First Amendment losing ground to political sensitivities
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”;
Unless we’re talking about a white chocolate-paneled cake for a gay wedding, or perpetual funding for “women’s health” clinics because it’s the “right thing to do.”
■“or abridging the freedom of speech”;
Unless that speech is used by boorish climate change denialists to peddle dirty fossil fuels and run capitalist death machines that wreck the Earth, by anyone engaging in upsetting hate speech or other forms of “aggression,” by a wealthy person supporting candidates who undermine “progress,” by a pro-life protester who makes people feel uncomfortable about their life decisions.
■“or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”
Unless the press invades safe spaces designated by mobs or writes about incorrect topics at incorrect times.
■“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Unless someone is a member of a predesignated special interest group, he should report to the IRS before doing so.
That’s pretty much the state of the First Amendment today. Climate change, abortion, gay marriage, race, taxes, what have you — even in mainstream political debate, these interests outweigh your piddling concerns about the First Amendment. So the notion that a bunch of students and leftist professors would agitate to shut down free expression in a public space in Missouri because they feel their special issue trumps your antiquated list of rules is not particularly surprising.
Now, we shouldn’t overstate the problem. Most are able to freely engage in arguments and express ourselves without worrying about the state interfering. This will not end tomorrow. But it is difficult to ignore how creeping illiberalism has infected our discourse and how not many people seem to care.
The thousands of other University of Missouri students, for example, could have held a counter-protest against dimwitted fascists cloistered in safe spaces. Where are those student groups? Why was there no pushback from those kids against the bullies who want administrators fired for thought crimes? It can mean that students are too intimidated, too uninterested or not very idealistic about these freedoms. None of those things bodes well for the future.
And where is the faculty, those brave souls who value the freedom to debate and champion sometimes-controversial ideas when mobs of students are making wild accusations against their school without any real evidence? Where are they when students shut down conservative, libertarian or not-progressive-enough Democrats from speaking at their schools?
In fact, The campus police asked students to call authorities and report “incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech” in detail. A school, the place where young people supposedly ponder challenging ideas, now has students reporting any instances of unsavory speech. What does “hurtful speech” entail anyway? Is it enough for someone to hurt your feelings? And what is the consequence?
You may also remember when Chris Cuomo of CNN, a lawyer, tweeted (since deleted) that “hate speech is excluded from protection” under the First Amendment. He wasn’t alone.
Not long ago, 51 percent of Democrats in a YouGov poll claimed to support criminalizing “hate speech.” (A third of Republicans did so.) Another study, by the First Amendment Center a few years back, found that nearly 40 percent of Americans said the First Amendment “goes too far” guaranteeing rights.
People are scared. They’re scared to be accused of bigotry or racism, an ugly accusation that is easy to level but impossible to disprove. It’s a lazy but effective method of intimidation.
So we can laugh at the confused millennial J-school major, but he is not alone. When the mayors of Chicago and Boston used their positions of power to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities because of the CEO’s thoughts on same-sex marriage, they were working under the same notion as kids who want to be in safe spaces where their worldviews remain unchallenged. When Bill Nye argues that climate change skeptics are nuts who hate science and should be ignored by any right-thinking person, he is attempting to convince you of something. When Nye contends that America needs to drum climate change skeptics completely “out of our discourse,” he’s no longer a liberal.
Because what’s happening on college campuses hasn’t happened in a vacuum.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist.