> “The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report.
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.
The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.
> “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.
Just because you have a right to say what you want, doesn't mean other people have to listen to you.
without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions
IMO this is the key part. You have a constitutional right to say what you want. You don't have a constitutional right to shout it from the front of a lecture hall in front of my professor. (Just as a random example)
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.
> Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
If you did, the crime wouldn't be you speaking your mind... it'd be the breaking and entering.
And if you want to serenade me without trespassing, as annoying as that might be I don't see how I could stop you. By that, I mean I don't see how I could ethically petition the government to make you stop (even if they'd do this).
> It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
It's not the speech that would bother me, but the pitchforks.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken:
That (some) speech is capable of manipulating other people to do things they might not otherwise do.
Now, this isn't particularly controversial, and I don't think I'd dispute it (I might remain skeptical, but silently so).
If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
On the serenading example, noise complaints to the police aren't really controversial; the notion of a disturbance of the peace is an old common law one that I think the founders would have recognized.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken: [...] If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
I think both. If you're exhorting people to commit an act and they do it, you're not morally blameless; the manipulation is itself an activity notwithstanding the fact of its intangibility. This is why we have laws against 'incitement to riot,' as it's a fact that that most people behave differently in crowds and some people make a specialty out of leveraging that to destructive ends.
Well, yelling Fire in the crowded theater is the iconic example of manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.
There's a clear time vs risk component. If you don't have time to evaluate the speaker, and the risk is high, very few people will not believe the speaker.
For regular old speech like "this flavor of ice cream is better" i agree with you.
Zechariah Chafee wrote in Freedom of Speech in Wartime -
"To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts. In our problem, we must regard the desires and needs of the individual human being who wants to speak and those of the great group of human beings among whom he speaks. That is, in technical language, there are individual interests and social interests, which must be balanced against each other, if they conflict, in order to determine which interest shall be sacrificed under the circumstances and which shall be protected and become the foundation of a legal right." It must never be forgotten that the balancing cannot be properly done unless all the interests involved are adequately ascertained, and the great evil of all this talk about rights is that each side is so busy denying the other's claim to rights that it entirely overlooks the human desires and needs behind that claim."
You have a free speech right that extends to every corner of the country. Others, however, also have rights. A balance must be sought, and to strike a fair balance you have to look at what is reasonable not from a law perspective but from a be-a-goddamn-human-being perspective.
Is it a balance to restrict freedom of speech rights on a college campus except to limited areas? No. Because the purpose of a college is to increase knowledge, and the campus is semi-public. It is reasonable to expect someone wishing to speak to you about an issue to back off if you tell them you're not interested, but it's not reasonable to proactively prevent them from doing so. And it is reasonable to expect them to stay out of your house (property rights), but not, for instance, reasonable for them to be proactively banned from knocking on your door to see if you are interested (though as an individual you can proactively indicate you are not interested by posting to that effect, putting up a gate, etc).
But I assume you know that and are just being contrary for the sake of it.
> Suppose you're having dinner at a restaurant. Is it okay for someone to show up, stand by your table, and preach about their religion? Hey, that spot where he is standing: it's part of the country, and the whole country is a free-speech zone!
Yes, actually, it is a free speech zone. However, you're also on private property, and while it's not illegal for you to be there proselytizing, the owner (or someone acting on behalf of them, e.g.: an employee) can certainly eject you from their land if your behaviour does not meet their requirements. The existence of free-speech rights in an area does not give you legal admission to occupy that area.
That argument can easily be extended to cover other opinions. For example, you're enjoying a quiet meal and discussing your religious viewpoint with a companion, but the manager takes offense and demands you leave the restaurant and take your unacceptable opinions with you.
It's not that I disagree with you, just pointing out that mechanstic applications of the rules can easily be subverted or lead to unexpected/unwanted results.
The manager of the restaurant should probably learn to be more tolerant, but it's pretty clear on any plausible reading of the U.S. Constitution that he has not violated the First Amendment. It does, after all, start with the words "Congress shall make no law."
But there is an interesting twist. What if the manager tries to kick you out, but you refuse to leave? Then he calls the police and the police drag you out. At least in a certain sense, the government is now enforcing the manager's intolerance. When it comes to the First Amendment, it's pretty clearly established that even on these facts, the First Amendment still has not been violated. But there are other rights where the situation is more complicated. Courts will not enforce, for example, a racially restrictive covenant preventing African Americans from buying property in a certain neighborhood because to do so would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Shelly v. Kreamer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer) But in many respects, the situations are analogous: the government is asked to enforce individuals' otherwise private biases. It's not at all clear (at least to me, or anyone I know who studies this area of law) what accounts for this difference. Food for thought.
Freedom of assembly is also a form of freedom of expression, one that is also constitutionally protected. People have a right (within reason) to refuse to do business with other people as a form of expression. See the Mozilla/Brendan Eich situation as an example of this.
If a restaurant owner kicks you out of a restaurant, he is also expressing himself, just through association instead of speech. Additionally, he has property rights to consider. He is allowed to control the operation of his building and business. On the balance, the restaurant owner should be favored in this sort of dispute.
Why involve the cops? It's not strictly necessary. In many cases, there are private citizens that do the same job (event security, bouncers). But the cops, at the end of the day, are enforcing the the restaurant owner's rights to property and free association. The enforcement of biases only happens indirectly.
How is that unexpected or unwanted compared to the original argument? You have a right to say whatever you feel like, at whatever volume you feel necessary. The land owner has a right to kick you out of her business for whatever reason she deems appropriate; this includes private conversations.
I've been to places that won't seat individuals, only groups. I've been to places that won't seat you if you wear jeans.
I think most people would be pretty upset if they were ejected from a restaurant half-way through a meal for the content of an otherwise-intimate conversation, in contrast to the case of having a quiet meal disturbed by an unwanted intruder. There's an implicit contract in a restaurant that if you're seated and conduct yourself with decorum that your interaction with the restaurant operators will center on the exchange of food for money.
I've been to places that won't seat individuals, only groups. I've been to places that won't seat you if you wear jeans.
The key difference being that you haven't settled in to enjoy your meal in either of those examples, although you may be disappointed to be turned away.
It has nothing to do with being upset. It has to do with the business owner's right to kick you out for pretty-well any reason s/he sees fit. The person who is loudly interrupting your meal will probably be just as upset for being booted for expressing his opinion.
Not being seated is the same as not being allowed to enjoy your meal, regardless of where you fall on the 'I've already been seated' continuum.
Straw man much? We're talking about public spaces here. The article says this is a state school, so it is funded by tax dollars, and therefore the outdoor campus could arguably be considered public space.
The 1st amendment has _never_ applied to private places. It is between persons and the government.
There is a principle in First Amendment regulation that says that the government should not exercise more control over speech than is necessary to accomplish its specific legal purposes. In this respect, there's obviously a difference between speech in outdoor and indoor settings.
These "free speech" zones would make sense if they were just zones in which you greater rights to speech, such as being overly aggressive. You would not be disturbing the peace by being loud and obnoxious in the one area set aside for being loud and obnoxious.
In actuality the "free speech" just your basic constitutional right to speech and outside of the zone your rights were curtailed by a state actor.
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.
The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.
> “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.