Ballots and Bullets and Bullies, oh My!
Last year, Kari Lake, a TV personality who ran for governor of Arizona with Donald Trump’s backing, publicly stated, “If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have to go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And … most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA.”
Sounds threatening. But she declared it a “public service announcement.”
Last September, Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and current Trump supporter, said if Trump loses his bid to return to the White House, the 2024 election “is going to be the last American election that will be decided by ballots rather than bullets.”
Prophecy or threat?
More recently, epithets hurled on college campuses calling for the annihilation of Jews led to a congressional hearing in which presidents of prestigious universities were questioned about their lack of interference. One of them subsequently resigned under pressure.
These incidents made me examine my understanding of our right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment of our constitution.
According to the American Library Association (ala.org), “There is no legal definition of ‘hate speech’ under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
The United Nations (un.org) states, “… there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.”
Everyone seems to agree that, as the ALA explains, hate speech can “be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.” But the point at which free speech morphs into criminal threat is not always clear.
So, the promise of free speech is not absolute. Just as the right to bear arms—our second amendment guarantee—is not absolute. There’s a building in Berryville that houses the public library and the office where I pay my property taxes. The sign on the front door says, “Carrying a Firearm or other weapons including guns and knives, in any county building is strictly prohibited.” And for obvious reasons, guns are not allowed in schools. Nobody argues this point, even though many folks in Carroll County feel strongly about their constitutionally protected right to carry a gun.
Similarly, interrupting a call for genocide should not be construed as stepping on the constitution. Speech is limited in many places of business, including public offices, if it is offensive. People can be ousted from eateries, or even lose their jobs for offensive speech. Clearly university administrators have some leeway in establishing ground rules for expressing hateful sentiments on campus.
Freedom of speech is paramount for a democracy. The assurance of a free press is essential if we are to keep from falling prey to dictatorial leadership. But our freedoms, including free speech, don’t exist in a vacuum. We must take steps to protect our rights by calling out those who would abuse the freedoms we’ve been granted.
Elected officials, wannabe officials, and usedtobe officials should not bully the electorate. Employers must defend employees from intimidation. And college administrators must keep watch over the safety of people on their campuses.
Just because an action is technically protected as a right doesn’t make it socially acceptable, moral, or even healthy in all instances. Each of us should handle our right to free speech with care—to ensure that right is still there when we really need it.