Daily Archives: August 22, 2017

By Jennifer Delton By Jennifer Delton August 22 at 6:00 AM

Jennifer Delton is the Douglas Family Chair in American culture, history, and literary and interdisciplinary studies at Skidmore College. She is the author of, most recently, 'Rethinking the 1950s: How Anticommunism and the Cold War Made America Liberal."

Heres the dilemma college presidents face in the fall: Either uphold free speech on campus and risk violent counterprotests, or ban conservative provocateurs and confirm the freedom of speech crisis on campuses. Either way their institutions legitimacy is undermined.

This impossible dilemma is no accident. It has been part of a strategy, deployed first by conservatives and perfected by the alt-right. The alt-right is a nebulous, still-developing political movement, but we know at least two things about it. One, its most prominent popularizers Stephen K. Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer have all articulated that they seek to destroy liberal cultural hegemony, which they associate with a bipartisan, globalizing, multicultural, corporate elite, and which, they think, is perpetrated in the United States by the mainstream media and on college campuses.

The second thing we know about the alt-right is that its provocateurs seek to bait liberal institutions by weaponizing the concept of free speech, which is an issue that divides the liberal left. It is true that higher education has brought much of this on itself through the extreme policing of speech and tolerance of student protesters who shut down speakers with whom they disagree. But that doesnt diminish the extent to which the alt-right and conservatives are using free speech to attack and destroy colleges and universities, which have long promoted different variations of the internationalist, secular, cosmopolitan, multicultural liberalism that marks the thinking of educated elites of both parties.

As college presidents try to figure out whether the First Amendment protects conservatives right to create political spectacle and instigate violence, it might be useful to recall another time when American liberals were forced to sidestep First Amendment absolutism to combat a political foe: the 1940s, when New Deal liberals purged U.S. communists from American political life.

Thats right, New Deal liberals and unionists including President Harry S. Truman, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, black labor leader A. Philip Randolph and Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers were staunch anticommunists who effectively shut down the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), forcing communists out of unions, civil rights organizations, jobs and universities.

They did so because communists were a disruptive force that was baiting and dividing the liberal left. Communists were also in a party directed by Moscow just as the Cold War was commencing. Their presence in liberal organizations made liberals vulnerable to Republican and conservative attacks. So those liberals interested in political success (and in preserving the New Deal) drove them out of politics.

What about the First Amendment, you may ask? Well, this was a point of contention that likewise divided the liberal-left community. Liberals had historically supported freedom of speech and assembly; they saw themselves as champions of the First Amendment. To deny communists freedom of speech and assembly to run them out of politics on the basis of their ideas and political connections seemed like the height of hypocrisy. Communists constantly pointed this out, as did those liberals who rejected the anticommunist agenda.

So anticommunist liberals made a series of arguments that justified denying communists these rights on account of their disingenuous intentions and totalitarian ideology. Most famously, liberal activist Arthur Schlesinger Jr. argued that communists hid behind the First Amendment to attack liberal democracy, using it as a shield as they sought to destroy the democratic system that upheld those rights.

Schlesinger understood there werent enough communists in the United States to actually foment revolution. But there were enough to divide progressive forces and thus create an opportunity for conservative Republicans to take power and repeal the New Deal, which he believed would in turn destabilize American capitalism and possibly tilt the balance of international power to the Soviets. Liberals would be chumps to let a principled commitment to freedom of speech undercut the pragmatic goal of political survival, which was the only way to ensure progress in civil rights and social welfare.

Philosopher Sidney Hook hinged his argument about speech on the distinction between the free flow of ideas, which the First Amendment protected, and actions, which it did not. He said liberals had no problem with communists ideas, which they were free to expound upon and disseminate. The problem lay in their organized actions, which involved all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, and illegal methods, evasions and subterfuges developed by Lenin to subvert democracy.

Historians remain divided about the pros and cons of American communism, but most agree that the party often operated in secret and that it was directed and funded by Moscow. Communists denied this, of course, but the partys activities were the basis of Hooks contention that the CPUSA was a conspiracy, and thus not protected by the First Amendment although its ideas were. Hook didnt think thatthe state should ban the Communist Party (which would be unconstitutional and ineffective), but that private citizens and institutions should shun and expose communists, denying them the opportunity to further their political agenda.

Subsequent liberals (and most of my professors) condemned these anticommunist liberals for opening the door to McCarthyism and Cold War militarism. But given our current political moment and the threat posed by the actions of alt-right provocateurs, Schlesingers and Hooks arguments may bear revisiting. Both worried that liberals commitment to the absoluteness of rights made them unable to confront an enemy that didnt share that commitment. Both understood that the CPUSA, like the alt-right, was engaged in a struggle to destroy the cultural and political legitimacy of western democratic liberalism. And both understood that First Amendment absolutism was a luxury that only a stable, peaceable society could afford. I cant help but think that even William F. Buckley would have agreed with this.

Historical analogies are always imperfect. Nonetheless, it is clear that western liberalism, as well as left-liberalism in the United States, is under attack from people who see the First Amendment as a political weapon and not a sacred principle. Quoting Voltaire is not going to preserve anyones liberties least of all those populations most vulnerable to vicious racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic attacks.

It was one thing to defend the American Nazi Partysright to march in Skokie, Ill. in 1977, when the liberal establishment and mainstream media were still intact and American Nazi Party wasamarginal fringe group. The groupwas offensive, but neither its actions nor its ideas posed a threat to the political or social order, which was stable. The situation is different today, with an erratic PresidentTrump in the White House, elites in disarray and white nationalism on the rise. In this situation, and against this foe, it may be worth remembering that our constitutional rights are not unchanging abstract principles, but, as Hook and Schlesinger argued, always evaluated in terms of their consequences for society at any given historical moment.

At the same time, however, colleges and universities need to recognize that their liberal critics of, say, diversity policies or Title IX excesses are not political foes and should not be subject to censorship or censure. One reason the right has been able to so effectively exploit free speech is because campuses have become places where the free exchange of ideas has been curbed by peer pressure, self-policing and a self-righteous call-out culture, as described by Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Chait and Mark Lilla. Until university presidents offer real leadership inreconciling the liberal critique of identity politicswith a new generation of diverse students, faculty and staff for whom such politics representprogress, they will be unable to protect their institutions from conservative attacks.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misidentified the group that marched in Skokie, Ill., in 1977. It was the American Nazi Party, not the Ku Klux Klan.

Read more:
When 'free speech' becomes a political weapon - Washington Post

Sixty-seven planned rallies in 36 states that were meant to attract members of the so-called alt-right and other racist groups are moving online after a free speech rally on Saturday in Boston attended by white supremacists was drowned out by demonstrators.

ACT for America is deeply saddened that in todays divisive climate, citizens cannot peacefully express their opinion without risk of physical harm from terror groups domestic and international, reads a statement from the anti-Islamic group behind the rallies, which were meant to begin September 9.

Instead, a Day of ACTion will be conducted through online and other media, ACT said, but it did not detail what shape that would take.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

A demonstrator holds a U.S. flag in front of white supremacy flags and banners as self-proclaimed white nationalists and members of the "alt-right" gather for what they called a Freedom of Speech rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., June 25. Jim Bourg/Reuters

The group accuses extremist individuals and groups inspired by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) as well as anti-fascists, neo-Nazis and the KKK of creating security issues at similar free speech events this month.

In recent weeks, extremist and radical organizations in the United States and abroad have overrun peaceful events in order to advance their own agendas, and in many cases, violence has been the result, the group said. Protests against neo-Nazis were held in Germany last week.

Tens of thousands of anti-racist demonstrators also marched in Boston Saturday, dwarfing the number of alt-right members who gathered to express their views in Boston Common. The alt-right label was coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer and acts as an umbrella term for white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and misogynists.

The counterprotest was largely peaceful and followed a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned violent the week before. In Charlottesville, one counterprotester was killed and 19 others injured when police said a right-wing activist drove his car into a group of pedestrians. Anti-fascist groups in Charlottesville also pepper-sprayed and beat white supremacists.

Related: U.S. authorities consider shutting down hard-right rallies after Charlottesville

The ACT for America statement was first given to the hard-right website Breitbart. The sites executive chairman, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, has called the outlet a platform for the alt-right.

Two hate group watchdogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL), identify ACT for America as the largest anti-Muslim group in the U.S. ACT propagates the hateful conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating U.S. institutions in order to impose Sharia law, according to the ADL.

In June, ACT organized simultaneous March Against Shariah events throughout the U.S. that attracted armed militia groups, white nationalists and other members of the alt-right, including the Blood and soil fascist group Vanguard America and white nationalists Identity Evropa.

Shariah law in Europe and North America refers mainly to an Islamic family law court system set up for religious adherents that can be used to mediate and settle disputes. Many hard-right Americans see the system as encroaching on the traditional European court systems jurisdiction. Since 2010, 15 anti-Sharia bills have been passed in various states. A total of 42 have been tabled across the U.S.

ACT for Americas membership is patriotic citizens whose only goal is to celebrate Americas values and peacefully express their views regarding national security, according to group, which claims to have 750,000 members.

In 2007, the groups founder,Brigitte Gabriel, saidat the Department of Defenses Joint Forces Staff College that any practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah...who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a daythis practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States. She has made a number of other anti-Islamic statements.

Despite these statements, ACT says that any organizations or individuals advocating violence or hatred towardanyone based on race, religion, or affiliation are not welcome at ACT for America events, or in the organization.

The groups online day of action is planned for September 9.

See the original post here:
Alt-Right 'America First' Rallies Move Online After Boston 'Free Speech' Protest Is Overrun - Newsweek

A police officer escorted a participant in Saturdays free speech rally away from the scene as a water bottle was headed in his direction.

If one line captured the essence of Saturdays Boston Common rally and counterprotest, it was a quote halfway through Mark Arsenaults Page 1 story in the Globe:

Excuse me, one man in the counterprotest innocently asked a Globe reporter. Where are the white supremacists?

Advertisement

That was the day in a nutshell. Participants in the Boston Free Speech Rally had been demonized as a troupe of neo-Nazis prepared to reprise the horror that had erupted in Charlottesville. They turned out to be a couple dozen courteous people linked by little more than a commitment to surprise! free speech.

The small group on the Parkman Bandstand threatened no one. One of the rallys organizers, a 23-year-old libertarian named John Medlar, had insisted vigorously that its purpose was not to endorse white supremacy. The rally Im helping to organize is about promoting Free Speech as a COUNTER to political violence, he had posted on Facebook. There are NO WHITE SUPREMACISTS speaking at this rally.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

Indeed, nothing about the tiny rally seemed in any way connected with bigotry or hatred. One of the speakers was Shiva Ayyadurai, an immigrant from India who is seeking the Republican nomination in next years US Senate race. As Ayyadurai spoke, his supporters held signs proclaiming Black Lives Do Matter.

Call them Nazis, white supremacists or free speech advocates whatever label you prefer, they were the hunted and harassed Saturday on Boston Common.

But he and the others who gathered at the Parkman Bandstand had never stood a chance of competing with the rumor that neo-Nazis were coming to Boston. That toxic claim was irresponsibly fueled by Mayor Marty Walsh, who denounced the planned rally Boston does not want you here even though organizers were at pains to stress that they had no connection to Charlottesvilles racial agenda and intended to focus on the importance of free speech.

What happened on Saturday was both impressive and distressing.

Advertisement

A massive counterprotest, 40,000 strong, showed up to denounce a nonexistent cohort of racists. Boston deployed hundreds of police officers, who did an admirable job of maintaining order. Some of the counterprotesters screamed, cursed, or acted like thugs at one point the Boston Police Department warned protesters to refrain from throwing urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles but most behaved appropriately. Though a few dozen punks were arrested, nobody was seriously hurt.

But free speech took a beating.

The speakers on the Common bandstand were kept from being heard. They were blocked off with a 225-foot buffer zone, segregated beyond earshot. Police barred anyone from approaching to hear what the rally speakers had to say. Reporters were excluded, too.

Result? The free-speech rally took place in a virtual cone of silence. Participants spoke essentially to themselves for about 50 minutes, the Globe reported. If any of them said anything provocative, the massive crowd did not hear it.

Even some of the rallys own would-be attendees were kept from the bandstand. Yet when Police Commissioner Bill Evans was asked at a press conference Saturday afternoon whether it was right to treat them that way, he was unapologetic. You know what, he said, if they didnt get in, thats a good thing, because their message isnt what we want to hear.

No, Commissioner Evans. It was not a good thing that people with a right to speak were effectively silenced by the operations of the police. The ralliers did nothing wrong. They followed the citys rules. They absorbed the slanders flung at them by the mayor and others. They didnt try to shut their critics down, and they werent the ones hurling urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles.

All they were guilty of was attempting to defend the importance of free speech. For that, they were unjustly smeared as Nazis and their own freedom of speech was mauled.

Boston was kept safe on Saturday. For that, city authorities deserve great credit and thanks. But in the course of preventing a riot, those authorities rode roughshod over the free-speech rights of a small, disfavored minority. That is never a good thing, whatever the police commissioner may think.

Go here to read the rest:
A free-speech rally, minus the free speech - The Boston Globe

The First Amendment has been getting a workout lately, from white supremacist rallies and counter-protests to attempts to censor or block opposing viewpoints on college campuses.

The First Amendment is a broad guarantee of free and open discourse; its easier to list what isnt protected under the Bill of Rights than what is.

Unprotected speech includes obscenity, fighting words (those that inflict injury or are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace), defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats and solicitation to commit a crime. The nonprofit Newseum Institute notes that some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list.

Noticeably absent from the list is hate speech which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is protected, no matter how unpopular or bigoted, and speech that others find offensive or rude.

The First Amendment puts a great deal of responsibility for protecting free speech in the hands of the American people, counting on them to understand its importance and cherish it.

But when there are neo-Nazis and white supremacists holding rallies and issuing hateful, bigoted comments, it can be difficult for people to understand that protection of this is just as important as protecting words of peace, tolerance and brotherhood. For if one of these can be silenced, so can the other.

In recent years, there has been a troubling number of well-intentioned people wanting to silence speech they found hurtful or hateful or, on a lesser level, just obnoxious.

Some object to far-right speakers on college campuses, some object to far-left demonstrators. Some Register-Guard readers have objected to conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, others have said they would be willing to give up Goldberg if liberal columnist Paul Krugman also disappeared. (Editors note: We intend to continue publishing both.)

Banning, or censoring, other viewpoints is not the way to unite what seems to be an increasingly divided country. In the instances of true hate speech neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others of their ilk those who object have other options.

They, too, have the right to free speech, to stand up and peacefully protest. And they have the right to ignore hate groups: While their speech is protected, people do not have to provide these groups with a venue or an audience. Depriving hate groups of attention is to deprive them of oxygen, making them less newsworthy and less likely to garner attention.

As for speech and viewpoints that the hearer simply disagrees with, rather than attempting to silence or block it, a better option is to listen. Listen to the concerns, listen to the fears and frustration, listen to the hopes and the proposals. People of good will can have different views when it comes to the causes and cures for social and economic ills. But they also can find common ground in their concerns or experiences and that can be the start of bridging the divide between people. That is what free speech is meant to do.

More Editorial articles

The rest is here:
Freedom of speech is for all - The Register-Guard