Freedom of speech is a universal principle in that if someone condones the right for anyone to speak his or her mind, they must accept it when someone they disagree with does the same. As the saying commonly misattributed to Voltaire goes, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Even though this same philosophy is emphasized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech has come under scrutiny by those who argue that hate speech is worse than hate crimes and, therefore, should be limited.
Worse than this is the group that claims to protect free speech while also undermining the free speech of others in an underhanded way.
The philosophy behind allowing unfettered freedom of speech and expression comes from the idea of a “marketplace of ideas.” Based on writings by John Stuart Mill, it is essentially an extension of marketplace economics into the sphere of public discourse, in which bad ideas are beat out by better ones based on their own merit. Regardless of whether or not the marketplace of ideas reflects reality, defenders of the idea have to acknowledge it as a component of their political position.
Free speech advocates argue that truth will ultimately be revealed by intense public discourse, an idea I fully support. However, the constant attacks on left-wing activists by outrageous conspiracies from the right does nothing but undermine the marketplace of ideas. I will admit that spreading utterly incredulous information falls under free speech, but is it just me, or does the endless questioning of the motives of Parkland survivors and other left-wing activists seem to be a backhanded way to curtail their ability to speak freely?
The legend of Grand Marshall Soros and his legion of paid communists has been around for over two decades and only serves to discredit the left instead of giving its ideas a fair platform.
The same applies to the lack of contempt for brawling in the street shown by right-wing protesters in Charlottesville and Portland. One group called the Oath Keepers (in reference to the oath they took as veterans to uphold the U.S. Constitution) open carry rifles where it is legal in an obvious move to intimidate the other side. Isn’t it fair to say that one cannot truly express an idea with a rifle menacing them, especially if that opinion is unpopular and true?
This is usually the time when the whataboutism rears its ugly head.
Why do I say that the fringe right limits speech when the fringe left does the same thing? The difference is that the fringe left does not explicitly state that it is for freedom of speech, while the right is apt to hold “free speech rallies” to show contempt for the left. When faced with two sides that do roughly the same thing, I think the worse group is the one that uses doublethink and hypocrisy to try to remain consistent.
Freedom of speech and self-expression are instrumental on a university campus as it is an environment of skepticism and inquiry. Although I don’t think USC is under any threat of anti-government militias or alt-right Nazis, the lessons of this year’s political climate are as potent as ever. If the right wants to continue to paint itself as the side of logic and facts by holding up decent speakers like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, it needs to put its money where its mouth is and seriously consider the points the left has to offer without muddying the waters.