Where Do Free Speech Rights End?
I recently took a position that public universities should not accept donations from groups who admit that they are trying to influence the political philosophy taught at those schools, and that environmental groups shouldn’t accept donations from polluters. A reader responds:
I disagree! I don’t see anything wrong with a university accepting money from anyone as long as it’s clearly reflected and published….However much you dislike the David and Charles Koch they are as entitled as you to commission research and donate freely…
It’s true that the Kochs have also contributed and funded controversial scientists and research that opposes or questions some aspects of climate change/global warming claims. But so what? These guys are entitled to their view and opinions. After all, free speech means the right to sponsor and voice opinions of dissent. The principle of free speech applies to everyone, even billionaires and paupers…..If you believe in free speech, it’s not important to support the right for people you agree with to speak freely, it’s far more important that you support those you vehemently oppose to speak freely.
Yours is the argument in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United,” granting corporations the same free speech rights as people enjoy under the First Amendment to spend as much as they wish to influence our elections. Regrettably five of the then-nine justices agreed with you when they heard the case in 2010; now, however, there’s an excellent chanc it will be overturned in the next year or two.
Here, the Koch Brothers want to produce a generation of young people who believe as Ayn Rand did, i.e., that selfishness is the only virtue.
Yes, I think this is a morally twisted point of view, to put it kindly. But even if I felt otherwise, I would nonetheless think it’s important that our children grow up without having an ideology shoved down their throats–especially when it’s a hateful one.
The test for all freedoms has been that they extent limit-lessly until your freedoms begin. I believe that the constitution was written as an open framework to give enough flexibility so that each age could interpret its meaning for themselves. I might then disagree with someone who was a strict-constructionist which I view similar to a fundamentalist perspective.
But it is also the function of government to correct some imbalances in the economic marketplace and the marketplace of ideas. To try and create a perfectly even environment might eliminate any benefits of competition.
Most people now feel that the ultra-wealthy should not own the government. It is not universal and it was not historically this way. At one time it was thought that only land owners should have a right to vote.
Wealth can give the benefits of a different kind of education: a study of people and how society works separate from any need for specific job training. Classically this may be very similar to a liberal education. It is the type of education that can lead to control of society.
Wealth can also act like a megaphone that allows someone to reach more people. We could look at this and say that this is then the ideal platform for a leadership class of individuals. By itself it is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is not a problem if the individual is working to benefit humanity.
This class of people become a problem when their perspective is narrowly focused on themselves. In this case they have all the benefits of a ruling class but assume none of the responsibility. Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of people our capitalistic society creates. Personal self interest, “greed,” is an underlying principal of the market economy. Rather than a wide education that would enrich the person people receive an education that narrowly focuses them on a particular goal. Instead of trying to control society all but a few focus on trying to control the wealth.
The founding fathers wanted to separate the new government from the control of any one church. However I think that they assumed an underlying morality. Without a moral society how can any government avoid corruption? There is corruption everywhere we look in our government. It has become a way of doing business. While corruption was always with us it has never been so open and obvious as exists today.
While “trickle down economics” is largely a myth “trickle down corruption” may be the reality we are living with today.
Craig,
It’s very odd to discover you defending those who want to restrict freedom, and narrow the voices involved in public debate, while the Koch brothers donate to institutions defending civil rights, equal oppourtunity, and freedoms of speech !
It’s always easy to restrict freedom in the name of moral virtue, after all the early Americans began the myth of the virtuous Mayflower puritans were fleeing persecution in search of freedom. In truth the puritans left England because they were no longer allowed to persecute others, and wanted to create a place where they could continue to persecuting dissenters and heretics, and anyone not adhering to their narrow and fanatical beliefs.
The Koch Brothers have no real power to “ram” anything down “children’s throats”. That’s a wildly exaggerated fantasy.
The Koch’s may finance research, authors and scientists you dislike, but they do so quite openly, and are entitled to promote their side of any public debate.
Just as you are free to challenge their opinions.
Corporations are made up of people, they pay taxes (remember the cry of the American Revolution), and are affected by public issues and policies. Often they alone possess the knowledge and expertise to accurately inform public debate.
No lawful voice should be stilled. Not in the US, nor in any nation.
Freedom of speech is a very fragile concept, when you limit the rights of your opponents, you discover that soon your own right becomes limited.
” Koch Brothers want to produce a generation of young people who believe as Ayn Rand did, i.e., that selfishness is the only virtue “.
That’s just your opinion based on very little more than bias and prejudice.
In my previous post I gave many instances of the support and philanthropy by both David and Charles Koch to encourage youth into many unselfish and civic minded activities, including some environmental programs.
Most humans are complex creatures,full of lots of contradictions. It’s all too easy to stereotype someone, and therefore paint them as all black with no redeeming qualities.
By this process you can de-humanise opponents to the point where it’s acceptable to remove their rights, since you are now convinced they possess no moral virtue.
A slippery slope indeed…..
There have to be some limits.
Hate speech – You can’t have people promoting a “final solution” to whatever group are out of favour, advocating violence against women, religious minorities etc.
Slander and libel – falsely and knowingly tarnishing reputations with lies.
Spreading racism / using prejudicial stereotypes to denigrate whole groups of people many of whom are honest, decent people
Hi,
Free speech does have limits, or at least consequences. The US Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 imposed a limit on the first amendment, ruling that no action deemed to be ” directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action ” was protected by the amendment.
“Hate speech, malicious slander, libel etc, advocating terrorism or other illegal acts are also not protected by the First Amendment since such utterances may constitute “incitement to break the law”.
But the US doesn’t go so far as to ban tactless, or offensive speech. Some nations have passed laws banning expressing certain offensive beliefs or offensive ideologies. IMO, the US is to be commended for upholding the widest possible definition of the First Amendment.
Certain European countries have good reasons for limiting freedom of speech about certain things.
Germany and Austria have laws criminalising Holocaust denial! (Incidentally, Internet communications featuring Holocaust denial accessible in these countries could theoretically trigger a European arrest warrant even if posted in other countries)
An implication of limiting the free speech of polluters is an unlimited application. It may seem fine to apply this to a corporation with a profit incentive but laws have a way of setting a precident and then being applied to situations that do not seem just. At some point will we keep anyone who coughs in a public place from speaking because they have polluted the environment?
A similar excess could be imagined for donations to public universities. Would they have to refuse donations because a philanthropist wanted to promote a higher understanding of free markets and democracy? The goal and frustration is real but sometimes the method can’t be just another law. Sometimes we just have to change our attitudes.