Mired in controversy in the same way as gun rights and the government’s ability to rummage through our information is our first amendment right to freedom of speech. Our ability to formulate our own opinions, blast our government officials with criticism, and openly publish information, however controversial, is part of what makes our country so unique. The same principles that allowed the extraordinary exercise in free speech that was the Women’s March on Washington are the same set of principles that allow the Westboro Baptist Church to put their warped views on full display.
This argument over free speech, an issue as American as apple pie, came to the forefront in recent weeks. Milo Yiannopoulos, infamous Breitbart editor and spewer of verbal garbage, was forced to evacuate the UC Berkeley campus after peaceful protests turned violent as a result of masked instigators causing property damage and inciting violence. The violence included “Molotov cocktails that caused generator-powered spotlights to catch fire; commercial-grade fireworks thrown at police officers; barricades pushed into windows, and skirmishes within the crowd,” according to the above-linked UC Berkeley news release.
Recommended for you
Naturally, there was plenty of reaction to go around. Donald Trump implied he may be inclined to revoke federal funding to UC Berkeley and Yiannopoulos himself told Fox News “the left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view.” The university itself condemned the violent behavior and expressed regret that the lawful protests were overshadowed by the efforts of the agitators who showed up.
This is undoubtedly a tangled web of controversial views, free speech concerns, and political agendas. However, as much as Milo Yiannopoulos’ views are deeply flawed he has every right to speak within the Constitutionally accepted limits to free speech.
To stave off the pitchforks that may inevitably come from my side, I will begin by addressing one incident in particular as a type of speech in which Yiannopoulos stepped outside of his Constitutionally protected rights. At a December speech at the University of Wisconsin, Yiannopoulos called out and mocked a transgendered student by name and projected their image on screen. The student was physically present at the speech as well. Yiannopolous said, “I’ve known some passing trannies in my life, which is to say transgender people who pass as the gender they would like to be considered. The way you know he’s failing is I’d almost still bang him.” Ironically, the student had attended the event in an attempt to bridge some divides between Trump supporters and transgendered people, but instead sat wondering whether or not they would be assaulted as was sometimes the case at Trump rallies.
Yiannopoulos crossed the line away from free speech with this remark. Just as words that are used to incite panic, such as yelling “fire” in a movie theater, are not Constitutionally protected, words that incite personal violence against an individual in a public space are also not protected. The 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire found that certain speech could be limited if the speech could “provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Given the recent violence against transgendered people, being publicly called out as transgendered in a room where there undoubtedly were people who may not hold a favorable view of transgendered individuals could very reasonably be construed as fighting words.
This type of speech is where Yiannopoulos’ rights end. If he and his supporters are so vociferously supportive of first amendment rights then they should respect the limitations that have been lawfully placed on those rights. So long as he does not cross this line I am in full support of his ability to express his beliefs, however insane and bigoted I believe they are. Given the fact that his rights to free speech were not suppressed by the lawfully organized protestors but rather by agitators whose actions were not protected speech, it also isn’t accurate to paint all liberals as being hell-bent on stripping away the free speech rights of others.
In my opinion, Milo Yiannopoulos and many of his views represent the worst of America. Nevertheless, he has every right to express them so long as he does not cross the line into slander, fighting words, or any other limitation we have on free speech. Imagine an America where the opinions are flipped; an America where people with his views are in the majority. Were we to limit his free speech prior to this drastic shift in opinion, we would then see the flip side of this tyranny. If we hold a minority viewpoint the majority does not find favorable we could end up seeing our speech suppressed.
We have the ability to speak our minds, however controversial, because limits to unpopular speech are limits to all speech. This is why a group as venerated as the ACLU has taken on cases where they have defended the KKK's right to adopt a highway while simultaneously fighting for the rights of LGBT Americans. Limiting minority opinions creates a dangerous precedent. Despite our often broad differences of ideology we should all be able to embrace the right we all share to be able to express our ideas. At the end of the day, hate speech is something we can always choose to ignore.
