Get Your Free Speech Right Here!

Downtown Lad’s comment in response to my post on Ward Churchill got me thinking.  First, though, to preface my thoughts, I do not in any way think that this (the thing I’m getting ready to complain about) is what Downtown Lad meant by his comment.  I’m pretty sure I know exactly what he meant, given what he said and this post from his own blog.  And for the record, I don’t think Churchill should be fired, even if he could be, though I do have some issues with the tenure situation that are completely unrelated to speech. 

But there is a broader question and that is the question of free speech.  I am a firm believer in free speech, or else I wouldn’t operate this blog, and I wouldn’t link to others with whom I disagree.  Heck, every single blog I read has had some posts which I have disagreed with at one time or another.  Not to mention friends.  So I don’t have a problem with the concept of free speech.

I do, however, have a problem with some of the ways the concept of free speech is thrown around.  The first is inapplicable in the Ward Churchill case because he is an employee of a public school, and therefore firing him for speaking (if he didn’t have tenure) could, at least in theory, be considered a government action and therefore violative of the protections that the First Amendment offers to speech.

But so often, people who throw out the term "free speech" when complaining about some television or radio personality or newspaper columnist being fired for saying something are just completely misunderstanding the concept.  Yes, I suppose in some of those situations, one could at least argue that it was fear from government action that forced them to get rid of the person.  The entire indecency debacle at the FCC is a wonderful example.  But in a lot of cases it has nothing to do with pressure from the FCC, but pressure from the private sector (e.g. advertisers, the public) that leads to the canning of speech.  And while some of us may find this troublesome (I for one do not, but that is the subject of another day) such actions are fully protected by the Constitution because they are not prohibited by it.  Furthermore, if someone tried to pass a law that said that a radio station, for example, couldn’t fire someone for their speech, this law itself would more than likely be unconstitutional for the station itself has expression rights that are also protected by the Constitution.

Such use of the words clearly causes confusion.  The Constitution is only supposed to protect people from actions of the government.  So, in the First Amendment context, it is only government intrusions into the realm of free speech that are prohibited.  Even that is only in some (or most) contexts, because even the First Amendment is not absolute, but that is perhaps the subject of another post.

So maybe when people use the words free speech, they are not appealing directly to the Constitution but to broader notions of fairness, in that we want people to be able to speak freely, even in a purely private context.  In other words, they mean the values that the First Amendment protects when it comes to making speech free from government intrusion (e.g. that whole marketplace of ideas thing) are equally important to all kinds of speech.

This is all well and good.  In fact, I would tend to agree, for the most part, though I don’t see it as any great crisis if some radio guy is fired for saying something dumb and offensive on the air.  Especially now that there are so many ways to speak.  I don’t think people should be entitled to any particular form of speech, or any particular level of effectiveness in speaking.  It’s about being able to speak your mind and not having this job or that job doesn’t stop you from doing that.

Anyway, now I get to my larger point, and that is the sensitivity with which people approach this whole free speech thing, regardless of the context.  And that is that as soon as you start to criticize the speaker, the response of those who agree (or even those who don’t) is:  FREE SPEECH.  Only, this is completely counter-intuitive, as the whole concept of free speech implies that I have the ability to criticize the speaker.  Not only am I also engaging in free speech, but I am also helping to further the goals of freedom of speech, namely to get competing ideas out there so that people can decide for themselves what to believe. 

A friend of mine, right before the RNC here in New York City, who is definitely not a Republican, told me that a friend of hers wanted to do a counter-protest.  I said that I would consider doing something like that, if protesting was something I ever felt inclined to do, which I never will.  And she kind of snapped at me, saying that I’d be there offering support, not saying that the protesters shouldn’t be there themselves.  I politely nodded, ending the conversation, but thinking in my head, that there is a difference between saying that the protesters have a right to be there and saying that they should be there.

Liking free speech doesn’t mean liking the speech itself, or even liking the fact that the speaker is exercising his right.  One can support free speech, and still draw the line somewhere and say that certain things, in certain contexts, shouldn’t be said.  Not that they should be prohibited by law, but that one, as an individual, can stand up and say that this is wrong.  I would never say that the protesters didn’t have a right to speak their minds, but I can show up and protest myself and say that they shouldn’t be and that I don’t like what they are saying. 

So it is with Ward Churchill.  I would never say that the government should clamp down on him, or even that he should be fired - though if he worked for a private school (and wasn’t tenured), it would be a completely different matter.  But I do think that absolutely, 100%, that he should not have spoken and that he definitely should not have said what he said.  Some may feel the same about what I’ve said here today, which is fine by me.  Feel free to tell me so.  I will definitely not throw the "free speech" thing back in your face.