By JULIEN ARMSTRONG <\/p>\n
In the wake of last months appalling massacre at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, shock and horror have largely given way to a debate about the nature of free speech and expression in the Western world. The #JeSuisCharlie (We are Charlie) movement is emblematic of the groundswell of support for freedom of the press and of speech more generally which has taken place since the events of Jan. 7.. <\/p>\n
However, other responses to the attack have seemed less concerned with protecting fundamental human rights than with protecting the feelings of those who are violently insecure in their personal beliefs. Typical of these reactions was an editorial by Tony Barber on the Financial Times website which, only hours after the massacre, decried the murdered cartoonists for mocking, baiting and needling Muslims. Barber sniffed that some common sense would be useful for satirical publications, with the implication that speech or expression which might lead others to violence should be avoided. Such thoughts are disappointing, but unfortunately, the belief that rights must take a back seat to nebulous concepts as security has always been with us. <\/p>\n
In the United States, the conflict between free speech rights and the right to not be offended didnt start with the Charlie Hebdo attacks. College campuses have been a major front in this debate, and in recent years, many schools have experienced turmoil stemming from the presence of controversial guest speakers. In one particularly high-profile case, the University of California, Berkeley selected Bill Maher 78 to be the commencement speaker for the schools December graduation ceremony. Many students were angered and protested the choice on the grounds that Maher had made comments offensive to Muslims. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Maher and his show Real Time knows that virtually no one is spared his verbal barbs, much like how Charlie Hebdo mocked myriad aspects of French society. In the end, Maher gave his speech with no disruptions, but others have not been so fortunate. <\/p>\n
In 2006, Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, members of the anti-illegal immigration group The Minuteman Project, were giving a presentation at Columbia University when students stormed the stage. The speech abruptly ended as chairs were overturned and Gilchirst and Stewart were escorted backstage for their safety. Similar incidents have been depressingly common over the past decade. <\/p>\n
College campuses have historically been centers for vibrant debate and the exchange of ideas. Implied in this is the understanding that not everyone will agree with everything they hear, but thats the point of going to college. True personal and intellectual growth can only be achieved when we listen to and engage with people who have different views and perspectives. Echo chambers might be safer and less offensive than the marketplace of ideas that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes eloquently described in Abrams v. United States, but they dont serve any of the values colleges represent. While protesting those whose ideas offend you is certainly preferable to Paris-style attacks, both of these reactions spring from the same illiberal sentiment: that your free speech rights end where my sensitivities begin. Colleges have been far too accommodating to such beliefs, and in the process, they have abandoned their core values. <\/p>\n
Cornell, to its credit, is not one of those schools. The Campus Code of Conduct explicitly states that To curb speech on the grounds that an invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil or that such ideas will offend listeners is inconsistent with a universitys purpose. Cornell recognizes that a university has an essential dependence on a commitment to the values of unintimidated speech, which are so important to our society and our educations. Just as a fear of terrorism shouldnt cause us to abandon our right to privacy, a fear of violence shouldnt keep us from exercising our freedom of expression. To succumb to fear would give credence to the so-called hecklers veto the idea that one can influence and even prevent speech merely by threatening to react against it. <\/p>\n
This very debate may soon come before the Supreme Court, as it considers whether to hear an appeal in the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. Late last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a schools right to ban certain types of student expression due to safety concerns. Specifically, the school prevented students from wearing shirts with an American flag on Cinco de Mayo after other students made threats of violence. The Supreme Court could strike a major blow for free speech by overturning the 9th Circuits decision and issuing a ruling like that in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, where it held that angry and turbulent reactions cannot justify censorship. If we truly are Charlie, then we must reject the hecklers veto and never cease to support the right of everyone to be heard. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Visit link: <\/p>\n
BARELY LEGAL: Free Speech and the Hecklers Veto<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By JULIEN ARMSTRONG In the wake of last months appalling massacre at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, shock and horror have largely given way to a debate about the nature of free speech and expression in the Western world. The #JeSuisCharlie (We are Charlie) movement is emblematic of the groundswell of support for freedom of the press and of speech more generally which has taken place since the events of Jan. 7. Continue reading