Free Speech Includes Speech You Don't Like
The tradeoff for free speech means hearing ideas that you may find offensive.
One of the principles that formed the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution was the idea that people should be free to express ideas and have open discussion. Those are embedded in the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from, among other things, not infringing upon speech and press (in other words, the spoken and written word).
However, the rights spelled out in the First Amendment come with trade-offs, those being you will have ideas that are wrong, ideas you disagree with, ideas you don't like and even ideas you find offensive. The government, though, is not allowed to take action to prevent any such idea from being expressed.
And while it's true that the First Amendment does not apply to the private sector, it is worth questioning whether or not the private sector should do anything that could be described as attempting to police ideas that are expressed. This is particularly true if we have individuals who talk about the importance of free speech and open dialogue, but turn around and make an exception for the opinions they really dislike.
It's one thing for a media outlet to say that they will not allow people to express an idea that isn't what the audience of said media outlet likes to hear. It's another thing, though, to declare that people should be denied employment, financial services, housing and access to businesses simply because they expressed an opinion that somebody dislikes.
It's easy to take a look at, for example, the NFL, in which quarterback Colin Kaepernick became a pariah because he chose to kneel during the National Anthem. The NFL's collective bargaining agreement does not require players to stand during the anthem (they are encouraged, but not required).
Furthermore, the anthem didn't become part of any sport until during World War II, when the NFL required teams to play the anthem before games in support of the war effort. (For the record, the national anthem wasn't even officially adopted by Congress until 1916, long after several sports leagues had launched.)
Fast forward to today, in which kicker Harrison Butker delivers a commencement speech at Benedictine University in Kansas and people get up in arms about it. In this case, it's a devout Catholic giving a commencement speech at a Catholic university, saying things that many devout Catholics may believe or agree with.
No matter, though, because the speech gets shared around the world and now we have other groups demanding that Butker be barred from the NFL for daring to question certain movements.
That people are comparing Butker to the likes of DeShaun Watson, Tyreek Hill and Rashee Rice is mind numbingly bad, especially when Kaepernick is right there. Set aside that Kaepernick's action took place during NFL games while Butker's action took place at a Catholic university, and realize that the net effect is the same: Both expressed ideas that some people didn't like, so deny them their careers.
It's not just limited to the NFL, though. We already went through multiple instances in which people organized to protest things ranging from COVID-19 policies to questioning critical race theory and gender ideology. People then got cut off from society, in one way or another, for daring to question whether or not those with the power and influence went to far. Others responded in kind, stressing the importance of free speech above all else.
That is, until a number of individuals decided to protest Israel's response to the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas, by which Israel has essentially signaled it will clear out all Palestinians from Gaza, no matter what. Say what you want about the protestors and whether or not they actually have useful ideas, but know that many who stressed the importance of free speech declare "oh, but not in this case."
It's true that actions such as preventing access to a building or following a person around and harassing said person are not actions protected by the First Amendment. But the ones who are responding to shut down protests are making no distinction between those who are blocking entrances and those who are simply chanting words that people find offensive.
If one truly believes in free speech principles, one has to recognize that hearing ideas they dislike, find offensive, even abhorrent, is something that comes with free speech territory. Whether it's questioning why the anthem should be played before sports games, or whether police tactics must be examined, or about the importance of motherhood, or asking ourselves about the excesses of Pride Month, or asking ourselves if Israel has gone too far, the bottom line is this: If one believes in free speech, one needs to allow all these ideas to be expressed.
And whether it's a politician who decides to shut down discussion to ensure they get their donations for their next election campaign or an interest group who decides to leverage the private sector to get bank accounts closed or deny employment for someone holding the wrong opinion, all it does is demonstrate that these individuals only want free speech when it comes to the speech they like.
The true test of a free speech supporter is when it comes to the speech you don't like. If your first instinct is to find some way to shut it down — whether it's by public sector or private sector means — then you should ask yourself whether you really believe in free speech principles.