Opinion on Selective Support for Free Speech

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Conclusion: The Future of Freedom of Speech Although most Americans support freedom of speech in the abstract, far fewer support speech that hurts them. Free speech for me but not for thee is a common limitation. Let me propose a test for my own readers to see whether you qualify to join “the First Amendment Club.” Do you really believe in the freedom of speech guaranteed by our First Amendment? Or do you just support the speech of those with whom you agree? Nearly two hundred years ago, the French philosopher Voltaire articulated the fundamental premise underlying true support for freedom of speech: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say i, Defending “to the death” may be a bit strong and “disapprove” a bit weak, but the core of Voltaire’s point is crucial. It is easy, and rather self-serving, to rally ‘round the flag of the First Amendment on behalf of those whose speech you admire or enjoy. But unless you are prepared to defend the freedom to speak of those whom you despise—those who make your blood boil—you cannot count yourself as a member of that rather select club of true believers in freedom of expression. I call it a select club because most people, even most who claim adherence to the First Amendment, favor some censorship. Deep down, clearly everyone wants to censor something. I have Jewish friends who support freedom of expression for everyone—except for Nazis who want to march through Jewish neighborhoods like Skokie, Illinois. I have African-American friends who support freedom of speech for everyone—except those who would try to justify racism. I have women friends who support freedom of speech for everyone—except those who are in the business of selling sexist pornography. And the list goes on. When I spoke at a rally of artists, museum curators, and gallery owners protesting the prosecution of the Cincinnati museum curator who had exhibited the Mappelthorpe photographs of naked children and homosexual adults, it was a very self-serving rally. Of course, artists, museum curators, and gallery owners would protest the censorship of art! Art is their business, after all. When I represented the musical Hair, which had been “banned in Boston” back in the sixties, of course we got the support of the theater crowd. No one should be surprised that the leader of the rock band 2 Live Crew has become a First Amendment maven, since his rap lyrics have been censored. When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was prevented from opening an information office in Washington, it was predictable that Arab-American supporters of the PLO would cry “First Amendment foul.” It was not as predictable that many Jewish supporters of Israel followed my lead in opposing such censorship. And what about the classic of self-serving promotion of the Bill of Rights: The Philip Morris sponsorship of TV ads praising the First Amendment at a time when Congress was considering further limitations on cigarette advertising, or corporate support for the First Amendment right to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. You do not have to be a supporter of freedom of speech to protest when the government tries to censor the speech of those who are goring your ox. 155 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017242