Turning Point USA and free speech
I have had no direct involvement with Turning Point USA (TPUSA). What I know is what I have read in the San Marcos Record and learned from research. It seems that TPUSA stands against virtually every value I cherish. It is racist, anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, anti-Black Lives Matter, anti-immigrant; it targets professors it doesn’t like for their imputed political views by placing their names on its Professor Watchlist; it is closely aligned with the NRA and the Trumpian wing of the Republican Party (which is more like its heart and soul, rather than an appendage at this point); it is funded primarily by right-wingers; it makes false statements to the public directly and through social media; it associates with violent white supremacists.
TPUSA engages in provocative tactics, as well as in conventional political activity. It falsely posts quotes of prominent political figures on Facebook. It works to take over student government at colleges and universities, so far unsuccessfully. At Kent State University, TPUSA supporters dressed up in diapers to ridicule the campus “safe space” culture. It supported the presidential candidacies of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
There are reports that TPUSA agents engage in physical harassment and disrupting classes. Neither activity is protected free speech. Everything else I have described, all of which I disagree with, and some of which seems execrable, is protected free speech.
The right of free speech has no value if it applies only to speech with which I agree. It is precisely speech that I disagree with that is protected under the First Amendment. To advocate banning an organization because it advocates for political positions I or anyone else disagrees with strikes at the very heart of the free speech protections all of us should venerate. If the organization and its agents go beyond free speech by physically harassing, destroying property, preventing a class from being taught, impeding a lecture, or illegally sabotaging an election, there are legal and institutional remedies for such conduct because in a free society we punish not speech, but conduct that violates laws and norms, such as conduct prohibited under disorderly conduct, assault, and threats of assault statutes.
If someone’s speech is intimidating, I can walk away from it or I can confront it with speech of my own. Not everyone is as assertive as I might be and might be unwilling to engage in a “war of words.” As I have matured, I have become better at discerning when to engage in an argument with someone. If someone constantly interrupts me or talks over me, I will walk away from the argument because there is little to be gained in continuing. The same is true when the other person is attacking me personally, rather than focusing on the issues about which we might disagree. This sort of interchange can be emotionally draining, and it will likely be unproductive.
Most troubling to me is when a group of people disrupt speech so that the speaker cannot be heard. This has happened to the targets of TPUSA, as well as to TPUSA spokespersons during forums at Texas State University and is termed a “hecklers veto.” A “heckler’s veto” used against the speech of another dishonors our free speech tradition and constitutional guarantees if it occurs at a government institution. I am not talking here about a very brief emotional outburst in response to something deemed as outrageous.
To understand the difference, watch a session of the House of Commons in England when the Prime Minister (or another Minister) is being questioned by members, which occurs regularly. If an emotional response continues for longer than a few seconds, order is restored by the House Speaker, who presides over the House. This practice generates regular policy debates between the prime minister and the opposition. No “heckler’s vetoes” are permitted.
If a person or a group tries to shout down or drown out a speaker on the Texas State University campus, the presiding authority should try to restore order. If the disruptors do not cooperate, they can be forced out of the venue by campus police, if necessary, and charged with disorderly conduct, and with disciplinary action by the university. No civil people want such confrontations, but it is a fact that people are not always civil.
Even people who have engaged in violence previously do not give up their rights to free speech later. If they consistently engage in violence on campus, they are subject to injunctions and prosecution, but they never lose their rights to free speech. I don’t like white supremacists or the KKK or the Nazi groups found around the country, but they have a right to exist in a free society. When they commit actual violence, the results can create fear and danger for their targets, as well as for bystanders. They should be prosecuted for their crimes, but until there are legal grounds for prohibiting them on campus, they are subject to the same considerations as others, however despicable they may seem to you or me. It is a price we pay for a free society.
Extremists are entitled to both free speech and symbolic speech, such as erecting a mock wall to show opposition to Latinx students, immigrants, and refugees. Opponents of extremists should be as creative in their actions and find ways to demonstrate against such bigotry. Protecting the targets of extremism does not require denying free speech to extremists and their supporters. Accusing University President Trauth of sinister motivations in not banning TPUSA from campus is an unwarranted personal attack on her and appears to result from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the meaning of the First Amendment.
Fifty years ago, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court expounded on the meaning of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee, holding that speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, “imminent lawless action.” Otherwise, speech is protected, no matter how odious or misinformed it seems to others.
Time, place and manner restrictions on speech are perfectly legal as long as they don’t serve to prevent the speech, and such restrictions cannot be based on the content of the speech. Protesters have the right to picket, distribute literature, shout, sing, call people unflattering names, and engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances, to physically harass people, or threaten another person.
With respect to “fighting words,” the Supreme Court provides this explanation: They are words which, “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
Texas State University students opposed to the values expounded by TPUSA have the options of ignoring TPUSA, finding creative ways to blunt the odious messages of that group, and engaging them in dialogue in a reasonable forum that seeks to debate the issues and seek truth. What they should not do, if they respect our Constitution, is seek to have TPUSA banned from the campus for its degrading, loathsome, and prejudiced views.
