Trouble in the Home of the Free Speech Movement, Part I
There's trouble in the home of free speech.
Ann Coulter, a controversial conservative author and political commentator, had been invited to speak on April 27 by the UC Berkeley College Republicans. But then the Berkeley administration stepped in and canceled it.
 |
| Ann Coulter. Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images |
On the surface it looked like a brazen political act. The city of Berkeley, after all, is considered one of the ten most liberal cities in the U.S, and the university was the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement in 1964. Naturally, many on the right have cried foul.
Ron Robinson, Young America's Foundation president:
"Berkeley disappoints anyone who really believes in free speech. Their actions to ban conservatives while giving leftists a platform reinforces this fact."Some on the left agree.
Robert Reich, Berkeley professor:
"This is a grave mistake. Coulter should be allowed to speak. How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter’s arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?"
 |
| Mario Savio, leader of the Free Speech Movement, exhorts a crowd at UC Berkeley on December 7, 1964. Robert W. Klein, AP |
Of course, as is almost always the case, there's more to it than simple politics. But did the Berkeley administration really violate Ann Coulter's free speech rights when it canceled her appearance?
Let's look at some of the historical factors leading up to the administration's decision.
1. Clear and Present Danger
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that you can say anything you want at any time. This has repeatedly materialized in U.S. legal history, but one of the most well-known cases was Schenck v. United States in 1919. Charles Schenck, a socialist, was arrested while distributing "resist the draft" flyers to soldiers heading off to fight in World War I.
In upholding Schenck's conviction, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote:
 |
| Charles Schenck's flyer. http://www.english.illinois.edu |
In upholding Schenck's conviction, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger . . ."
 |
| Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Harris & Ewing |
2. Past Violence at UC Berkeley
In defending the school's decision, Chancellor Nicholas Dirks told reporters:
"We also have an unwavering commitment to providing for the safety and well-being of speakers who come to campus, our students and other members of our campus and surrounding communities."He had reason to be concerned. Berkeley has seen recent bouts of violence sparked by political disagreements:
- February 1: Violence and rioting break out over controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos's plan to speak on the campus.
- March 4: Opposing Trump forces clash, leading to violence.
- April 15: Anti-Trump demonstrators clashed with Trump supporters which led to injuries and arrests.
And going back 39 years:
- May 15, 1969: Protests around People's Park leads to injuries and one death.
 |
| A fire rages on the Berkeley campus during demonstrations against Milo Yiannopoulos. Ben Margot, AP Photo |
UC Berkeley has since reversed its decision and offered Ann Coulter a later date on which to speak. But was the potential danger enough for the university to cancel it in the first place? Did Berkeley's charged atmosphere meet Justice Holmes "clear and present danger" test?
It's worth noting that in a similar situation at Auburn University, a judge said "no."
What do you think? Join the conversation and share your thoughts below.
(And just to lighten things up a bit . . .)
I am currently working on a book about Ah Toy, the first Chinese brothel madam in gold rush San Francisco.
Want to read more? Click "Subscribe" above. Please feel free to share this post and your comments.
Whether there was a clear and present danger in Berkeley, who knows? But the consequences of canceling a public speech today are far less than they were in Holmes's time. Ann Coulter's words pervade the airwaves and the internet. You have to go out of your way NOT to hear her speak. So maybe that has shifted the balance in weighing a public speech vs public safety?
ReplyDeleteGood point, maybe a canceled speech isn't so big because you can go find Ann with the click of a mouse.
DeleteOn the other hand, the Internet spreads the news of cancelation far and wide and incites more anger.
Just yesterday there was another protest in Berkeley where you had people coming from as far away as Washington state to say their piece since that's where the national attention is. Would we have seen that in Holmes's time?
And is it OK to shout "Fire" in a crowded swimming pool? So many questions!
DeleteThis is an interesting case - as much as I despise Coulter (and Yiannopoulos), I tend to agree that Berkeley should have let her speak, albeit also given her or the group that invited her the bill for the extra security, or working with her to find a perhaps smaller but secure venue.
ReplyDeleteThe extreme left can indeed be frustrating at times, for instance with the so-called "trigger warnings" at some universities allowing students to escape difficult conversations. Life is full of difficult and challenging ideas, and indeed, we need to be exposed to them so that 1) we can form our own opinions, and 2) we are prepared for a wider world that doesn't (and shouldn't) filter everything.
A lot of people agree with you, even the liberal "fake news." My next post will show just that!
DeleteOh Noel, this must be so exciting for you, to be watching a possibly significant historical event unfolding - and in your own backyard no less. Do you think if you'd have brought Jolie to a protest they would've arrested you and confiscated Jolie as a dangerous weapon (after smelling that horrendous breath)? So how would people react if say a gay activist was invited by a Gay/Straight Alliance at a historically conservative school, and then was denied by the administration? I'm sure there would be a Change.org petition going out condemning that college or university.
DeleteI think the safety issue is a poor excuse, and basically just another version of the whole "trigger" thing that Dave brought up. I mean how are you able to have conversation if one party's not allowed to say anything?
I agree to your point about trigger warnings and your "what if it were flipped?" scenario. I don't know what the conservative equivalent of Change.org is, but I'm sure it's going nuts.
Delete