Get ready to embark on an engaging exploration of the complex issue of free speech, particularly within the context of university campuses. This thought-provoking discussion is sparked by recent developments at the University of Pennsylvania, where faculty member Claire Finkelstein has proposed that speech be restricted on campus to combat antisemitism following the resignation of President Liz Magill. We unravel the intricacies of the First Amendment, calling into question its interpretation and the ambiguity of its protections. Ultimately, we argue for universities to foster a culture of free speech and intellectual debate, rather than attempting to control discourse to suit a particular narrative.
In the second part of the discussion, we delve into the exceptions to the rule - situations where free speech and the First Amendment do not apply, and the types of speech that are unprotected. The conversation takes a turn into the real-life backlash faced by those who expressed opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement, revealing an interesting paradox, as those very individuals are now advocating for restricting speech on campus. We passionately advocate for the importance of maintaining a principled stand for free speech, regardless of personal views or emotions. So, if you hold any opinion that may be perceived as controversial, would you want your ability to express it to be restricted? Tune in and let the debate begin!
Speaker 1:
as the University of Pennsylvania's president has now resigned, liz McGill. You also have noble faculty one, which being Claire Finkelstein, coming out and stating that U-Penture restricts speech on campus to combat antisemitism. The attack on free speech is not one that's new. It's been the books for quite some time, but it's usually under the guise of hate speech or incitement to violence, which are both pretty vague and, depending on the context, are actually protected under the First Amendment. But instead of these proposed restrictions, universities should be cultivating a campus culture of free speech.
Speaker 1:
Intellectual thinking, debating and laying ideas clash. This permits people to make their own decisions on what ideas and arguments are cogently laid out and what they believe is the best position to take and what system of beliefs to adopt. But unfortunately, school administrators, donors, alumni want to control the rhetoric, controls, the speech on their respective campuses, and they want to control it to the benefit. And when they do this, they're actually insulting you. They're insulting you because when they say this type of speech is dangerous, it's offensive insinuance that you can't think for your own, that if a bad idea is put in front of you, that you, on your own, can't leverage your own faculties to think freely and to come to the conclusion that I don't agree with that. Personally speaking, for myself, I disagree with a lot of the statements and rhetoric that are being put forward on these campuses at these different protests and sedans, but nonetheless I'll still stand for the right to speak on it and to say what they believe in, because that's what the First Amendment and what a core American value is based upon freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to assembly.
Speaker 1:
There are certain cases where free speech and the First Amendment do not apply and that speech is not protected. One obviously is when people say incitement to violence, they're speaking to the imminent lawless action, and that is a direct reference to the 1969 landmark Supreme case ruling Braydenburg versus Ohio, where in that case they speak to imminent lawless action and how that is not protected. I recently spoke with Brad Palumbo and he provided a great example of this and I'll now use myself but similar framing under the example he provided. So I come from Italian Irish descent. If someone were to say we should round up all the Italian Irishmen and kill them, that's awful, that should be rejected and condemned, but that's actually protected by the First Amendment. But what would be protected by the First Amendment? Well, if someone were to say we should go get that Italian Irishman, dan Corcoran, round him up and kill him at 6 pm today, that's not protected. That's the difference right there. It's a key one, kind of small, but not really, and nonetheless good to keep in mind. I say all of this because, however you feel about what's going on in the Middle East or what was going on in the summer of 2020, if you don't take a principled stand for free speech, then it's going to come back you and get you at one point or another.
Speaker 1:
A lot of people who were against organization Black Lives Matter and believed their movement was counterproductive and say, spoke out against it. They received backlash for coming out and expressing those opinions and say we're labeled hate speech or, in some of the violence, part of the case may be. Well, some of those same people who received backlash for coming out and stating their opposition to Black Lives Matter and that organization and movement were, say, ben Shapiro and is loyal, following along with a number of other people, but now they're proponents of restricting speech on campus in this case. So all comes around the bite. You and the same people who were, say, part of the Black Lives Matter movement and organization and are now in favor of the propel Sinean movement and attending these protests and saying their opinions. They're now receiving the back end of that and having their opinions be suppressed and their speech being restricted. And this is when. This is what happens, when you don't take a principal stand and you let your emotions get the best of you and dictate your words and actions.
Speaker 1:
Now just think of it this way generally speaking, even if you aren't a politically involved person, if you have any semi-convert, controversial opinion, would you want someone else trying to restrict your speech to talk about it and say you do feel passionately about that opinion? And you went through different arguments and you still land that I feel this way on it. Is it really someone else's role? Is it really appropriate for someone else to try to restrict how you think about it or how you speak on it? No, it's not. We as Americans should stand up for that, because nowhere else in the world has that right. Other governments may operate under similar guidelines, but at the end of the day, if the government wants to restrict your speech in another country even a lot of the European countries they completely can. They 100% can. Sweden has probably won the strongest free speech laws and protections in Europe, but then the day it's only here in the United States where we have such protection for our citizens, and I mean no one.
Speaker 1:
No one should give that up under the guise of anything they may personally agree with in the moment, because a lot of the things, as mentioned, that are being float around on these college campuses I disagree with, I think, are important and wrong, but I'm not going to go out there and try to restrict their speech and take something away. That's critical to intellectual thought, debate and just being an American, in my opinion. However, I'm always open to feedback. I do feel passionately about this issue, evidently so, but I do like to hear what other people sign on the list, even though I may come back to my similar stance at the end of the day. But if you do have thoughts on it, whether you agree or disagree, I am always welcome to send someone's direct message or even send up a phone call time to time. So I hope you enjoyed this.
Speaker 1:
We'll talk soon and I want to give a quick shout out to the new episode coming Tuesday, december 19th. That's going to be a renowned journalist, glenn Greenwald, but we'll be discussing the siege on free speech that is occurring on these college campuses. It's coming next Tuesday, less than a week from now. Stay tuned for that. It should be a very interesting conversation. Glenn himself is a fascinating person. He's an author, journalist, former lawyer. He started a news organization, the Intercept. So it should be some really interesting stuff. So stay tuned for that and take care and have a great week.