“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Any conception of freedom of speech has for decades been subsumed by these words; words eloquently phrased by associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. However, what Holmes’ opinion fails to do is elaborate on another facet of free speech that, historically, has not been protected. The associate justice discussed speech that was false and dangerous but did not elaborate on speech that was truthful and dangerous.
With this in mind, Holmes is not at fault. When judging where to draw the line of democratic or acceptable freedom of speech, we must not look at the truthfulness of the statement or statements in question but whether or not these statements present danger to any group — religious, racial or otherwise.
Last week, the Daily 49er gave its opinion on the trail of Dutch MP Geert Wilders. The editorial made it clear that because Wilders was endangering the livelihood of Muslims in the Netherlands, the attempt to limit his freedom of speech by the Dutch government was legitimate.
His statements were not judged on the basis of truthfulness but rather on their presupposed consequences. This is how government should work. Laws and rulings should be based on consequences — causes and effects — not arbitrary musings about what people think are wrong and right.
Ironically, this is not how things are done and because of this, the burden of defining freedom of speech has not diminished.
Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at CSULB, often cited for his anti-Semitic rhetoric has once again come under fire. As reported by the Daily 49er’s David Cowan, the professor’s class was interrupted by an organization that claimed his views and involvement in the American Third Option party were grounds for his removal as a professor at this university.
Should this tenured professor be removed from his teaching post simply because he holds controversial views? A reference to the opening of this editorial is needed to answer this question.
If we are to live by the words of associate justice Holmes, the same words that have been echoed in discussions on American freedom of speech for decades, the answer is a simple no.
The views held by MacDonald, views that will not be enumerated in this editorial, do not present danger to the campus’ Jewish population. The views held by MacDonald are not taught in his classroom, as his class subjects are not related to his political views. It does not seem as though he has deviated from his prescribed courses. He teaches psychology at CSULB — that should be the only thing that concerns any of us.
CSULB President F. King Alexander said it best, “Despite the fact that I personally disagree and even find deplorable some beliefs and opinions expressed by a few individuals on our campus, particularly those ideas that are hurtful of certain groups, I believe as Thomas Jefferson stated, that ‘errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.’ “
The beliefs of Kevin MacDonald are to be combated by reason. His views are academic in nature. They do not incite violence or call to action. They may be hurtful or deplorable as Alexander states but they are not dangerous.
The same freedoms that allow us to call MacDonald a racist or an anti-Semite allow him to write about his controversial views. This is the beauty of American freedom of speech. It’s not lawlessness; it’s democracy.
Now should MacDonald call for the removal of Jewish students from CSULB or should he begin to espouse his views in class, then the request for his dismissal would be legitimate. However, if things remain the way they are there is nothing we should do other than leave the man alone. If he is continually harassed, then the only constituents of this debate overstepping the bounds of freedom of speech are those attacking him.
In a democratic society ideas of wrong and right are in a perpetual state of change. This allows us to come closer to truth. We’re not saying that MacDonald’s views will ever be truth, but limiting his freedom of speech opens a door to danger.
MacDonald may be discussing an imaginary fire but he is not discussing it in a crowded theater filled with CSULB students.