 "Photo: N/A")
The Signal did a good job last week covering the Christian protesters who disrupted campus earlier this month. The group stood on Georgia State’s main plaza and denounced homosexuality and promiscuity as a sin – all to a mostly hostile crowd.
The group stood on the plaza and held signs such as “Sex is Sin” and “Homo sex is sin, we don’t hate homos, God hates sin.” They yelled at the students who walked past them on their way to the library or their classes and implored them to give up their errant lifestyle.
Some counter-protesters set up shop across from the group, holding signs such as “Jesus never said anyone was going to Hell” and “Who let this trash on my campus?” According to this paper, some student Christian groups also denounced the group.
The student body buzzed over the ruckus. Many students in my classes complained that the protesters were disruptive or that they had trouble getting to their classes because of the congestion on the plaza. A distinct minority suggested that the protesters had a right to be there and that offensive speech must be tolerated in order to protect everyone’s speech.
The disturbance led the managing editor of the school paper to make a dramatic suggestion. In an editorial, Elijah Sarkesian suggested the campus eliminate the Library Plaza as a free speech zone. He also proposed eliminating Unity Plaza, another “major thoroughfare,” leaving the university with two free speech zones instead of four.
“These individuals not only disrupted our campus (in some cases, actually disrupting classes in GCB and Sparks Hall), but managed to offend the vast majority of the student body directly, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or racial or ethnic background,” he said.
The suggestion to move the free speech zones mirrors recent actions taken by several cities during the political conventions of 2004 and 2008. Protesters in New York and Denver, for instance, complained that their free speech zones were so far away that none of the political delegates actually heard their protests.
Sarkesian’s proposal appears well-supported on campus, at least according to the unscientific sample of my 40-odd Communication Law students. The vast majority of them supported such a move. Free speech is a good thing, the argument goes, but not when it’s too disruptive or offensive. I disagree.
The theory behind free speech is a belief in the “marketplace of ideas.” Perhaps Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best in a 1919 opinion: “[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.”
Most agree that free speech and the marketplace of ideas are concepts that help create a healthy democracy. Even the hateful speech heard on campus earlier this month had some benefits. Sarkesian said the counter-protests “did help to unify our very diverse campus against an insignificant, yet potentially dangerous, contingent.” I see value in that unification.
It’s pretty clear that the protesters weren’t winning over many converts. Perhaps the cool reception helped some students – maybe those who harbor some disdain for homosexuality – see that their views are out of alignment with the mainstream. Again, there is value in this open market of ideas.
If we agree that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing, then we must also agree on the makeup of the market. If the market is so far away that no one can shop there, then the market can’t really flourish or provide any service.
Free speech is a good thing, but it doesn’t do much good if no one can hear it. In order for free speech zones to be valuable, they must be located in a place where people can hear the messages.
Or perhaps defending free speech in this manner is an outdated attitude. Times and opinions do change. We now live in a world in which we strive to be more respectful of other people’s feelings and customs, and I certainly believe that we should treat each other more civilly. But, I doubt the answer to a return to civility can be created through laws or by moving speech which offends us.
That quote from Holmes in 1919 – it comes from his dissenting opinion. The court ruled, 7-2, against the free speech rights of protesters who opposed World War I. The right to free expression wasn’t as valued in 1919 as it is today. I’d like to see us continue to hold free speech in the highest regard.
2 comments
“Step right up, we’re selling ideas! Be the first to get yours! This is the marketplace of free trade.” It is a very beautiful idea. But far too often the casual customer is misled. It’s argued whether he said it or not but famed capitalist P.T. Barnum is often cited as saying, “there’s a sucker born every minute.” This made him a rich man as he preyed on his customer’s innocent kindness.
Hypothetical:
I might be at this marketplace trying to sell a bundle of freshly picked roses. They’re beautiful; bright red, and the smell is just lovely. But the roses may not be as harmless as they seem. Roses come with thorns and bugs just waiting to sting a careless customer. The FDA is in place to put restrictions in the real marketplace to protect us from any dangerous products (It’s the reason we’ll always be ahead of China). Now we’re not talking about perishable goods. We’re talking about the freedom of speech. My premise was very basic but I hope it exposed the dangers of free speech. The danger is allowing religious or political groups onto university grounds that can influence young minds into their disturbing agenda. Unfortunately Free Speech can’t be governed and the people who are offending people don’t care about the fine line that has to be walked concerning this amendment. They just want to get their point out and will retreat and use this excuse as being part of their freedom. What crap. Thoughts?