Idea of civil debate needs to be protected
The man, unkempt and foul-smelling, approaches a commuter in the New York City subway underground. He quietly asks for money for a cup of coffee. He’s waved away. He asks again, louder. And is again ignored. Finally, shouting, menacing, spittle flying in the commuter’s face, he screams for money for a friggin’ cup of coffee.
Police arrest him. New York has a law against “begging” in the subway. His lawyers say he was just using his right of free speech, the same way the Salvation Army asks for money.
And the age-old First Amendment question rears its head: Where is the line drawn between protected expression and illegal action? Speech is necessary in a self-governing democratic society so the people can, as the First Amendment pointedly says, “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It’s vital.
But action — putting hands on security guards, seizing control of a library, pitching tents on a lawn — is not protected by freedom of speech. Even civil disobedience, a long-admired form of protest, does not include the use of violence.
And now we’re watching this dilemma spread like a democratic virus across college campuses — from Columbia in New York to Emory in Atlanta to UCLA in California. More than a cup of coffee is at stake. Protesters are “petitioning” for an end to the Israel-Hamas war, in which 34,000 Palestinians have been killed after Israel invaded the Gaza Strip, responding after Hamas, a terrorist group, crossing the border, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 253 hostages.
Thorny questions abound in this First Amendment campus debate. Yet in some ways, it’s a perfect example of how free speech was supposed to work. Upset with how Israel has crushed a largely civilian people and brought thousands to the brink of starvation, pro-Palestinian protesters have massed on college campuses to voice their anger and prod the government to stop Israel from continuing its war. Some are asking that colleges disassociate financially from Israel.
The protesters are “petitioning” the authorities to respond, “begging” for a response.
Some — let’s be frank — are antisemites, gleeful to go after Israel, part of a wave of antisemitism across college campuses. No surprise: The threat Jewish students now feel has more than doubled in the past eight years.
On the other side of the debate are those who think Israel is justified: their land invaded; Israeli citizens killed. Protesting the invasion by Hamas — and its declared stance that Israel should not exist — deserves throaty airing. Hamas is evil. A threat to the Jewish homeland cannot be tolerated.
The idea of civil debate needs protection
Yet the idea of a civil debate between angry opponents not only is worth having in public, it needs protection. At UCLA, the camps were allowed to literally go to battle. Police should have been between the sides, letting them scream but not dragging them off into the police wilderness. If speech truly has a higher value, just allowing it is not enough — it needs to be protected by authorities.
That does not answer the question of how society should react to hate speech — virulent antisemitic, anti-Israel banners and chants? Are pro-Palestinian rallies really antisemitic gatherings?
“There is nothing wrong with being critical of any country,” explains the Anti-Defamation League’s director, Jonathan Greenblatt. “But campaigns that demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state often end up in actions that demonize and delegitimize Jewish people.”
Yet we don’t want to stifle this debate, because it is revealing of the continued rise of antisemitism. It is about how a democratic nation, an ally, wages war against an oppressed people. It is about the limits of American political power abroad — and about how we continue to arm the world for war. For good and bad.
Most commonly, we try to balance free speech against a competing value. But often we begin that balancing by conceding that speech takes a preferred position. We need to hear each other, even when we don’t like what the other says.
And the authorities do not take a position on who is right or wrong. All they do is protect the debate and, when needed, regulate the time, place and manner of the speech.
Revisiting Vietnam — and John Stuart Mill
America has been through this before. During the Vietnam War, I was a student at Wagner College, a small Lutheran campus on Staten Island, whose doors shut early in the spring of 1970 for fear of anti-war demonstrations. A real fear. On May 4, national guardsmen killed four student protesters at Kent State University in Ohio. No one wanted a repeat.
Wagner faculty could give students the grade they had that point or demand a final project. My literature professor, Marge Rooney, opted for a project. She knew I was reading “On Liberty,” a famous 1859 essay on free speech written by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill.
“You are a journalist,” she said, “What does he say about freedom of speech?” It was my first exposure to the principles that underline the First Amendment. What Mill said so applies today. “Absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,” he declared. Hateful or not, all speech is protected. I don’t think Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott read Mill, however. He declared recently that any students taking part in “hate-filled, antisemitic protests … belong in jail.”
Why protect all speech?
“If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may be true,” Mill wrote.
Is Israel the bad guy for bringing on the deaths and starvation? Or is that on Hamas for its brutal, rape-filled attack into Israeli territory? Pick your poison or your truth. But both sides need to be able to talk. Truth is difficult to uncover in silence — or if we suspend protesters from school.
“Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may contain a portion of truth,” Mill adds. Thus, it’s up to the citizen — not the government or college authorities — to pick and choose truth from falsehood that come out of a heated debate.
“All opinions should be permitted,” Mill wrote, adding, “on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion.” In defense of Israel and the Jews, no one should be temperate. Meek protest makes no sense.
But, on the other hand, the oppression and freedom of the Palestinians calls for equally vociferous and “intemperate” language. That speech will be nasty, and anger is to be expected.
The crossover point is deciding what is speech and what is an action. But, Mill conceded, we may face “the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed.”
Posters, signs, bullhorns, demonstrations on campus — all protected. Encampments on campus, pushing security guards, seizing a building — not speech.
What can administrators do when protesters, wanting to get across their message, begin to take over buildings and camp out overnight? Being clear about acceptable regulations of speech is a starting point. The key: No one gets silenced because the authorities do not like their viewpoint. The government must be neutral.
Moderate the debate, protect speakers and make sure their actions do not disrupt campus life. Easy to say. But it’s at the heart of democracy. Encourage debate. Let citizens decide. Make sure each side can be heard. But, understand, it will be messy.