Free Speech Zones

November 17, 2002

by John F. Schmidt

It wasn’t so very long ago that the “free speech zone” in the United States went from sea to sea. You might be unpopular if you uttered or published certain ideas or tried to persuade others of their rightness, but your right to hold and promulgate them was undisturbed.

Our great universities were intended to be places where one could explore ideas and weigh the merits of philosophies. My generation seized free speech in the Sixties’ Universities and misused it as the right to do and say anything. But for all our excesses, the assumption that there were to be few, if any, restrictions on free speech was one of the driving forces that spawned needed corrections in our national life.

John W. Whitehead, founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, recently published an article “Gagging Expression” that briefly documents the fight for free speech at the University of West Virginia. There, the university officials designated “free speech zones” in which the students would be allowed to speak their mind. Of course, these “zones” was actually an area where “free speech” was strictly enforced by guidelines as to what form the student’s opinions might take, and how many students could participate and when they may do so. The room designated as the only spot on campus where “free speech” could be practiced was capable of holding about 15 students. During the reign of terror under the “Zone” rules, free speech was effectively stomped into extinction at WVU. Whitehead’s group and others took the University to court, and finally induced the University’s Board of Governors back down somewhat and adopt a revised policy.

What I found particularly loathsome was the stifling effect of designating a “free speech zone.” By doing so, the University effectively banned free speech everywhere else. Further, by restricting “free speech” to a certain small room, and infringing it with swarms of rules, they effectively banned free speech there too. Nice trick.

One can only imagine the reaction had they tried this in the 1960’s. The students were not so docile then. We must not fail to be struck with the contrast in both the sixties’ students and administrations and their counterparts now. The sixties administrators tried to honor free speech as it was still correctly understood back then, and the students still considered it a right not to be infringed. A lot has changed since then. The contrast between the two times is no compliment to either of today’s groups.

The actions of WVU are quite in keeping with the zeitgeist of our present culture. In a July 2002 article “College Profs steeped in post-modernism”, the author reported on a recent poll taken by the National Association of Scholars. The results indicated that 73 percent of seniors chose the statement “what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity” as the message college and university professors most often transmit. No wonder the professors and administrators who hired them want to restrict free speech. They are indignant that anyone would advocate ideas that they “know” are without moral basis – and therefore they conclude they must simply be an intolerant attempt by some students to impose their baseless prejudices on others.

This is pretty scary stuff. When those in authority no longer believe in right and wrong, then any attempt you make to influence others based on your concept of right and wrong must appear to them to be self-evidently wrong. This amounts to the death of free speech for any but those in power who can dictate the thought du jour.

Our society has long been flirting with the death of free speech, especially when that speech contains a moral message. Consider the Homeland Security Act (so called) going through Congress right now. Ostensibly it is intended to make our government more able to defend us against terrorists in our midst, but it contains a vast array of other things not related to homeland security at all. For one thing, it establishes the premise that abortion clinic protestors who are sued and fined in civil court by the clinic owners cannot by law be relieved of those judgments by bankruptcy filings. No other group has been so singled out as those Pro-Life defenders. When you think this through to the conclusion, the indelible fact remains that agitation against pro-death abortion clinics is nationally forbidden speech and action. No wonder WVU thought they had this one in the bag!

Neither are our courts and legislatures immune to this propensity to punish genuine free speech. When our Bill of Rights was adopted, the kind of speech they really protected was that which enabled the people of the Colonies to rally to defend their cause. It was political and religious speech. A telling sign occurred this week when CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) announced a “hate-speech” lawsuit against the Rev. Jerry Falwell for characterizing Mohammed as a terrorist. While that kind of speech plainly falls under the umbrella of protected religious and political speech, the courts may act on it anyway. And thus the discourse needed to protect our national existence is stifled because many will not speak up against Islamic terror for fear of being hauled into court, bankrupted or imprisoned. In today’s climate in which any moral statement is verboten, will speech of the kind necessary to sustain true freedom survive?

Free Speech is threatened, but so also is the freedom to not agree with what the political correctness (PC) commandos promote. Those who refuse to participate are likely to pay for it if they speak up in protest. Such was the case when a Kodak employee dared to challenge the in-your-face promotion of the sodomite lifestyle by his corporation. He was discharged when he refused to submit to “sensitivity training” and agree to make sure such an incident did not occur again. The lesson? The only “free speech” is PC speech.

If you, like me, are dismayed by the encroaching threat of the PC Gestapo, then you are probably looking for a way to combat it. But I think you already know the answer - so I will leave you with this question. What do you call a person who knows the Truth but fails to speak out? That’s right. Sodom was destroyed not so much for its wickedness as for the failure of its righteous dwellers to be stand up and be counted.

__________________________________________

John F. Schmidt has written numerous articles over the last decade. Politically, he is an Alan Keyes-type Republican. Along with his wife, he has organized voter drives in Pennsylvania, and been active politically since the 1990 elections. His livelihood, until recently, was spent in automation engineering for a large global equipment manufacturing company, specializing in coal mining. WANB in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania hosted Schmidt's weekly talk radio program "Issues and Answers." His writing is intended to relate the headlines of today to the foundation of eternal truth - the Scriptures. He currently resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. Visit his website at: Inalienable-Rights.org

Send the author an E mail at Schmidt@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of John's articles, visit his archives.