Where does free speech end?
This volatile question is being asked across the U.S. in every possible context. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Website notes the First Amendment exists “precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression.”
In a university environment, where the very intent of the institution is the propagation and exchanging of ideas, this issue is especially hot. When does free speech become hate speech, and even if it is hate speech, should it be stopped?
It’s incorrect to think of Southern Maine as a place separated from the hotbed of this political debate.
At nearby Harvard University, an explosive response to a controversial phrase has started administrators mulling over a limitation on offensive speech.
An hour north of Portland, in Lewiston, the World Church of the Creator plans to hold an anti-Somali rally on Jan. 11.
Here on campus, a grievance brought against a professor who allegedly made racist remarks ended with a settlement and a letter of apology.
This is a timely issue.
At the heart of a university is the philosophy that a marketplace of ideas can be exchanged safely. Theoretically, the argument with more merit will win out, but not without a verbal trial-by-fire.
Joe Austin, dean of student life, said there are “many provocative things within the guidelines of free speech.”
USM President Richard Pattenaude said though freedom of speech is imperative, it is a freedom that “must be exercised responsibly.”
The lines are fuzzy.
In legal terms, speech is only limited when it turns from expression to harassment. On a legal level, harassment can only occur with an element of intent. Harassment extends to prank phone calls, nonconsensual meeting in person and, as far as speech goes, it can even extend to racial epithets.
The Office of Campus Diversity and Equity said racial epithets can be considered “fighting words” – words that invoke a hostile or intimidating environment. Once expression degrades to the level of threats and slander, it is no longer covered by the provisions of the First Amendment.
The purpose of such constraints is to develop a sense of safety and mutual respect. The worst degradation of expression is when an opinion turns towards violence-based characteristics of a victim.
According to the USM Police Department, a hate crime has two necessary components: an expressed bias and the actual crime. Without the motivation, it is not a hate crime.
Numerous campus diversity programs such as the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence, Multicultural Student Affairs, and the GLBTQA Resource Center, exist to prevent hate through education.
Dorn McMahon, student senator and member of the GLBTQA community, said that “the First Amendment is a wonderful paradox.”
While acknowledging the importance placed on protections of even biased expression, McMahon said, “Even though they have the right, it doesn’t mean it is right.”
It’s pretty safe to say that no one wants to see even deeply-felt beliefs erupt into violence. But the question of truth is a tough one – it’s why most of us are here to begin with.