Author P. E. Moskowitz was in Charlottesville on August 12, 2017, when the Unite the Right march and rally became first a riot and then a crime scene with the murder of Heather Heyer. This particular event was not the only one organized by white supremacists that used “Free Speech” in their promotional outreach, garnering support and protection from such unlikely allies as the ACLU. The organization’s desire to support the First Amendment for this “alt-right” gathering struck many as questionable even before demonstrators showed up armed to the teeth; Citizens United may have conflated money and speech, but guns?
“The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent” (Bold Type Books) makes a persuasive argument that much of what we believe about our rights under the First Amendment is entirely upside-down. Moskowitz pulls together stories from our past, both recent and distant, to illustrate the ways the concept of free speech has been hijacked by conservatives and the wealthy, and how liberals and progressives often play directly into their hands. It’s unsettling reading, though there are ideas for how to reclaim our voices here that offer a path forward.
Moskowitz describes being numb while watching the aftermath of James Fields’ attack in Charlottesville, then later suffering panic attacks and PTSD. This leads into a look at the ACLU’s history. Once a strong supporter of labor unions, they evolved toward a stance of protecting “all” speech in a blanket manner that potentially benefits those with power at the expense of those without, though they still do significant work for the marginalized. First Amendment absolutism is just one of the ways the playing field is tilted, though; the media is curiously selective about whose signal it chooses to boost.
Take Milo Yiannopoulos, or Ann Coulter (please). They’ve had speaking engagements at colleges shut down by activists in recent years, and these cancellations are inevitably followed by a flood of op-eds describing the sissification of college students who need safe spaces and trigger warnings. Have you ever seen one from someone involved in the opposition explaining their reasoning? Any interviews about the conditions they were trying to address and the (often numerous) attempts made to be heard before resorting to protest? Such exposure is in woefully short supply. The group Sleeping Giants, who work to expose the relationship between hate groups and the advertisers who sometimes unknowingly support them, put it well in a Facebook post teasing Yiannopoulos for his complaints about being “deplatformed” on social media: “It’s not freedom of speech he wants. It’s freedom of reach, so he can make money off hate speech and trolling.”
Fox News pundits complain about the mainstream media opposing them, but it’s hardly the case; major networks and outlets are just as often chasing what they think will sell, and those stories rarely if ever highlight the concerns of the oppressed. To exercise freedom of the press requires access to a press, after all, and you hang onto it by retaining advertisers.
Follow the money in most examples and you’ll land on a Koch brother or someone like them. States gerrymandered to favor Republicans (itself a form of limiting speech by silencing the majority of voters) often slash college budgets only to be rescued by an influx of Koch cash. The strings attached to such donations are many and can include influence over faculty hires. A study cited at the end of the book suggests that influence on American policy by citizens requires a buy-in of several hundred thousand dollars or you’re unlikely to be heard. It’s enough to make you want to break a window or two, possibly while dressed entirely in black.
Moskowitz concludes that for things to change, there must be equal access to the mics and amps; without that, free speech is a concept and a cudgel, but no longer real or meaningful. How we get there when things are currently so out of balance is still in question. “The Case Against Free Speech” is well-argued, and challenged assumptions I had not noticed in my own thinking; it was an uncomfortable experience. It’s deeply discouraging to see that those who most need to speak truth to power must fight the hardest to be heard. I was reminded of “human microphones,” groups that shout a speaker’s message in unison to project it so a large crowd can hear. That technology only works in groups who meet face to face, but it’s a good example of sharing a burden equally so everyone can benefit. Let’s hope that spirit informs the way we work to make free speech a thing of value again.
Heather Seggel is a writer living in Northern California. Email heatherlseggel@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, October 15, 2019
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us