What limits to free speech, if any, are acceptable?
One of the things that makes modern society different is that no closely held notion or established tradition is off limits to being questioned, debated or turned on its head — including gender norms, social inequality, the principles of the majority in Western society and yes, the principles of minority groups as well. This is part of what has made our society historically more welcoming because any sort of tradition can fit in — even (unfortunately, perhaps) barbaric, backwards ones. You don’t get to pick and choose in the arena of free speech. It’s a full-contact sport, and resorting to whining or violence is a weak cop-out.
— Will Alston ’16
Recent debates on the freedom of speech are particularly refreshing because the subject is being discussed in conjunction with the right to satirise — or as Conan O’Brien said, the right to “poke fun at the untouchable or the secret.” It’s a tough topic to tackle as it is so ingrained in the American spirit of liberty. As Tina Fey outrageously puts it, “We’re Americans, and even if it’s dumb jokes in ‘The Interview,’ we have the right to make them.” We should distinguish, however, between what can be said and what should be said. The rules that apply to a schoolyard conflict should apply in the same way to society — just because one has the right to comment does not mean one should maliciously “poke fun at.” Comedy can be constructive, but freedom of speech should be curtailed once personal or cultural attacks are only used for self-indulgent laughs. Freedom of speech should not bestow a sense of superiority in mocking others, but rather serve as a channel for open and civil conversation.
— Annika Park ’18
Limits on speech are generally not advantageous to any society which values freedom, and yet these limits creep uncomfortably close to home. Students should consider the recent censorship of course reviews, which the faculty approved last fall when they passed the travesty of what had previously been an earnest effort to release course reviews. The approved policy allows faculty to cherry-pick what years are viewable and even what comments are deemed “appropriate” — the “inappropriate” ones can be removed. We might also consider how the College boastfully displays the Orozco murals, and yet censors the Hovey murals (some are supposedly buried in the archives of the Hood, others stand covered in the basement of the Class of 1953 Commons). Even comments on the website of The Dartmouth are screened for approval and deleted if considered “inappropriate.” Freedom of speech is a romantic idea in the United States, one we patronizingly lord over countries such as the People’s Republic of China. But it is only that — a romantic idea and, in my experience, not a reality.
— Jon Miller ’15
Free speech is rightly revered. Anything short of slander, libel or “fire!” in a crowded theater is and ought to be fair game. Free speech is the close cousin of two other enormous goods — free thought and the free exchange of ideas. It allows the best ideas to win out, even if they might seem politically unfashionable when they’re first put to paper. But the right to say what you want is not the same thing as the right to have others listen to you. If your writing is crummy, publishers are under no obligation to print it. If your speech is offensive or unreasonable, you will be justly lampooned. Yes, you’re perfectly free to say just about anything. Shout it from the mountaintops. Just don’t be surprised when others shout back.
— Jon Vandermause ’16
To avoid the hot-button topic of what constitutes sufficiently harmful speech, I will stick to the one limit to free speech I consider clear cut — the U.S. government must place limits on campaign contributions. Such contributions hinder democracy by rendering our idea of free and open elections laughable. Sadly, maximum campaign contributions have increased with the latest congressional spending bill. Money is not speech. We must regulate financial donations to political candidates to have a truly democratic election process — to keep the voice of the many from being drowned out by the voice of the few.
— Vivien Rendleman ’16
