Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, Professor Laura Weinrib of the University of Chicago supports the ACLU’s decision to equivocate on free speech.
Weinrib is referring to the ACLU’s clarification, last week, that it will no longer represent the free speech interests of far-right groups whose members carry weapons. According to Weinrib, this is a positive development because free speech should never be an end in itself, but always a tool of social justice. This is about as far from the First Amendment as one can get.
Weinrib claims that decisions to preference social justice speech are crucial because the First Amendment is currently imploding. She explains that “Free speech has served to secure the political influence of wealthy donors. Labor’s strength has plummeted, and the Supreme Court is poised to recognize a 1st Amendment right of public sector employees to refuse to contribute to union expenses. Long-settled principles of American democracy are newly vulnerable, and hate has found fertile terrain.”
Weinrib’s argument is inherently, laughably subjective: free speech is bad speech if it doesn’t serve the interests I prefer.
Of course, Weinrib isn’t alone in her idiocy. Also this week, opposing the University of Berkeley’s decision to invite conservative speakers to campus, Berkeley’s mayor declared that “I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety.” Again however, don’t be deceived by the balanced words. As I’ve noted, Berkeley’s reaction to recent protests proves that the city has absolutely no interest in freedom of speech per se. It cares only for pure speech.
And what is pure speech? Some liberals now claim that some free speech is actually itself a form of violence. Others believe statues deserve to be veiled, and some universities now censor speakers who do not use thought-police-enforced pronouns. All this speaks to something troubling.
Namely, that however liberals chose to restrict lawful free speech, their motivation is sustaining in its authoritarianism. Put simply, many liberals now believe that “hate speech” is unworthy of either government protection or, in the case of permitting free assembly, government facilitation. “Hate speech” might be subjective and constitutionally protected, but these liberal puritans believe society must banish “thoughtcrime” or even just ideas that detach from liberal norms. Heirs to Robespierre and Pol Pot, the Left are determined to purge the enemies of truth: enemies of the revolution.
If they do not, they believe, injustice will triumph.
True, they might not use guillotines and killing fields to achieve their purpose. But the Left shares the determination of its revolutionary forefathers: purespeak and newspeak must be the only languages allowed in the republic.
