AFTER college newspapers around the country refused to run an advertisement paid for by conservative writer David Horowitz, many critics across the nation are decrying what they believe is a lack of free speech. The ad, which gave reasons against giving reparations for slavery, was placed in only a few of the newspapers to which Horowitz submitted it.
The Cavalier Daily's and many other newspapers' decision not to run the advertisement was certainly a controversial one. But what is interesting is that the focus of discussions around the country have been on Horowitz's freedom of speech. Caught up in such a conversation, few have spent time discussing the validity of his arguments.
The Daily Californian, the University of California-Berkeley's school newspaper, printed the advertisement, which then prompted outrage on the part of the school body. After getting in a shouting match with students at a debate at Berkeley, Horowitz said, "Apparently on this campus, some ideas are too dangerous for the campus community to hear." He later defended his comments by accusing those who criticized him of "racial McCarthyism" ("Passions Ignite as Horowitz Speaks," The Daily Californian, Mar. 16).
|
Instead of defending his arguments by citing evidence and pointing out where his critics are wrong, Horowitz simply contends that he has the right to say whatever he wants.Anyone who needs to point out his right to free speech in order to justify his actions or words only diminishes the legitimacy of his arguments. It shows that his facts, reasoning and logic are not enough to shield him from criticism.
Many political organizations take full advantage of their First Amendment rights in other open forums. Whenever the Ku Klux Klan wants to stage a rally, the leaders must always defend themselves by claiming free speech rights. The North American Man/Boy Love Association promotes pedophilia and similarly hides behind the free speech argument whenever it faces criticism. All over the Internet, hate groups and pornography sites see the First Amendment as a shield to protect them from the wrath of censorship.
That's fine. But respecting someone's freedom of speech and tolerating what they have to say are two different things. What some may fail to realize is that the Berkeley students who got into a shouting match with Horowitz were just exercising their right to free speech.
The newspapers that rejected Horowitz's ad were also exercising their right to the freedom of the press. There are many avenues where a civilized dialogue can take place. That's the purpose of an opinion page. But any newspaper has the right to reject a controversial, political and arguably offensive advertisement from which they would profit.
Also notice that in all of the attacks on these newspapers, not one is legitimately defending what Horowitz has to say. Some might think that this is a legitimate political view, but Horowitz's arguments mainly involve broad stereotyping. The ad contains statements like, "Trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences," and, "What about the debt blacks owe to America?"
There are other, more legitimate arguments that can be made against reparations. The fact that Horowitz shields himself with the freedom of speech defense instead of actually defending his opinions shows the lack of legitimacy in his arguments.
The First Amendment is one of this country's most important foundations. But those who hide behind freedom of speech while asserting opinions that they cannot reasonably defend are abusing this right.
In other words, if someone needs the American Civil Liberties Union to protect their freedom of speech, then obviously the logic and reasoning behind their argument are far from substantial.
No one should be denied the right to free speech, no matter how ridiculous or offensive their beliefs may be. But those who hide behind the First Amendment only expose the weakness of their arguments.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
