What are the limits of free speech? | Big Think

Summary

The video script features a panel discussion on free speech, emphasizing its power to cause both harm and good. NADINE STROSSEN argues against censorship, asserting that it often silences critics and maintains power structures. NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS and others advocate for defending free speech even when disagreeing with the content. JOSH LIEB and FLOYD ABRAMS discuss legal boundaries and the evolution of free speech protection, with ABRAMS highlighting the U.S.'s strong commitment to it. STROSSEN further explains the First Amendment's principles, stressing content neutrality and emergency restrictions. MICHAEL SHERMER and ALICE DREGER emphasize open dialogue and education's role in challenging beliefs. The script concludes with calls for understanding diverse viewpoints and the importance of free speech for social justice, as illustrated by historical figures and contemporary campus debates.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ Free speech is powerful and can be used for both good and harm, hence the importance of its responsible use.
• 🚫 Censorship is harmful because it's often used by those in power to silence critics and maintain their power.
• 🌟 Freedom of speech is foundational to every other right and is essential for societal progress.
• 🤔 The debate is not about whether to defend free speech but how to handle it when it conflicts with other values.
• 📚 Defending free speech includes defending the right to express even disagreeable ideas without fear of repercussions.
• 📈 The effectiveness of censorship is questionable, as it may not reduce harm and could be counterproductive.
• 🏛️ Historically, the Supreme Court has set boundaries for free speech, especially in cases of libel and national security.
• 🚨 There are exceptions to free speech, such as incitement of violence or direct threats, where government intervention is justified.
• 🧐 It's crucial to understand and respect differing viewpoints, even if they are unpopular or offensive, for the health of democracy.
• 🏫 Universities should be places for open dialogue and challenging preconceived notions, not for censoring certain ideas.
• 💡 The importance of free speech extends to the rights of the audience to listen and learn from diverse perspectives.

Q & A

Why does Nadine Strossen believe that censorship is harmful?

Nadine Strossen believes that censorship is harmful because it is an acknowledgment of the power of speech. Censorship tends to be used by those in power to silence critics and maintain their own power, rather than to protect society from harmful speech.

According to Nicholas Christakis, how should we respond to speech we disagree with?

Nicholas Christakis suggests that instead of suppressing speech we disagree with, we should respond to it. He advocates for the freedom of expression even when it is used to convey ideas we may not agree with, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and argument as a means to test and strengthen our own ideas.

Josh Lieb mentions that legally one should be able to say anything they want, but what does he think about being associated with someone whose views one disagrees with?

Josh Lieb believes that while one should be able to express any view legally, it is also acceptable to choose not to be associated with someone whose views one disagrees with. He cites examples such as not wanting to be on a TV show with someone or a publishing house not wanting to publish a book by an author they find objectionable.

What does Floyd Abrams say about the boundaries on freedom of speech and the press?

Floyd Abrams acknowledges that there have always been boundaries on freedom of speech and of the press, which have been interpreted differently over time. He mentions libel law as an example and discusses how the Supreme Court has expanded beyond old laws to protect freedom of speech, especially when it comes to public figures.

How does Strossen differentiate between the non-censorship principle and the emergency principle in the context of the First Amendment?

Strossen explains that the non-censorship principle, or content neutrality, dictates that the government may not suppress speech based solely on its content, message, or viewpoint. The emergency principle, on the other hand, allows for government to restrict speech if it directly causes serious, imminent, and specific harm, and suppression is the only way to avert that harm.

Why does Michael Shermer defend the free speech of Holocaust deniers, even though he disagrees with them?

Michael Shermer defends the free speech of Holocaust deniers because he believes in the principle of free speech as a fundamental right. He argues that even wrong or abhorrent ideas should be countered with argument and evidence rather than being suppressed, as a means to maintain the integrity of free speech as a concept.

Alice Dreger discusses the issue of preexisting beliefs on university campuses. What is her stance on this?

Alice Dreger finds it problematic that university campuses often encourage students to bring their preexisting beliefs and identities without questioning them. She advocates for an environment where all viewpoints are allowed and where real conversations about different points of view can take place, fostering a meaningful education.

What does Strossen argue about the effectiveness of censorship in addressing societal harms?

Strossen argues that censorship is often ineffective or even counterproductive in addressing societal harms. She suggests that those who advocate for censorship do not consider whether it will actually reduce harm or whether it might do more harm than good by empowering certain entities to decide what is acceptable speech.

How does Shermer view the importance of understanding opposing viewpoints?

Shermer emphasizes that understanding opposing viewpoints is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of any issue. He believes that even if one's own position is correct, listening to others can strengthen one's position and also reveals the possibility that one might be wrong.

What does Jon Zimmerman say about the misconception that free speech is a conservative value?

Jon Zimmerman finds it ahistorical to view free speech as a conservative value. He points out that many social justice warriors in the past, such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, were absolutists on free speech because they understood its importance as a tool for the marginalized.

How does Mary Beth Tinker respond to students who argue against providing a platform for speakers with opposing views?

Mary Beth Tinker argues that speech, even if it seems hurtful or wrong, is a powerful tool, especially for the powerless. She emphasizes that her protest against the Vietnam War was also hurtful to some, but that the right to speak out is essential. She warns that if speech is censored, it could eventually be used against those with the least power.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ The Power and Perils of Free Speech

Nadine Strossen emphasizes the dual potential of speech to cause harm or good, arguing against censorship due to its potential misuse by those in power to silence critics. Nicholas Christakis highlights the importance of defending free expression even when disagreeing with the content. Josh Lieb discusses the legal aspects of free speech, advocating against hate speech laws and the criminalization of thought. Floyd Abrams provides historical context, mentioning libel laws and the evolution of free speech boundaries, particularly the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, which redefined libel standards to better protect free speech.

05:07

🏛️ Balancing Free Speech with Legal Boundaries

This paragraph delves into the nuances of free speech, particularly in relation to public figures and national security. Floyd Abrams explains that while libel suits against public figures require proof of knowing falsehood, there are instances, such as imminent threats to national security, where the government can restrict speech. He contrasts the strong protections for speech and religion in the U.S. with global standards, while acknowledging past First Amendment issues. Nadine Strossen dispels misconceptions about absolute free speech and the lack of protection for unpopular speech, outlining the First Amendment's foundational principles of non-censorship and emergency principle, which permit government restriction under specific, urgent circumstances.

10:08

🚫 The Limits and Consequences of Censorship

The speakers in this paragraph discuss the limits of free speech and the consequences of censorship. Michael Shermer defends the free speech of Holocaust deniers, citing the importance of not criminalizing thought. Nadine Strossen, a Jewish woman and daughter of a Holocaust survivor, clarifies that defending free speech is not the same as endorsing hateful ideas, but rather upholding a principle vital for challenging such views. Alice Dreger criticizes the current climate on university campuses, advocating for open dialogue and challenging preconceived notions. Strossen argues that censorship is often ineffective or counterproductive, using disinformation and hate speech laws as examples where enforcement can disproportionately harm the intended beneficiaries.

15:10

🌐 The Importance of Open Dialogue and Intellectual Honesty

In this paragraph, the speakers underscore the value of open dialogue and intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth and understanding. Shermer stresses the importance of engaging with opposing viewpoints to test and strengthen one's own beliefs. He uses the example of his students' inability to articulate the pro-life position, highlighting the need for understanding multiple perspectives. Jon Zimmerman identifies as a liberal Democrat but maintains a staunch commitment to free speech, critiquing the notion that it has become a conservative value. He recounts an encounter with Mary Beth Tinker, who defended the right to free speech for all, including those with opposing views, drawing a parallel to her own experience as a student activist.

20:13

📢 The Power of Speech as a Weapon for the Powerless

The final paragraph concludes with a powerful defense of free speech as a tool for the powerless. Mary Beth Tinker reflects on her own experience as a young activist, arguing that speech, even when it causes pain, is a crucial form of expression that should not be suppressed. She challenges the notion that free speech is merely an abstraction and asserts that it represents a fundamental right and a source of power for those who have been marginalized or silenced.

Keywords

💡Censorship

Censorship refers to the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, or other forms of media that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. In the video's theme, censorship is portrayed as a negative force that can be misused by those in power to silence critics and maintain their dominance, rather than protecting society from harmful speech.

💡Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. The video emphasizes its importance as the bedrock of every other right, suggesting that it is crucial for the functioning of a free and open society.

💡Content Neutrality

Content neutrality is a principle that asserts the government should not favor or disfavor particular viewpoints or ideas when regulating speech. The script discusses this principle as a key aspect of the First Amendment, arguing that the government should not suppress speech based on its content, message, or viewpoint.

💡Hate Speech

Hate speech is a term used to describe speech that offends, threatens, or insults individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or disability. The video discusses the controversial nature of hate speech laws, suggesting that they can be counterproductive and disproportionately affect the minority groups they aim to protect.

💡Viewpoint Neutrality

Viewpoint neutrality is closely related to content neutrality and emphasizes that the government should not discriminate against speech based on the particular message it conveys or the ideas it represents. The script argues that this principle is essential for maintaining the strength of free speech protections.

💡Disinformation

Disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is spread, especially to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. The video raises the question of whether censorship, such as having tech companies decide what is untrue, is an effective or appropriate way to address the spread of disinformation.

💡Libel Law

Libel law pertains to the legal responsibility for false and damaging statements published in written form that harm an individual's reputation. The script mentions libel law as an example of a boundary on freedom of speech, where the Supreme Court has balanced the need to protect speech with the need to provide recourse for those harmed by false statements.

💡National Security

National security refers to the protection of a nation against various threats that could undermine its sovereignty, territorial integrity, political stability, and economic prosperity. The video discusses how national security can be used as a justification for limiting free speech, particularly in cases where speech could cause imminent harm to the country.

💡Emergency Principle

The emergency principle is a legal concept that allows for the restriction of speech when it directly causes certain serious, imminent, and specific harm. The script uses this concept to explain when the government may appropriately restrict speech, such as in cases of intentional incitement of imminent violence.

💡Thought Crime

A thought crime is an idea or belief that is considered criminal, particularly in oppressive regimes where controlling thought and ideology is a means of maintaining power. The video uses the example of Holocaust deniers to discuss the dangers of thought crimes and the importance of defending free speech even for those with abhorrent views.

💡Heckler's Veto

Heckler's veto refers to the act of shutting down or silencing a speaker by disruptive behavior, such as shouting them down. The video criticizes the practice as a violation of not only the speaker's rights but also the rights of the audience who wish to listen and engage with the ideas being presented.

Highlights

Speech has the power to do both immense good and harm, and censorship can be misused to silence critics and perpetuate power.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to every other right and is essential for positive societal achievements.

Defending the freedom of expression includes allowing others to express views that one may disagree with.

Disagreeable ideas should be countered with argument, not censorship.

Legally, one should be able to express any viewpoint, and choosing not to associate with certain speakers does not violate free speech.

Hate speech laws are often antithetical to democratic values and can lead to the criminalization of thought.

Libel laws have evolved to better protect freedom of speech, especially regarding public figures.

National security is an area where the government can limit speech to prevent imminent harm.

The United States has historically offered strong protections for speech and press freedom.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and there are appropriate circumstances for government restriction.

Government should not suppress speech based on its content or viewpoint alone.

Censorship is often ineffective or counterproductive in addressing the harms it aims to prevent.

Hate speech laws disproportionately target the minority groups they are intended to protect.

Engaging with opposing views is crucial for understanding one's own position and for intellectual growth.

The right to free speech includes the right of listeners to hear diverse viewpoints.

Free speech is a critical tool for the socially marginalized and should not be seen as solely a conservative value.

Speech, even if it causes hurt, is a powerful tool for the powerless and must be protected.

Transcripts

NADINE STROSSEN: There is absolutely no doubt that speech can do an infinite amount of harm

as well as an infinite amount of good.

The reason why censorship is bad is precisely because speech is so powerful.

And with that power, we, human beings can exert it, either to great good or to great

ill.

Now, the question is, what does more harm: Trusting our fellow citizens on the whole

to minimize the adverse impact, adverse potential impact of speech or trusting government to

pick and choose which potentially dangerous harmful speech should be censored?

What we've seen throughout history and around the world, not surprisingly, is whoever exercises

censorship power does it in a way to perpetuate their own power and to disproportionately

silence the voice of their critics.

Freedom of speech really is the bedrock of every other right and really, almost everything

positive in our society could not be achieved without that essential bedrock.

NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: There's a difference between defending an important principle and

advocating for the implications of that principle.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

One example is defending the freedom of expression, even though you disagree with what someone

might say when they exercise that freedom.

So for example, I might defend your right to speak.

I might defend your right to express yourself without fear of losing your job, for example.

But I might still not agree with whatever it is that you're going to say.

So, you say something I don't like.

I don't like it, I respond to it.

That's the proper way to handle it.

That is to say, we defend the right of people to express themselves even though we acknowledge

that the outcome of that might not be what we agree with.

So the famous saying of course, is I don't agree with what it is that you want to say

but I will defend your right to say it to the death.

You test your ideas by arguing with people who disagree with you.

And actually, if you're good at it, you even learn to enjoy it.

JOSH LIEB: I think legally, you should be able to say anything you want.

Then again, and I think if you're seeing that someone is booked on a TV show that you don't

agree with, I think it's not against free speech.

You're not violating anyone's free speech to say, I don't wanna be in a program with

that person.

Or if you're a publishing house that's publishing a book by someone you don't like.

There's no violation of free speech, you're not impinging on anyone to say, I don't care

to be associated with that person.

That's fine.

I don't like hate speech laws, I'm vehemently against them.

I think they are as anti-American and anti-Democratic as anything can be.

And I don't like the idea of criminalizing thought no matter how hateful or stupid the

thought is.

It sounds like something from 1984.

I don't think we make the hate go away by not saying it.

You know, I'm basically I'm Lenny Bruce in "Harry Potter," I will say Voldemort's name.

It doesn't make Voldemort go away to not say that fucking word.

I always curse too much on these things, I'm sorry.

You know, the road to hell is paved with great intentions.

Like I get it, but it's a bad path for us.

And the problem is things are so chaotic now.

Things are at such a high tenor.

People are so filled with vitriol that it's very possible that, just to get everyone to

cool down, this is when this kind of stuff can get through, but that would not be American.

FLOYD ABRAMS: There've always been boundaries on freedom of speech and of the press.

At different times they've been interpreted more or less strictly.

We've always had libel law, for example.

People have always been able to sue when false things were said about them, which harmed

them.

However, in 1964, the Supreme Court, in one of its greatest opinions, New York Times against

Sullivan basically decided that there was, in the interest of protecting freedom of speech,

a need to expand beyond old law.

Like when I was in law school, for example, we were taught libelous material isn't protected

by the First Amendment.

Well, that's still true, but what the court said in 1964 was in defining what's libelous,

we have to take into account the First Amendment.

And in particular, when you speak about a public person, a public figure, a public official,

there can't be a winning libel suit against you, unless you basically lied, said something

you knew was false or you suspected it wasn't true.

That's just one example.

In the area of National Security, we have some statutes which make it a crime to publish

details about building atomic weapons and in the area of National Security the government

has sought to, and I would say has established the proposition that if they can get to court

with respect to material which would really, really cripple the country in the sense of

making it impossible for the country and its people to be safe from imminent harm caused

as a result of the speech itself.

Why then the Supreme Court has said that there can be a prior restraint, an injunction against

the speech.

But not much.

I mean, America has always been the country in the world with more protection for speech,

more protection for religion.

Those two areas in particular.

More protection for freedom of the press, which together with freedom of speech have

a sort of a common body of law than any country in the history of the world.

That's not to say we haven't had real and real big First Amendment problems sometimes.

And First Amendment deprivations sometimes.

But taken as a whole, it's been really an astonishing, a breathtaking degree of personal

freedom for people, for organizations, for institutions to have their say.

STROSSEN: Most people falsely assume one of two things which are opposite from each other

and yet they are equally wrong.

On the one hand, many people assume that freedom of speech is absolute, that there can be no

restrictions or limitations whatsoever.

On the other hand, too many people think that there's no protection for certain kinds of

unpopular speech, such as so-called "hate speech" or "pornography" or terrorism speech,

to name a few that are constantly attacked.

The First Amendment, Freedom of Expression, rests upon two fundamental principles.

One prescribes when government may not suppress speech and the other explains when government

may restrict speech, in appropriately limited circumstances.

So first, the non censorship principle is often called the content neutrality or viewpoint

neutrality principle.

Government may never suppress speech solely because of its content, its message, its viewpoint

or ideas.

No matter how feared or despised or hated or hateful that idea, that content may be

perceived as, even as by the vast majority of the community that is never enough to justify

censoring it.

If we disagree with an idea, if we despise it, we should answer it back, not suppress

it.

If however you get beyond the content of the speech, its message, and look at its overall

context, then government may restrict that speech consistent with what is usually called

the emergency principle.

If in a particular context, that speech directly causes certain serious, imminent, specific

harm.

And the only way to avert the harm is by suppressing the speech.

Now, the United States Supreme Court has created a recognized several categories of speech

that satisfy that emergency principle.

For example, intentional incitement of imminent violence, where the violence is likely to

actually happen imminently.

Or targeted bullying or harassment that is directly targeted at a particular individual

or small group of individuals, and directly interferes with their freedom of movement.

Another example that satisfies the emergency principle is what lawyers call a genuine threat

or a true threat.

If the speaker is directly targeting a small specific audience and intends to instill a

reasonable fear on the part of that audience that they are gonna be subject to some kind

of violence, then the speech can and should be punished.

MICHAEL SHERMER: I'll tell you how far I go in defending free speech.

I would defend the free speech of Holocaust deniers.

My example of this is David Irvine, who is the most prominent of the Holocaust deniers.

I've known him a long time since the 1990s and he's definitely the smartest of the bunch.

And I think he's absolutely wrong and I've confronted him with what I think why I think

he's wrong.

It's apparent in his trial, he's also pretty antisemitic or at least he lies for Hitler,

but that's beside the point.

The idea that he went to Austria to give a talk and was arrested at the airport.

You know, they scan your passport and the name pops up and they come and arrest him.

And he was tried and then convicted and put in jail and he didn't even give a speech,

he was just thinking about giving a speech.

So that is the very definition of a thought crime.

Do we really wanna go down that road?

I mean, that's what countries like North Korea do.

That's what like the Soviet Union did under Stalin.

You know, arrest people for thought crimes.

This is a terrible way to go.

And I even went so far as to write a letter to the judge in that case on behalf of David

Irving, even though I completely disagree with him, because I just find this abhorrent.

STROSSEN: People will often say to me as somebody who is Jewish and the daughter of a Holocaust

survivor, who barely survived the Buchenwald concentration camp, how can I of all people

defend the Nazis?

And I always say, I'm not defending the Nazis, I'm defending freedom of speech as an inviolable,

indivisible principle that is only gonna remain strong if we continue to respect that bedrock

viewpoint neutrality principle, denying government the power to suppress an idea merely because

in one community that idea is deemed to be unpopular or hateful or hated.

Because I know that in many communities in this country ideas that I cherish as a civil

libertarian, as a human rights champion, those ideas are seen as dangerous and are subject

to censorship.

So I'm not defending the Nazis, I'm defending a principle that is especially important for

those of us who want to have the freedom to raise our voices, to protest the Nazis and

everything they stand for.

ALICE DREGER: What's happening on a lot of university campuses is the notion you come

with your preexisting beliefs about your identity, about the world and no one's supposed to question

that, and I think that's very problematic.

You know, for example, people say, well, we don't want right-wing people on campus.

I do, I want everybody on campus, I want everybody having the same educational opportunities

and I want the opportunity to actually have real conversations about different points

of view.

Getting them out in the open, airing them, being able to have conversations, arguments,

thinking about data, thinking about evidence, thinking about histories of justice.

It allows us to have those conversations in a way that I think has integrity and honesty

and gets us somewhere.

So if people have the attitude, you know, some people are allowed on campus, some people

are not, some people are allowed to speak, some people are not.

That doesn't really get us forward.

Certainly it is the case we should not allow people to openly abuse each other verbally

in ways that are profound.

So for example, using the N word, for example.

But beyond that, I think we have to have a lot of generosity in terms of allowing people

to air ideas and giving everybody time to do that, so that we can have meaningful education.

STROSSEN: Those who advocate censorship never examine whether censorship is going to be

effective in addressing, redressing, reducing the harm.

They never address whether censorship to the contrary is going to do more harm than good.

And every situation that I'm aware of, censorship actually ends up being ineffective in addressing

the harms at stake at best, or counterproductive at worst.

So disinformation, well, are we going to say that empowering Mark Zuckerberg and the other

titans of Silicon Valley to decide that certain speech is untrue, is that actually going to

solve our political problems?

I think to the contrary, that is as threatening to democracy as it is to individual freedom.

Likewise, with respect to so-called "hate speech" that conveys discriminatory ideas

against traditionally marginalized or excluded groups.

Every hate speech law around the world to this day is disproportionally enforced consistently

against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected.

And we shouldn't be surprised at that.

Once you have these discretionary standards.

What is hate speech?

What is disinformation?

No two individuals can agree on such inherently subjective concepts.

SHERMER: We are wrong about so much of what we believe, that the only way to find out

if you're on the right track or you've gone off the rails is to actually talk to other

people.

Even if you're completely right, by listening to what somebody else says, you have an opportunity

to strengthen your own position.

As John Stuart Mill said in his foundational text, 1859 "On Liberty", "he who knows only

his own position doesn't even know that."

So for example, most of my students that I teach they're pretty liberal, they're pro-choice

on the abortion issue.

But when I asked them to articulate the pro-life position, which, you know, over half of Americans

take, you know, they mostly can't do it.

So I tell them that you don't really understand pro-choice arguments if you don't understand

the pro-life arguments, you gotta have both sides, right?

Even if the pro choice position is absolutely the right one you're still not really understanding

it until you understand the other side.

Then there's the fact that you might be wrong, partially wrong or completely wrong.

And again, the only way to find out is by listening to what other people say.

And then there's the right, not just of the speaker to speak, but of the listeners to

listen.

So when protesters shut down talks at say, colleges and universities when a conservative

comes to speak, it's not just the right of the speaker to speak, or, you know, the administrators

or deans who brought that person in, but the audience.

There might be a lot of students that wanna hear what this person has to say.

And even if they are completely liberal and totally opposed to this conservative's ideas,

they still have a right to hear if they want to.

And so when protestors get these speakers de-platformed, that is, they're not even allowed

to speak, they don't even come to campus or if they do come and they try to speak and

then they're shouted down, it's called heckler's veto.

That's violating the rights of listeners, not just the speakers, right?

JON ZIMMERMAN: I am a Liberal Democrat, In fact, I'm almost a caricature of a Liberal

Democratic.

My father was in the Peace Corps, I was in the Peace Corps.

I'm Jewish, I have a PhD, I'm like a cartoon, all right?

But, part of my liberalism is an absolute commitment to free speech.

And one of the things I find most upsetting, both at the partisan and at the intellectual

level, is the way that free speech has now been cast as a kind of conservative value.

I find this profoundly ahistorical, because all of the great warriors for social justice

in the past, with names like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B.

Du Bois and Martin Luther King, they were absolutists on free speech, because they understood

that it was the people at the bottom that needed free speech the most, 'cause it was

all they had.

So I had a really interesting experience that for me kind of crystallized this change and

why it's so important.

I've hosted Mary Beth Tinker in my class at Penn.

Mary Beth Tinker was in middle school when she and other family members wore these black

armbands to school in Des Moines to protest the Vietnam War.

They were sent home from school and this eventually became a very important test case called Tinker

v. Des Moines.

Ultimately the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines upheld their right to do that.

And it was in that case that Justice Fortas very famously wrote that "students and teachers

don't shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."

Well, Mary Beth Tinker is now a 65-year-old person and she came to my class to talk about

this case and free speech.

And the students said to her, they said, "Listen, Ms. Tinker, you were fighting the good fight,

you were fighting the Vietnam War.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro, they're not fighting the good fight,

they're just hurting people.

You know, they're anti-trans, they're anti-gay, they're anti-Black, they are just haters.

They injure people.

Why should they have the privilege of speaking?"

Mary Beth Tinker wasn't having it.

Here's what she said.

She said, "Listen, in the school that I attended in Des Moines, there were kids who had fathers

and brothers that were dying in Southeast Asia.

Do you think they weren't hurt by this snot-nosed kid wearing the symbol saying that their dad

or brother was dying for a lie?

You don't think that hurt them?

Wake up!

It hurt them, speech hurts.

But if that's gonna be your rubric, if that's gonna be your definition, forget my armband

because I was hurting people too.

That's what speech does."

Then they went on to say, "Well, look, this free speech thing, this is just an abstraction,

it's not really about rights, it's just about power, who has power, who has the power to

talk?"

She's not having that either.

She says, "Listen, I was a 13-year-old kid.

The only power I had was my speech.

That was it.

And speech over time has been a weapon of the powerless.

If you go ahead and sensor it, eventually it's gonna be turned against the people with

the least power, and it may be turned against you."