Free speech is a double edged sword--what is mean is not that there are good aspects and bad--all aspects are good, in principle. However, the same freedom of speech which defends your right to say stupid shit also defends my right to call what you say "stupid shit". You may not like it, you may disagree, but you cannot claim that I am violating your freedom of speech without rejecting your own (that is how these rights work). Nevertheless, when the president of Fordham chided the campus Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, Fox and WSJ descried this as a kind of censorship. The result was that the campus Republicans rescinded their invitation. This seems to me a free speech success--the university's president criticized Coulter as intentionally inflicting pain on others race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed. Whether or not you agree with his assessment, he made an argument rather than a proscription--he did not censor the campus Republicans, he shared his opinion with them. They agreed and changed their minds. How can this be anything but a free speech victory?
No comments:
Post a Comment