
would be silenced on American campuses, and some of our greatest
authors, artists, and filmmakers would be banned. These codes also
lead students to believe they have an absolute right to be free from
offense, embarrassment, or discomfort. As a result, other students
begin the compromise of self-censorship.”
Speech bans’ breadth and vagueness can take your breath away.
For example, you can get in hot water at Davidson College in NC for “comments
or inquiries about dating.” (Wow, that’s femi-nazism
at a whole new level!) At Jackson State in Alabama, you can be punished
for “offending” anybody on university property. At the
University of Mississippi, FIRE reports, you are forbidden from using “offensive
language” while talking on the phone. West Virginia University
commands incoming freshman not to use gender-specific language like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” but
instead gender-neutral terms like “lover.” In their 2005-06
policy, West Chester University banned “any actions which demonstrate
a lack of respect for the human rights and personal dignity of any
individual.” William Paterson University’s definition
of punishable “disorderly conduct” would sure have been
useful in my drama class with that kid who blew his nose too often;
unbelievably, WPU bans “behavior that annoys!” “In
2002, Syracuse University charged a student with disorderly conduct
for dressing as Tiger Woods at several graduation costume parties.” (p14)
Bowdoin College bans jokes “experienced by others as harassing.”
Macalester College says harassment includes “speech that
makes use of inappropriate words or non-verbals,” whatever
that means! Princeton, that Ivy League paragon of higher miseducation,
says sexual harassment can be “intentional or accidental, subtle
or obvious.” FIRE points out that this “sharply contrasts
with the definition of real harassment, which is a severe and pervasive
pattern of conduct that effectively bars the victim’s education
access—there is nothing subtle about that!” (p13)
Many universities basically threaten punishment for anything that
offends anybody at any time—although the policies rarely protect
hurt feelings if the offended “anybody” is white, male,
or Christian. These policies are muzzles used to silence religious,
politically conservative expression and ideas, while leftist professors
freely trash the Western civilization that gave them their freedom.
Raise Your Voice, There’s Hope
FIRE says university speech bans are highly defeatable—through
public exposure. “In the past year alone, public exposure has
brought down a number of speech codes at both public and private
universities.” (p14) For example, after having their policy
made infamous as FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month in July 2005,
Albertson College in Idaho totally rewrote their speech ban—replacing
its broad censorship with a statement affirming free speech!
Individual students have also been powerful advocates against speech
bans, by challenging their punishment or suing their university on
violation of Constitutional rights. After only a few months of pressure
from student activists aided by FIRE and the Nevada ACLU, the University
of Nevada at Reno revoked their speech ban and promised free speech
on the entire campus.
These victories reveal the power of free speech activism. Assuming
defeat without fighting speech bans, hate laws, or the Fairness Doctrine
is like walking away from a fire in your oven, assuming your house
is already past saving. We have more power than we think. We can change the course of our nation, which is presently set to self-destruct
through steady erosion of civil liberties and ruinous, resource-draining
foreign policy.
We can’t apathetically allow the muzzle-crazy left to dictate
terms of debate in the USA. Free speech is every American’s
right, to be protected; but custodianship of the First Amendment
now lies primarily with the conservative right. Most censorship attempts
are coming from the "politically correct" left and from
liberal Jewish social activists, shepherded by the hate-spewing Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith. It is up to conservative patriots
to defend the freedom that is daily used and abused by liberals.
If we don’t defend our right to freedom of speech, soon we
will have no voice left with which to defend anything.
