There are those on the right who like to call themselves “First Amendment Absolutists.” For the most part, they are frauds.
One of the biggest differences between the Western left and right is the breadth of acceptable opinions. On the left, there is a near total intellectual straightjacket that controls positions on a wide range of topics. For example, the Democratic Party today accepts abortion until birth, a completely open border, soft-on-crime no bail policies, guys pretending to be girls in sports, etc. There is zero tolerance for a difference of opinion on any of these subjects. If one somehow strays from the officially acceptable opinions on the left, he will find himself looking for a new political party.
The Republican Party still seems to have some wiggle room on ideas, though much of the party today is heading in the Trump/MAGA direction. There are different opinions as to when abortion should be allowed and some Republicans support some level of illegal immigration, as witnessed by the recently failed “immigration bill” that was presented by the Republican leadership and allowed for 5,000 illegals per day to enter through the southern border. Some Republicans strongly support continued military aid for Ukraine, while others say that we have given enough. On the subject of free speech, most Republicans accept the Supreme Court’s position that private organizations and companies can set speech standards of their own. Virtually every company and university has clearly articulated speech rules that apply on site and via official digital venues such as email, LinkedIn, Slack and the like. People have been fired for opinions deemed unacceptable and in violation of internal speech codes, such as those who were let go after expressing their support for Hamas’ murder of 1,200 Jews last October.
On the right, there are those who like to present themselves as First Amendment absolutists. They claim to believe that there should be no limitation on speech, beyond “fighting words” or direct threats. They claim that the pro-Hamas marches on campus and in the streets of major capitals are fine, even as the protesters ask for the disappearance of Israel’s 9 million Jews (“from the river to the sea….”) as well as their outright murder (“intifada revolution”). Their argument is that freedom of speech only has meaning if one can say offensive things without threat of retribution.
The problem with the absolutists’ position is that it is based on a false premise. I would imagine that each conservative commentator who supports the right of pro-Hamas marchers to demand the genocide of the Jewish people would not allow his teenager son to swear like a sailor in front of his mother. I also imagine that if he or she works at a serious media outlet, then there are quite stringent rules about what one can say about colleagues at work or via digital communications. Call your cubicle mate a fat old lady with a moustache in the company cafeteria and you’ll find yourself out of work, with no legal recourse to get your job back. I’ve noticed from live recordings that for years, Bruce Springsteen does not sing the verse, “You ain’t a beauty but you’re alright” from Thunder Road; he lets the crowd sing it instead. and thus he avoids being called a misogynist.
The reason I agreed to join an alumni lawsuit against Harvard and serve as lead plaintiff (Bauer et al vs. The President and Fellows of Harvard College) is that Harvard also applies its First Amendment rules in a wildly uneven manner. The justification for former Harvard president Claudine Gay’s allowing students in keffiyehs to demand that Jews be murdered was free speech in an academic setting. She said as much during a televised congressional hearing. The problem is that when the shoe is on the other ideological foot, Harvard has zero tolerance for free speech. Feminist philosopher Devin Buckley was disinvited to speak at the university in 2022 when her views on trans issues became publicly known. The 2016 Harvard men’s soccer team, then in first place, had its season canceled when an Excel file detailing the physical attributes of the women’s squad became public. The material was deemed “vulgar” and the season ended early. Ten accepted students who expressed provocative opinions on an incoming class Facebook page were told that they were no longer welcome to come to Harvard. Conservative student Kyle Kashuv’s acceptance was also rescinded when certain social media content of his became public—even after an apology from the author.
Claudine Gay, then Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, personally removed Professor Ronald Sullivan from his position as dean (in my day it was “master” but that term was considered racist and was stricken) of Winthrop House for his “sin” of being one of Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers. Professor Sullivan is considered a top-flight law professor, but some women in Winthrop claimed that they felt threatened by his presence in the house, and the good professor lost his plum position that comes with housing and other perks. From 2017-2020, Harvard had in place a rule that any student who belonged to a single-sex organization could not be a team captain or hold a leadership position in a recognized student organization. Additionally, such students would not be eligible for university fellowships.
From the above, it is crystal clear that Harvard does not believe in free speech. It believes in free speech when those being attacked, threatened, or bullied happen to be on the bad end of the intersectionality spectrum: Jews and white men for the most part. It is the reason why the protests persist and the Me Too crowd yawned at the rape, torture, and mutilation of Jewish women on 10/7. When a supposedly threatened group like women, trans, homosexuals and preferred minorities are the object of free speech they find objectionable, Harvard can lower the boom in an instant. The rule about single-sex organizations was designed to punish men who associated with non-university “finals clubs” but in the end harmed women who wished to self-associate for their own interests, and thus the rule was abandoned.
There is in our day and age almost no such thing as totally free speech. Whether it be in the home, at work, in the university, or online, there are rules of engagement that can be strict or loose, but in any case are present. If students at Harvard held placards demanding “intifada now—for all trans people,” you can be certain that school officials and students would demand swift and extreme punishments for those involved. Either we have free speech in which all groups can be the target of protest or we need equal protections for all groups, including the Jews. There can no longer be this middle ground where one cannot criticize blacks or homosexuals but can demand that Jews drop dead. Why can blacks demand a separate graduation at Harvard but whites cannot? Free speech must be equal speech. So when our absolutist friends let their kids curse out their mothers in the presence of the neighbors, then I will accept their support for the next Hamas genocide march.