I Differ With ACLU

 The ACLU celebrates its victory in the Supreme Court over the high school student using the f-word about school and its organizations outside of school hours by selling t-shirts with the f-word.

I use the word myself.  I have supported the ACLU since Skokie and still do. I support the SCOTUS decision.  But I have to disagree with the ACLU--IMO there's a difference between what's permissible and what's desirable.  It's permissible to use the f-word in most settings; it's not desirable to promote its use in most settings.  As with the n-word, I exclude discussion of it when it's necessary or desirable to quote it.

First Amendment Questions

 BBC's Annapour & Co. had an interview with Salman Rushdie, which included some discussion of freedom of speech.  He mentioned the difference between the UK and US, with us being the most protective of speech.  He was asked about hurting people's feelings--he quoted Stephen Fry as responding: "tough".  

I've a somewhat similar reaction, I think, though I'm prone to wavering on hot issues. When the context of speech is a public forum, "tough" is appropriate, because people have the choice of avoiding or participating in a meeting, watching media program, etc. When the context is a classroom where the participant doesn't have a choice, or has less of choice, ideally I'd want to see advance warning. 

Rushdie said there's "no right to not be offended", which I think is correct.  There is a right to not be surprised. 

There's likely some situations which would undermine my position.  How about the advocate who intentionally wants to offend, uses terms or takes positions which be offensive?  Consider somebody who advocates for the expulsion of one group in contested areas: whether it's the Middle East or Northern Ireland?  

In such cases there's the question of the forum: should the person be denied a particular forum? I think they can be, possibly using an economic analysis: what's the cost of allowing participation and what's the possible benefit to the audience? 

Me and the ACLU

 I joined the ACLU back in the Skokie days, IIRC. And I'm still pretty much an absolutist on free speech so I'm not enthusiastic about its recent softening of its position.

Adherence to Principle Creates Different Alliances?

 I follow L. D. Burnett, who is a history professor at Collin College both on twitter and at this blog. Her background might surprise some of her right wing critics.  She's more vocal about her opposition to Trump and his administration than I, which recently caused the Collin president to criticize a tweet of hers. Links are at the end of her post here.

What was different to me was that FIRE jumped in to her defense.  I've been only vaguely aware of FIRE; I knew it opposes speech codes in college, but thought of them as defending conservatives.  Turns out they adhere to principle, even when it involves someone on the left.  As someone who joined the ACLU at the time of Skokie I need to recognize their stand. 

Agreeing with Althouse on the Past

I've been following Ann Althouse's blog for years. In the last few years I think she's become more conservative, often defending President Trump.  I also think she tends to find hidden motives buried in people's statements and in news article, explaining things by those motives rather than the simpler explanation offered by Murphy's Law and taking things at face value.

But the other day she and her son collaborated on a post with which I can agree.  Basically they're remembering a past when liberals and the left were vehement in defense of free speech.  Mario Savio and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement come to mind, though definitely before her son's time.

All things being equal, I think I generally lean towards free speech (joined the ACLU back in the days of the Nazis marching in Skokie) and am reluctant to see boycotts, even though they are a part of our American heritage (boycotts of British goods led up to the Revolution).

Free Speech Issues

Interesting analysis here of poll data over 1972-2016 querying whether speakers with specified views should be allowed to speak.  Americans seem to be supportive of free speech across the board, and have gotten generally more supportive over the period.  When divided by their political views, the more liberal people seem to be more supportive.  The writer sees this data as undermining the idea that liberal snowflakes are limiting free speech on campus.  I think that's stretching it a bit--too much variety in the U.S. and too much possible ambiguity in the definitions.  Still, it's interesting.

Post Readers Are Knee-Jerk Liberals?

Not so, at least on this evidence.  The background: Christine Fair is an activist who was at an exercise club where she saw Robert Spencer also exercising.  She raised a stink and the club banned Spencer. Today she has a post in the Post defending her actions.  When I checked about 1 pm she had drawn more than 450 comments.  When looking at the comment threads sorted by "likes", the top threads (maybe 5 or 6, didn't bother to scroll down through all of them) were all anti-Fair.

Count me in their camp--as long as Spencer was lifting according to the club rules, he should be left alone.  You want to protest his views, which are terrible, fine, but do it at his office or his speeches, etc.  And even his speeches, I'd follow the recent Notre Dame precedent, attend then walk out, or vocally protest for 10 minutes, then allow him to talk.