Chilling Young Speech

"I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Whatever my political leanings may be, I'm squarely behind this statement. So when the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case came out, I wasn't thrilled with the opinion.

First, the banner was pretty funny, and I'm against limiting humor of which we're already in short supply.

Second, while it makes sense to limit speech that actually, directly causes harm, what was being hurt by the banner besides people's sensibilities? I'm not buying the argument that the banner actively encouraged illegal drug use, sorry.* If someone thinks that sign is what makes a 15 year old turn to a life of drugs and crime, I suggest they look a little further for the causes.

Third, the decision chills speech at a most vulnerable time--not political parades, but the high school years. And now courts are taking the Bong Hits case and extending it. Extending limits on speech is just another way to say restricting speech, is it not? But my point here is not the extent of the restriction, but the damage it can do to our society by specifically targeting young people.

"Chilling speech" is a nifty little First Amendment term I've picked up, even though I won't take Con Law II (First Amendment) until next quarter. I love it because it so aptly describes what happens when certain types of speech aren't per se illegal--yet--but are mighty similar to types of speech that have been prohibited. When students are making banners to hold up at political parades or rallies (and we should be jumping up and down with glee that they might be so interested in civic matters that they would want to go to a political event) they're going to wonder now just how much trouble their anti-establishment slogan is going to bring them.

I am all about encouraging people to think. Please, give it a shot! But I want kids making banners to think about what they want to say, not what the party line is. I want them to push boundaries, so they figure out where they are and why they are there. I want them to challenge and provoke the rest of us because a society with no questions or controversy is a dead society. I want them to be free to say one thing one day and another thing another day until they figure out what the reactions are to their statements, the counterarguments to their positions, and develop their own core beliefs. I want them free to discuss, and make silly banners, because if you cannot do that when you are young, when can you?

Get them while they're young. It's a well-known and effective technique for training in anything. Start with young and malleable minds. We get them while they're young, due to compulsory schooling. Do we want to train them to speak only pre-approved messages, or do we want to train them to spell "for" correctly?  Do we chill all drug-related speech and inhibit debates about what is or isn't proper for Congress to regulate or what society should do about one of our largest industries? Do we chill violent speech and start arresting people for what they write in their diaries? (The answer to that in the 5th Circuit at least is yes.) Do we chill religious speech and make it harder for children to explore and understand their spiritual side? What will the cost of that chilling be to our future? If people don't learn to debate these issues when they are young and have no shortage of time or interest, why would they debate them when they are older and jaded and more worried about buying groceries than doing bong hits?

Let the young have their youth. Let them say silly or disturbing or even slanderous things, and let us argue back with superior reasoning, not with commands to shut up and sit down. Their freedom and willingness to speak is important to us all.

*And actually, I'm not sure that speech encouraging illegal activity should always be discouraged, because otherwise how would you ever get laws changed? See, for instance, laws against interracial marriage. And while I am taking no stance on the issue, there is a significant movement both within and without official government circles to legalize at least some drugs, as California already has. So... it's just not as simple as you'd think, is it?

Comments

[ckm]

I'll have to think some of this over more, but since I had no idea what a "bong hit" is or was, and am still not sure, I haven't much to say about it.

[Denise]

I agree wholeheartedly. We have to be very careful about restricting any free speech in public. I agree also about letting youth try out ideas. Often they just want to see what the reaction will be. One case where I draw the line on free speech though is the Fred Phelps group that protests at funerals. I think in that case, the funeral is a private event, (although taking place in a public arena) and therefore should be protected from loonies trying to disrupt it.

[Citations]

Oh ugh. Those funeral "demonstrations" are another story entirely, and bring up the impossible question of what is and is not speech. But funerals are considered to be private affairs and are, in most states, protected by a buffer zone.

I cannot imagine a god who would be pleased by their cruelty. Maybe I have a limited imagination.

[True]

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

(And Phelps is a repulsive ball of slime. Jesus wept, indeed.)

[Citations]

It's interesting to me that when I write about allowing young people--specifically, minors--to have considerable leeway in their speech, two of my most liberal commenters bring up Phelps.

First, he is not a minor. By now he should know better.

Second, the hardest cases test our commitment the most. I am NOT saying that I in any way approve of what he's doing, or even that I think it should be protected. I actually think he might be violating a couple of laws, and he's certainly violating public mores in a big way. His actions are, I think, as offensive as any can be without spilling blood. But the point of free speech is that even the most repulsive slimeballs are free to reveal their repulsiveness to us all. Can we regulate how and where they reveal it? I think so, to at least some degree.

But the First Amendment is not just about kind or even silly speech. It's also about cruel, stupid, and hate-filled speech.

One of my points, however, is that by allowing young people the largest possible scope for their speech we are also giving ourselves--rational, thoughtful adults--the opportunity to respond to that speech. When they say something we find offensive, we should call them on it, explain why it's offensive or why they're factually wrong or whatever. The point is that they should speak and think, not that they should be allowed to run off at the mouth with never any push back.

I just think the push back is more effective if it is explanatory rather than punitive when someone is first learning the power of speech. Sometimes, those pushing back might even learn a thing or two themselves.

[PatAncester]

This brings to mind the matter of school children deciding to name a teddy bear "Mohammad". Today crowds are rioting to make the penalty of this offense death for the teacher who permitted it. The argument for free speech in the U.S. looks very strong to me in the light of such happenings in another country.

[True]

I only mentioned Phelps because he came up upstream from my comment. I loathe him, but if he wants to spew his slime on public property, that's his right. (And I love the bikers that flock to those occasions to shield the families-- rock on with their bad selves!)

I think that without our younger generations pushing us, we'd be nowhere. Respect authority, yes. Question authority, always.