Daily Nexus / Peyton Stotelmyre
America was founded on the belief of freedom for all. And with it came the most important right, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is extremely broad, and perhaps it’s because our founding fathers never thought slavery would be abolished and America would be a country of white European refugees. But in today’s age, with the third KKK movement and the kneeling during the national anthem, there is no doubt that the freedom of speech has been stretched way too thin. With two different ends of the spectrum, there should be a fine line where free speech stops being a right and starts being a threat to the very idea of America.
The idea of free speech is to allow the country to grow and change for the better; at least, that’s what it should be meant for. Our founding fathers spoke out against the British because they oppressed the settlers, and they needed freedom of speech so that the people of America could speak out against a corrupt government and oppressive institutions. This way, America wouldn’t ever be in a situation in which its people feel contained instead of free. The KKK and the white nationalist movement, however, infringe on the idea of freedom and threaten to cast away minorities into a lower class. And as they are movements that try to oppress, disenfranchise and strip minorities of their freedom to their own pursuit of happiness and success, their free speech is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is supposed to, in an ideal society, protect citizens from the government and not feed them to the hatred emulated by hate groups.
America, where we like to say we’re the greatest and freest country in the world, was built on the blood of minorities.
Restricting free speech in democratic countries is not rare. In Germany and other European countries, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust ever existed, and this makes a lot of sense. Over six million lives were killed, and it has no doubt cast a shadow over the entire country. But it is about moving forward, too. Learning about the Holocaust allows the country to move forward after recognizing the damage it caused.
America, where we like to say we’re the greatest and freest country in the world, was built on the blood of minorities. The settlers marched through what is now New England with a trail of Native American bodies behind them. America forced Africans into slavery and attached the word “American” after it as though it made them a part of our country. We disenfranchised every minority group and stripped them of their rights to vote, to prosper and to achieve economic equality. We advocated ourselves as a free country and then imprisoned minorities in a cell of discrimination. America pushed minorities into corners and forced them to watch as their white counterparts achieved what they thought they could achieve as well. While America was built on freedom, it was also built on the blood, sweat and tears of various minority groups.
Allowing people to speak their opinions is a right, but allowing people to advocate for the eradication of minority groups should not be.
However, minority groups have made enormous strides toward equality. They can hold public office, vote, for the most part, and rise through economic classes to achieve a certain level of success. Racism isn’t uncommon in American history, but it needs to be something we need to work actively to get past. What happened in Charlottesville was an attempt to pull the country back and drag minorities back down. Neo-Nazis and the KKK are given platforms to recruit more people, an act that is a threat to the rights of POC, minorities and immigrants who come to this country for a chance at freedom that no other country can offer them.
Proponents of free speech argue that an infringement on free speech is an infringement on human rights. Allowing people to speak their opinions is a right, but allowing people to advocate for the eradication of minority groups should not be. If America is to promote freedom and equality as we always say we do, the white nationalist movement should not be given a public platform to express their ideas.
In the 1920s, the KKK was so widespread that at one point they had over three million members, and these members had the opportunity to hold public office and influence legislation. While we have not circled back to that point yet, people are angry. White people are angry at the influx of immigrants, and quite frankly they’re scared of people who do not look like them. We like to think that America is so far from the idea of racism that the neo-Nazis and white nationalists could never take off. But the truth is that people are angry and our mistake will be underestimating their anger. We’re a country that proclaims equality for all, but if we are to proclaim that, let’s remove the platform white nationalists think the Bill of Rights guarantees.
Emma Xing advocates against allowing the first amendment to pardon hateful, threatening speech.
there’s a good reason why the first amendment protects hate speech. we cannot make laws that would curtail anyone’s right to speech, even white nationalists, because the idea of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable to say is arbitrary to the individual, and thus is better to protect everyone’s right than to arbitrarily suppress certain ideas.
Free speech is not an issue, it is a slogan. The REAL issue is over warranted restraint- that debate over the conditions under which the restraint of one’s right to expression is warranted, who legitimately holds the power to restrain expression, and to whom they are accountable.
I’m sorry to say, dear author, but the argument that “expressing x perpetuates harmful stereotype y” is not sufficient warrant to restrain expression. Contriving a false equivalence between calls for genocide (which ARE illegal) and hateful generalizations (i.e “White people are… scared of people who don’t look like them”) is just intellectually dishonest.
I equate the speech of white supremacy and neo-Nazism to shouting fire in a crowded theater. If you’re not allowed to shout fire then white supremacy and neo-Nazism must be banned.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment if you believe that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not covered under it…
the restriction on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater has nothing to do with the freedom of speech
You can’t even understand the analogy. It’s illegal to cry “fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t a fire because people may be injured in the stampede to get out of the building. But a bunch of idiots shouting about white supremacy in a public park or on TV (and it’s not like they’re buying time to be on TV, they’re being put on the air by people who somehow think what the idiots are saying is newsworthy) is not even remotely the same. Don’t want to listen to them? Just walk away or turn off the TV. And… Read more »
The problem is where the line is drawn. Short of an immediate threat to public safety (the “fire” example”) or an actual threat (“I’m going to kill you”) or inciting a riot (“we are all going to injure X group tonight, let’s go!”), we have to be extremely careful about limiting speech. I hate white supremacists, the KKK and the like. I also despise Black Lives Matter and other Leftist groups, some of which actually advocate for violence in their rhetoric. But their speech is legal, and generally should be. I don’t think you understand the purpose of the First… Read more »
The problem here, of course, is the little phrase “I equate”.One of the purposes of the First Amendment is to protect the rest of us from the “I”s of the world, the ones who believe that their personal analysis is always correct.
That’s a fucking stupid comparison. If you learned this at college, I’ll be the first to say you are owed a refund for educational malpractice.
What is wrong with liberal mentality is, they’ll focus on a hate groups color(white)for condemnation, instead of condemning ALL hate groups. NBPP = good, KKK = bad. News flash liberals, they are equally bad.
First we had an article suggesting that the second amendment be banned (or revised), now an article suggesting that the first amendment be banned. What’s next – should be be forced to quarter soldiers?
In numerical order, yes that would be next…
If politicians are elected, who have a mentality anything like HRC, the BoR will slowly be chipped away. They make decisions with their hearts and not their brains. Goosebumps and chills up the leg are key factors in helping them make these important decisions, lol.
No one has to listen to those who preach hate or exclusion, any more than they have to listen to the people proposing that we eliminate or stop restricting guns, or that we should hate or love soldiers, or we should support or bomb a specific country. Politicians may decide (and have in the instance of John Adams) that it is unlawful to say anything against their policies, but the basic right of free speech protects us from this type of oppression, regardless of what form it may take or content it may contain. Parades, or protests or demonstrations, the… Read more »
Certainly you are free to associate all white people with the extreme statements of those white extremists who oppose immigration… you have free speech to do so. However, associating all members of a class with the views of a subset of that class is in my opinion not helpful or useful.
Please consider the broader context. Nearly 10 years after the financial crash of 2008, working people (of all “races” and colors) are still in the dumps economically, while the rich continue to vastly increase their share of the national wealth. This situation is non-sustainable, as those with who hold the reins of power are well aware. Rebellion will ultimately ensue; and while the author of this piece goes along with the groupthink generalization of Trump voters as collective white trash, the real reason for Trump’s ascendancy can be traced to the abandonment of the American working class by the Clintonite… Read more »
I should have said that the author *fits in* with the white-trash generalization of Trump supporters, as she admittedly does not mention them specifically. In her closing paragraph, she states: “But the truth is that people are angry and our mistake will be underestimating their anger.” Yes, people (including Trump voters) ARE angry, and reasonably so given our endless state of war and the hyper-exploitation of American youth and works. But a call for censorship does not address this anger, but is rather an attempt to suppress it. Again, please Google & read the New York Times article “As Google… Read more »
Some working people. Im a factory worker. I make over $28/hr. My raises are 3-3.5% per year. With overtime I make nearly 70K. I think I’m doing pretty good.
Not if you live in Santa Barbara (unless you live in mom’s basement).
Limiting free speech is great if you are the one who gets to pick and choose what gets limited. Unfortunately, you won’t be the one. It will be someone who uses that power to suppress ideological opponents. Your cure is far worse than the disease. The United States has been through more divided and hateful times than the present. It will survive if we stick to our principals and don’t start forfeiting rights because of unpleasant side-effects.
Aside from its frightening inability to grasp the central place of the concept of a right to free speech, this article is evidence of a truly astounding ignorance of the history of this country. Take this one example, from many: “our founding fathers never thought slavery would be abolished and America would be a country of white European refugees.” In fact, abolitionist societies were already developing in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Debates about slavery in that convention were vigorous, and there absolutely were people who thought the institution should be abolished. Many of the founders were… Read more »
There’s a famous phrase that has no real attribution. Lots of people credit it to Ronald Reagan, but he is not the originator. The phrase is, “We are always just one generation away from losing our freedom,” and the author of this ridiculous editorial is proof positive of its wisdom. She speaks for millions upon millions of her peers — people who have complete disdain for unfettered freedom of expression because they have no idea of what it’s like to live without it. What they forget is, regulated speech has been the default setting of human civilization for 8000 years,… Read more »
This comment brings to mind Chesterton’s dictum that one should only be allowed to tear down a wall after she has discovered what its purpose was.
The Congress under the Articles of Confederation (our pre-Constitution, Constitution actually banned slavery in the territory north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachians (the old Northwest Territory). Benjamin Franklin helped to found the anti-slavery society in Philadelphia, shortly before his death. The examples multiply, if one hasn’t already made up one’s mind.
It’s remarkable how today’s young people, instead of learning American history warts and all, have only learned the warts. This is what the progressive takeover of the education schools hath wrought.
The author is what used to be called an “educated fool.” Her ignorance of American history is pretty shocking. The Founders never thought America would get rid of slavery? “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.” — John Adams 1819. This quote took me about 10 seconds to find and is from John Adams who was not only the 2nd President, but one of the few men who signed both the Declaration… Read more »
Well, the Adams quote is to the point and does underscore the ignorance of the author of the original piece, but Adams did not sign the Constitution. He was a US emissary in Europe at the time and missed all of the excitement.
By all means, let us eliminate free speech. Trump & the GOP are in power now, so this is obviously a good time to do it. Or would you prefer to wait?
So you want Trump and Sessions to decide what speech to ban eh? How do you think that will work out? Think before you speak. Don’t ever give power to the government you wouldn’t want your worst enemy to get.
It won’t be social justice warriors deciding who gets to speak, or what gets banned, it will be people like Trump.
“…Allowing people to speak their opinions is a right, but allowing people to advocate for the eradication of minority groups should not be…”
Remember that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger as a eugenics movement to suppress the birth of minority babies, and evolved into a killing machine that still murders minority babies in disproportionate numbers. If you actually believe what you say here, support defunding of Planned Parenthood.
This column is just a rehash Of “Repressive Tolerance,” a paper written in 1965 by the Maoist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. It didn’t make any more sense in the original.
“The Bill of Rights is supposed to, in an ideal society, protect citizens from the government and not feed them to the hatred emulated by hate groups” How does limiting speech “protect citizens from the government?” it does the exact opposite! The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with hate groups, it outlines the constitutional rights of citizens that can’t be encroached upon by a central authority. This might sound harsh coming from a high school student, but this needs to be taken down. You might want to take a course on US History before posting this garbage. I… Read more »
No, the idea behind free speech is free speech. It’s an end, not a means to an end, like all forms of liberty. And it’s precisely the right to hurt, to wound, to offend, to flay people’s souls with whips of fire and ram doggie-do up their noses 24/7, with no recourse.
Get used to it.
Emma Xing is wrong on the Constitution, wrong on the history of the USA, and wrong about the true threat to our democratic institutions.
It’s puzzling that Emma Xing goes to a first class college and is a first class totalitarian.
Emma Xing is a threat to American democracy. Her citizenship should be revoked and she should be sent back to China. If she wants to censor people, let her censor her own kind. This is the real danger of importing people from the 3rd world. They have no concept of our freedoms. Let her run a gulag in China!
If any speech should be restricted, then it must be promoting genocide and Emma writing is textbook example. Demonize one racial or ethnic group and blame them most evil crimes until all other groups agree that something must be done. And use eupheism,s nobody can,t define. So every action qualifises as righteous fight against ultimate evil. Another example that there was never any question of “justice”. They just want white people dead.
There is so much ignorance and stupidity in this essay, I don’t know where to begin. I guess I’ll start with the fact that without freedom of speech, we have to identify *who* gets to decide what is free speech. This is major issue, and why the First Amendment exists. The author is also incorrect: Threats are already illegal. The issue there is what young snowflakes perceive as threats. An opinion contrary to yours is not a threat.
Oh dear, another group of students who do not understand that censorship NEEDS A CENSOR. Someone who decides WHAT speech should be forbidden. Emma, Alan, even Anonymous, simply assume that the censor will always be someone that they agree with. You folks need … an education. In the 1920’s, the Weimar government in German, a country whose political leadership Emma admires, censored the National Socialists. As Emma notes approvingly, Germany does not have a tradition of unfettered political speech. So in 1933, when the National Socialists came to power, nothing hinder them from censoring the people Emma likes. Emma and… Read more »
In the last post, I remarked on the “do unto others” reason for unfettered speech. Its logic recognizes that the power to censor can change hands. Thus, if you have the power today to suppress speech of the KKK, you should not use it, because next year, the KKK might have that power and suppress your speech. The civil liberties of all individuals are secure only in a culture that deeply respects everyone’s civil liberties, no matter what is said or who is in power. Now, Emma seems also to be saying “Well yes, free speech is fine, and we… Read more »
By the way, there is a better argument for free and open discourse, one rooted in the history of ideas and how they emerge, in science and culture. Let’s begin with Richard Feynman, the Caltech physicist, who noted that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” “Science alone [teaches] the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers.” For today, this mean that knowledge cannot be discovered in any community who find persuasive an argument that begins with the phrase: “97% of experts agree…” But there is more. The community must also value discomfiting realities over… Read more »
“The idea of free speech is to allow the country to grow and change for the better; at least, that’s what it should be meant for. Our founding fathers spoke out against the British because they oppressed the settlers, and they needed freedom of speech so that the people of America could speak out against a corrupt government and oppressive institutions.”
No, free speech is an end in itself, not a means to an end. It’s incredibly dangerous to empower a government with broad discretion to deem certain ideas unlawful.
A large voting group believes that “Black Lives Matter” is a hate group that promotes violent hate speech. We know this, because they elected the current President. You seem to believe that your views would empower your side. What makes you think it wouldn’t simply empower the other side. Instead of finding your white nationalist opponents silenced, you could instead find your Black Lives Matter allies further oppressed. That’s why we need these freedoms. Especially if you’re on the left; don’t you get it yet? The left typically loses. Liberal freedoms protect you. They represent one of the left’s few… Read more »
In France, we have quite the same laws controlling what we’re allowed to say and even to think about, just as they have in Germany. Believe me : the result is : allmost only SJW have (in fact) the right to speak now. We have politicals convicts rotting in our jails, counterparts of ADL are watching day and night on FB to find out the slightest critic about Israel to sue. Wrighters need 20 lawyers to read their novel before publishing, we even care about what we say in a café, being afrair to be heard from a SJW. Is… Read more »
In France, self called land of “Human rights”, we have the same laws controlling what we’re allowed to say and even to think about, just as they have in Germany. The result : allmost only SJW have (in fact) the right to speak. We have political convicts rotting in our jails, counterparts of ADL scrutinizing day and night FB to find out the slightest critic about Israel and sue it. Wrighters need to pay 20 lawyers to read their novel before publishing, tremblig at the idea of having said somethig displeasing to black, jew, moslim or even fat people or… Read more »
In France, self called land of “Human rights”, we have the same laws controlling what we’re allowed to say and even to think about, just as they have in Germany. The result : allmost only SJW have (in fact) the right to speak. We have political convicts rotting in our jails, counterparts of ADL scrutinizing day and night FB to find out the slightest critic about Israel and sue it. Wrighters need to pay 20 lawyers to read their novel before publishing, tremblig at the idea of having said somethig displeasing to black, jew, moslim or even fat people or… Read more »
Maybe it would have been better if my 2 grandfathers didn’t help “liberate” your country during WWII, lol
I used to suffer from very horrible panic/anxiety assaults. It is an extremely scary situation to stay, which does not help with the anxiety. The best thing to accomplish is consider your breathing. Take to to take deep, slow, and meaningful breaths. In and out, in and out. Pay attention to the noise of the breathing and simply simply take it slowly.
Soooooooo, my rights end where your feelings begin.
It’s high time for America to re-evaluate importing people from foreign cultures — like Ms. Xing — who have no respect and no history of freedom of speech. Her China has NO respect for freedom of speech. It is a totalitarian state and she only wishes to re-create it here. If she is unhappy with living here, she should return there instead of trying to take away the rights of European-Americans like me whose ancestors actually founded this country. Restricting freedom of speech does not help any country “move forward”. It only keeps people mentally imprisoned. My grandfathers were told… Read more »
It’s time for us to re-evaluate allowing people from totalitarian cultures (ie. China and Ms. Xing) to enter our country and become citizens. There is the old adage that “you can take the monkey out of the jungle but you cannot take the jungle out of the monkey.” People like Ms. Xing for cultural, ancestral perhaps genetic! reasons have no appreciation of the free expression. And it makes no sense to keep importing them since they cannot adapt to our ways but rather wish to re-create their country in ours. Restricting freedom of speech does not help a country move… Read more »
“The idea of free speech is to allow the country to grow and change for the better; at least, that’s what it should be meant for.” Nope. Free speech is not dependent on its usefulness to the state. Oh, wait. I’m wrong. Counterexamples in North Korea, Turkmenistan, or a whole host of countries that I’m sure are very pleasant to live out a whispered, fearful existence. Free speech is the best disinfectant for sophistry and tyranny. For example, I’m using it right now to expose how you are invoking your right to free speech so you can deny that same… Read more »
When you limit one group’s right to freedom of speech, you create a gun that can easily be turned back against you the next time someone else is in power. If you create a precedent that certain political beliefs can be banned, not only do you give them a platform, and make people with these views harder to identify (see the McCarthy era in the US during the 1950s), you also risk someone who disagrees with you silencing your views. If you ban neo-Nazis from speaking, you drive them further underground and make it easy for a Republican to get… Read more »
The author of this opinion piece only serves to remind the rest of us of how woefully ignorant she is. I think it’s best if she chooses to relocate to a country more in line with her anti-civil liberties position.
No doubt some people consider pro-choice speech hateful because it supports the killing of unborn babies.
Your argument against free speech is despotic and despicable, and the sad thing you, you don’t even realize it that YOU are acting like the fascist. No one likes Nazis or the KKK. Or people who say hateful things about minorities. Such people are shunned & shamed in the court of public opinion. Once you start allowing government to restrict free speech, it’s a slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism. If you want to live in under totalitarian rule, there are plenty of communist countries to move to.
This was histarical. I was laughing the whole time. This bimbo is so far from reality. Can someone show her US median income chart. Check out how many ethnic groups are before whites. Nice try, Emma. Take your fascism back to whereever you came from, we don’t have room for that in America.