Limiting ‘offensive’ free speech goes against the Constitution | Opinion – Florida Today

Gary Beatty| Guest Columnist

Its often incorrectly said that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not give you the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.

But what if there is a fire?

The correct statement is that the First Amendment does not give you the freedom to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater."A colloquial illustration that free speech, like all individual rights, isnot unlimited.

What are the limits on free speech?

On most college campuses today, too many students believe the limit is whatever words make them uncomfortable the definition of which seemingly changes daily.Even worse, theadults (professors) who are supposed to be educating the students, and administrators running the schools, enable that type of flawed thinkingto fester.In fact, some would consider it a sign of something more serious.

The need to be protected from ideas that offend, or make you uncomfortable, is a symptom of mental illness, as Professors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt demonstrate in their groundbreaking bestseller, "The Coddling of the American Mind."The mental patients have taken over the asylum.

Aside from mental illness, a belief that people must be protected from mere words strikes at the very foundation of a free society.That it dominates attitudes in academia is particularly disturbing because The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas."Thats how the Supreme Court has defined freedom of speech in college classrooms. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

Last March the Supreme Court decided a case indirectly related to free speech on campus.Two evangelical Christian students were prevented from proselytizing in the public area on the campus of Georgia Gwinnett College because (according to the college speech code)talking about religion in public disturbs the peace and/or comfortof person(s)."and amounted to fighting words."

When the students sued for violation of their First Amendment rights, the school quickly rescinded the speech code in an attempt to prevent the lawsuit from going forward.The Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward regardless.Though the case as it came to the Court doesnt address the First Amendment claim, and is limited to a procedural requirement for maintaining lawsuits, freedom of speech is the basis of the lawsuit.

Whats significant is how quickly the college abandoned their speech code when faced with a lawsuit alleging it violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said the suit can go forward, and the law may permit the fact the college abandoned its speech code in the face of the suit as evidence they attempted to obstruct vindication of the students' rights.

Unfortunately, the notion that offensive speechshould not be allowed is spreading like a noxious fungus from the moldy halls of academia.For example, social media has its version of arbitrary content-based speech codes, prompting those who respect the Constitution to fight back against such discrimination.

In response to former President(and Florida resident)Donald Trump being blocked from Twitter, the Florida legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a ban on social media arbitrarily deplatforming political candidates. Platforms can be fined if they do so.

The new law requires the social media platforms to publish standards of what content is, or is not, permittedand to show they enforce those standards uniformly rather than selectively as they did with Trump.Social media companies are challenging the law on the ground that they claim it infringes their First Amendment rights.

Think about that hypocrisy. The owners of social media platforms are whining that suing them for selectively limiting citizens rights of free speech somehow limits their own First Amendment rights!Hopefully Supreme Court precedent will thwart the owners comedic ascent into Aristophanes nephelococcygia (absurdity).

More: Public defenders provide same quality defense as private attorneys | Opinion

More: Verdict was just as prosecutors 'pandered to the mob' in Rittenhouse trial | Opinion

In 1943, the United States Supreme Court said that forcing a person to believe something, or to say words they dont agree with, violates our core values, If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

You cant be deprived of the right to disagree with, or voice disapproval of, the social justice cause du jour. If those causes are justifiable they should welcome competition in the market of ideas. That they dont proves their intellectual bankruptcy.

Gary Beatty lives in Sharpes andis retired from 30 years as an assistant state attorney in Brevard County. He has a doctorate in law andiscertified in criminal trial law by the Florida Bar.

Support local journalism and become a subscriber. VIsitfloridatoday.com/subscribe

Read the original here:
Limiting 'offensive' free speech goes against the Constitution | Opinion - Florida Today