SPEAKING FREELY
Posted by Professor Dayo Abah
I have just found out today
about the Speaking Freely website and I am glad I did. I am particularly glad
that efforts are being made to promote the website. I read some of the comments
on the website and I was surprised at the level of misunderstanding of what
Brian said in his statement. This is not
in defense of the
students authors of "List" and the "Bracket." This is a
thought to ponder on a speaking freely website.
What the authors of the bracket practiced cannot be defended as
journalism but it was speech. It was harmful speech by members of our
community. Anger, outrage and community
condemnation of their speech are all appropriate responses. It is also an
opportunity for a
discussion about our community values and institutional culture
that allow such speech to fester. What is not appropriate is a closed hearing
in which the accused is not allowed to face the accuser. It is inappropriate,
not because it is closed (that might be necessary to protect both accused and
accuser), but because the accused may not be allowed to face the accuser. Closed hearings with phantom accusers is not the appropriate
remedy for bad speech. There is no
absolute freedom, however, we have to be careful not
to sacrifice freedom for civility. To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, believing in
the power of reason as applied through public discourse (as represented by this
website and other forums that have tackled the issue) we should eschew silence
coerced by law or by fear of punishment for its infraction. "The path of safety lies in the
opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and propose remedies; the
fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones....The remedy to be
applied is more speech, not enforced silence" (Justice Louis Brandeis,
1927). Hate speech, as abhorrent as it is, is an opportunity for more good
speech and education. If a crime has been committed, it is not only fair, but
might even be therapeutic for the accuser to face the accused.