Argument Synthesis Paper on Free Speech

David Babcock 76-101 D

Word Count: 1575 Argument Synthesis Paper

Free speech and free expression has always been a hard pressed issue in society, whether it be in America concerning the Bill of Rights and the first amendment, or in Europe concerning the written works of great authors like John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine. All of the authors we have read so far throughout this course have had unique opinions on the issue, but still shared a common theme in their writings: how, if at all, should free speech be regulated in society? Arguments for both sides of this opinion exist in abundance throughout the course readings, but Paine, Fish, Mill, O’Neil and Abrams provide the most crisp arguments and well-founded opinions on the issue. A thorough understanding of their analyses along with a thorough examination of a case like the one involving the controversial school newspaper right here at Carnegie Mellon University will help bring us to an improved understanding of free speech regulations in our society today.

In 2004, Carnegie Mellon’s student newspaper, The Tartan, published its satirical April Fool’s issue, The Natrat. Many readers took offense; the representation of gays, non-whites, and women included in this issue were viewed by many as hateful and obscene. The Tartan is supposed to represent the voice of the students, but this issue failed to uphold the beliefs and values of the campus community. How should the university react? Should the editors be referred to the University Disciplinary Committee, or are they protected under the First Amendment? It is not uncommon for cases involving freedom of speech on college campuses to be highly disputed, hard pressed issues. Offensive speech on the college campus is never approved of, but the controversial issue is whether academic institutions have the authority to punish those who use offensive speech. According to O’ Neil, punishing offenders is equivalent to restricting speech. Critics of speech regulation invoke various arguments, including the risk that limiting speech could rob society of the opportunity to replace error with truth by suppressing potentially true ideas. On the other hand, advocates of the limitation of speech believe that without restrictions, First Amendment rights will be used too freely, and racist comments could provoke violence or cause individual harm, as can be the effect the Nazi’s march would have had on the members of the predominantly-Jewish community of Skokie. Ignoring the issue is not the ideal solution either, because being neutral may be seen as taking sides with the racists. In the case of The Natrat, Carnegie Mellon University was faced with the perilous task of deciding whether the protection of the freedom of speech or the limitation of hate speech takes precedent; weighing the risks resulting from each course of action, keeping in mind that whether offenders are punished and speech is limited, or no punishment or speech laws are enacted, the outcome will effect the way in which society interprets the scope of the First Amendment.

This is a preview of the whole essay

When it comes to the topic of dealing with vocalization of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other types of hate speech on college campuses, O’Neil acknowledges that it is the job of the university to take some form of reformative action, but he believes that a speech code is not the best response. Punishing the editors of The Natrat would, in fact, be saying that they violated some sort of speech code, which is very risky and controversial. Speech codes are rarely held up in court, due to ambiguity of terms of the code itself and violations to ones First Amendment rights. Less controversial approaches are often more productive; combating racism may be as simple as faculty members clearly showing members of the campus community that “such expression is not compatible with the values of the institution” (O’Neil: 25). O’Neil claims that “above all, universities should approach racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-Semitism through what they do best—education” (O’Neil: 25). Rather than punishing the editors of The Natrat, O’Neil would support the creation of special programs to educate students about diversity.

Although, like O’Neil, the ACLU would likely agree that the editors of The Natrat should not be punished, the reasoning underlying their argument would be somewhat different than that of O’Neil. While O’Neil believes that hate speech should not be tolerated and would refrain from punishment in order to avoid enacting a speech code, the ACLU would take a more absolutist approach and avoid inflicting punishment to maintain their belief in free speech at all costs. The ACLU holds strongly to the belief that freedom of expression “deserves society’s greatest protection”, and understands that in order to guarantee freedom of speech for all of society; they are forced to defend all cases on the topic of freedom of speech, even if they do not agree with their actions. The ACLU’s argument is law-based, and the prevailing standard today states: “Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce ‘imminent lawless action’. Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected” (ACLU online). They do acknowledge that “freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used” (ACLU online). Within the context of The Natrat, racist speech does exist, but it is neither threatening nor intended to cause violence. Based on the ACLU’s beliefs and past actions, it is clear that they would be against punishing the Natrat editors, and would look down upon any reformative action which violates the right of the American people to be “well-informed and have access to all information, ideas, and points of view” (ACLU online).

Similar to the ACLU’s argument which is totally law-based and Constitutionally-bolstered, Paine’s argument is established on those same standards. However, Paine’s focus is not on government laws but on “natural laws” and the rights of man that come with birth, which include the rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. He argues that there are few occasions in which a society cannot function smoothly without government. “Common interest regulates [society’s] concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government” (Paine: 150). In other words, humans rely heavily on one another to help fulfill their everyday wants and needs, therefore if something is in the best interest of both parties involved, a law is not necessary to enforce cooperation. Paine insists that governmental judgment should not be the deciding factor in the outcome of debates because, on many occasions, government itself plays a role in encouraging upheaval. At Carnegie Mellon, the school officials make up the government, and the student body is society. If the school were to base their decision on Paine’s argument, in the case of The Natrat, the editors should not be punished and the school itself should not become involved; all of the decisions should be left up to the student body. He believes that if reformative action is necessary, society will naturally regulate speech in the manner that works best: “all the great laws of society are laws of nature” (Paine: 153).

In some cases, the free speech advocates may find support from authors like Abrams or Fish, who believe in context-based decisions. In the case of The Natrat, though, the views of both Abrams and Fish would actually be in opposition to those who believe that the protection of the freedom of speech should triumph in every situation. Abrams informs us that “the public is extending the scope of the application required by legal doctrine [of the First Amendment]” (Abrams: 3). By this she means that freedom of speech receives too much protection, making it easy for people to use their First Amendment rights as a sort “bail out” for their words or actions. In Abrams eyes, failing to punish violators may have long-term consequences: potential speakers may begin to develop a similarly narrow habit of mind, permitting an inquiry onto the likelihood of their First Amendment protection to constitute the sum total of their deliberation on whether to undertake potentially injurious speech. This narrow-mindedness often results in people failing to take other values into consideration when speaking, believing that, since their speech and opinions are protected by the First Amendment, others values may be disregarded as insignificant.

Since the content covered by “free speech” is not consistent, Fish insists that “we must consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of the alternative course of action” (Fish: 111). He concludes that “right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risks that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope toward tyranny” (Fish: 115). Although the basis of Fish’s argument for contextually-based decisions differs from that of Abrams, his stance in The Natrat case would be in concurrence with Abrams: Fish would likely support a decision to punish the editors, because, according to him, greater risks would face the university if they did nothing to resolve the issue.

So, how, if at all, should free speech be regulated in society? The answer is not a concise, one-sided answer by any means, as I hope I have just made evident. However, a thorough understanding of both sides of the issue, along with an understanding of ones own personal values can bring us to our own ultimate truth as to how free speech should be regulated in society.