It’s 2017, and somehow a lot of people do not understand how the First Amendment works.
Freedom of speech in America is a confusing topic for many people right now, and I think it’s time we address that. In the wake of certain protests, many people are claiming to be “protectors” of free speech, when they are, in fact, hypocritical.
The main problem with many perspectives on free speech is that they don’t understand that freedom of speech only protects you from the government. This means that the federal government cannot restrict your speech, with limitations including obscenity (pornography), fraud, copyright violation, slander, intention to commit a crime, etc.
The First Amendment also does not protect you from being banned on non-public platforms, such as Twitter Facebook, or YouTube.
Finally, the First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of the public.
With an international following, Breitbart Senior Editor Milo Yiannopoulos has recently become the center of attention because of the many protests against him. These protests are what has sparked this new discussion of what is protected as free speech. Yiannopoulos’ most recent university visits (University of Washington and UC Berkeley) were met with large opposition, resulting in the events being canceled. Afterwards, many people condemned the school for not allowing Yiannopoulos to speak, claiming freedom of speech should be allowed on college campuses.
The hypocrisy here comes in many forms. There are some who claim Yiannopoulos has a right to speak, while at the same time believe the protesters should just let him speak. In reality, protesters have just as much freedom to assemble a protest as Yiannopoulos has to freedom of speech. Furthermore, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a college campus. Even though schools Milo has taught at are public schools, they are not public venues, and speakers must be approved by the university before they receive a time and space to talk.
Keep in mind, Yiannopoulos has done damage to student communities at these colleges. Just as he has singled out a student at UWM (leading to her dropping out, and chancellor Mark Mone giving an “inadequate” apology), he also allegedly planned to announce the names of undocumented students at UC Berkeley. Another hypocrisy is in the universities allowing Yiannopoulos to speak, as they cannot claim to celebrate diversity, nor claim their campus is safe for their own students if they allow someone like him to host an event.
Another event that has cultivated more arguments over the First Amendment is Alt-Right Nationalist leader Richard Spencer being punched in the face. Although everyone, including Spencer, is protected by the federal government by the First Amendment, it does not mean they are protected from actions by individuals. They are protected by the fact that assault is legal, but that’s irrelevant to the argument of freedom of speech.
It seems as though people only want to protect freedom of speech when it favors them. Keep in mind, I’m not trying to decide what is right or wrong with this article; I’m just trying to point out the contradictions we’re currently seeing. You can be in favor of free speech, but you need to understand that it does not protect anyone from anything other than the federal government, and even then, there are restrictions. Assault from individuals, being barred from social media, and being fired from your job because of your views are all irrelevant to the conversation of what can you publicly say without government interference.
