"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism"
No, this form of patriotism - expectation of compulsory obeisance to a symbol and distaste for respectful protest of civil rights violations - is not admirable patriotism. It is the worst form of patriotism
9
"If you want a healthy culture of debate, it’s not enough to complain that Marxists and postmodernists are out to silence you; you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for."
This is the best part of Douthat's article. It sums up much of what I have felt, in my more generous moments, since the election. The right appears to be against many things--and they do not hesitate to shout invectives at the "elites" they purport to despise. But getting anyone on the right to sit down and outline their worldview is next to impossible. This is unfortunate, given that it lets leftist imaginations run wild. For example: if the GOP wants to get rid of, say, food stamps, what do they see happening to those who depend on them? Without a plan, we are left to conclude that the GOP would prefer the poor to starve and die. If they want to get rid of the ACA, what will happen to those who can't afford both health care and food? More starving to death? If they think education is indoctrination into liberal ideology, what would they prefer? An ignorant population that can be manipulated by unscrupulous actors?
I'm not trying to be deliberately inflammatory--I'm honestly asking for a plan. It's impossible to deliberate sensibly if all one side has to offer is "no."
15
Is it possible that the Google engineer was fired, not for his "wrongthink", but rather because no woman would want to work with him? Or for him? If I had an employee who I knew I couldn't promote, he would to some extent be a waste of space. If I fired an employee for discriminatory speech against black people or against Christians, no one would bat an eye. In fact, I'd be opening myself to a lawsuit for keeping him on the staff. This "wrongthink" idea is just another right-wing smoke screen. He wasn't fired for thinking wrongly. He was fired because he opened his foolish mouth and hate speech came out.
12
Too many words are thrown, here, at a simple problem. For a solution, American universities need only look at the OxCam tradition of regular, organized debates, with formal rules and referees.
A great deal of the angst swirling around college campuses, these days, could be channeled into healthy, rather than destructive, debate through this kind of institutionalized forum.
Of course, getting them up and running would require forceful leadership from university presidents. Activists on both sides want the freedom to disrupt, and they will fight for it.
The vast majority of students, on the other hand, want the freedom to study and learn without the distractions of ideological pitched battles, and all the accompanying baggage about micro-aggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces and so on.
Formal debates would address the needs of both groups, while returning the universities to their best traditions of scholarship and learning.
10
“A hedge fund with a library attached.”
Not all colleges and universities are like the Ivys in having a culture that sends half the graduates off to Wall St. or looks avariciously at parental income level. Nor are they all pro football factories. It is a diverse landscape indeed, if you choose to look. This essay is nuanced in places but diffuses into vagueness at the end.
3
The political free speech of athletes is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. The NFL is in violation of the US Constitution.
The so-called religious free speech of bigot bakers incorporated within a State and refusing to do with business with gays is forbidden by the 14th Amendment.
I believe African American boycotting of Football will quickly result in the NFL reversing its policy. The best policy, of course, would be for none of the professional athletes to be present in public until after the playing of the national anthem.
6
Mr. Douthat lives in an abstract and privileged world. The media is the new "ivory tower." His broad-brush painting of both academia and "sports and entertainment" lacks both nuance and reality.
Mr. Douthat has a platform that amplifies his voice. People who are not mass published or offered the speaker's podium do not. While I agree that much casual speech these days is deplorably thoughtless, nevertheless, the speech of students and athletes (of all levels) and even celebrities is important precisely because they speak from a more real-world place than those given explicit platforms: students belong to communities whose culture shapes their experience, and athletes and entertainers are not merely that: they are part of our shared culture. No, free speech alone will not save us, but to justify limiting it in the name of values asserted by those with more power to speak freely (like Mr. Douthat) might feel right, but is little more than another form of condescension and censorship. Consensus (which Mr. Douthat claims to support) requires everybody's voice in process of shared speaking and listening.
David Gottfried's view that conservative's "knowledge of philosophy" is "head & shoulders" above liberals is quite something. Where is his evidence to support such a glittering generality? He assumes that no liberal has ever read Kierkgaarde, and then reduces Mr. K to mowing down rose bushes along with grass, as if a liberal in standing up for human rights(like Jesus and all of the Old & New Testament prophets) is some how blindly abusing what? The bigotry of conservatives? Is Gottfried liberal apostate, says he doubts his own sentiments? Insults the blindness of other liberals.
Then Gottfried had to Google post Protestant morality, because his philosophical knowledge is so superior. Protestant morality gave us slavery, genocide of native tribes, the hustler greed mentality of capitalism, the Mexican War, the Scopes trial, hatred of Catholics, Jews, blacks, Asians, and Latinos. If Douthat and Gottfried are superior philosophers, then Trump is right, Obama is a Kenyan.
How about this and free speech-- All speech that denies facts is allowed, but the FCC reinstates a real Fairness Doctrine, and lies on the air are not presented as a valid opposing opinion, are debunked instantly to the public. Values arguments of course, but no 2+2=17. Comments and op-eds can be as ill reasoned as Douthat's, fine and dandy.
5
I'm making $6,000,000 a year to play for the "Platinum Pigskins"....would you expect me to "risk it all", because someone I didn't even know was "booted from a decedent's trust" by a probate court judge or beaten by police officers? That's what Americans should realize...although these pro athletes are, primarily, college grads...and should've known "a better way", perhaps...our schools have been sabotaged (to steal our benefits, of course) and even these college grads "didn't know". But, at least, they did something...they weren't in the "Presidency" and paid to fix it, they're pro athletes...if there were Constitutionally/Grand-Jury WARRANTS' to fix the problems...and the "president" (and others) "did nothing" and pro athletes "took a knee-bow" (though no "tongue confessional", as yet)...Who did their jobs better? That is the question.
Freedom of speech is not the problem, regarrdless of the politics of those speaking. The problem we have in America with the issue of speech has to do with intelligent and civil discourse, and speech that supports various positons on issues with documented facts. As long as we have president who daily exercises his right to free speech with dopey and incivil discourse accompanied by multiple lies, we will continue to have major communication problem in a country that protects the freedom of speech.
2
It its hard to believe that even Ross missed the possible argument and fact that it is in the owners' financial interest to encourage the players to kneel. All that exists now is a revenue statement that shows less income last year. One possibility is that the fans are tuning out because they object to the protests.
But another equally or more valid conclusion is that viewers and fans are tuning out because they are turned off by the owners. In fact the demographics indicate this is so. Democrats outweigh Republicans in polls of NFL fans. Many Republicans also support the players. It is more than likely that the owners are projecting their own views on their customers and reaching the wrong conclusions. Many fans don't like watching the players bullied and support the knee as much as they oppose police misconduct. If the owners had brains they would study this carefully instead of thinking with their gut.
Fans don't like their players being treated this way any more than they like innocent victims of police shootings. If the owners want to continue profitably they would understand that fans are leaving the game because they feel much like their favorite players, almost all of whom could be targets of police misconduct. That's why revenues are drown. To think otherwise is an insult to their customers.
2
As the Right has run out of ideas and the ability to actually govern, apparently they think their only recourse is to attack the underpinnings of democracy...a free press, voting rights, schools, law enforcement, colleges, the judiciary, fair elections, equality, health care...on and on and on.
This patient is sick and dying...and the ICU staff has brought in Dr. Trump, who prescribes tax cuts, personal attacks, and fear mongering. The prognosis is grave.
4
“An incoherent mix of ambitious scientism and post-Protestant moralism and simple greed ....”
This is a pretty good description of what you think the modern world is without your faith, your philosophy and your restraint. Not everyone shares your values. That is OK.
With what you denigrate as “procedural freedoms,” religious tolerance, human rights, and free speech, some of us think that humanity can pull through.
You might be reassured if you recognized that many of us are working on this project from perspectives different from your own and if you gave our ideas, our values and our inspiration some credit.
1
If you can't defend the First Amendment all the time in every situation, you are not an American. Mr. Douthat, like all conservatives, has never shared that view. In their world money has rights and people don't. Money deserves all the power and people don't. NFL owners should control the free speech of their employees and employees just don't understand how complicated the world of the rich really is. This fascism by baby steps that Mr. Douthat expresses is aimed at the weak minds that he hopes to persuade with his constant hacking away at the concept of equal rights through his position as an anointed NYT writer. He speaks the language of liberals while selling the snake oil of authoritarianism. Don't buy it.
4
Conservatives should be, and are, free to spout their ideas. But that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.
Effectively ordering people to respect the national anthem is fascist. Demanding that laws favor "Christians" over others is intolerant. Lying to gain and hold power is despicable.
So let everyone speak. But make darn sure you think critically about what they say and, for God's sake, avoid Fox "News" and its endless propaganda.
4
The National Anthem and our Flag represents our Country, it's ideals and represents all Americans. They stand for unity with all our diversity. It categorically denies caste, color, creed, sexes or sexual orientation. Every office, store, hospital, jobs and job and every application is a disclosure of that ideal. But a flag staffed everywhere and the anthem sung at every small event only brings out divisions not patriotism. The flag and anthem are both degraded and defiled by the protesters and the anti-protesters. Therefore let's not dishonor our very national identity. What is the protesters abroad against the US, first actions - burn the US flag. But all Americans are doing the same in our own country. And the only way is to use the flag with great discretion, not for a game , not for the Opera. It is not to wrap around and certainly not in every driveway!
In the college classes I teach anyone can voice an opinion about anything with the understanding that it will be challenged so they need to do some research and be sure of the facts.
One problem I experience all the time is that information is so easily obtainable that young people don't bother getting information ahead of time. It's kind of like NYers who don't visit the Statue of Liberty or Empire State Building because we take it for granted: information will be there when we need it, so why bother until and unless we need it. College students are shockingly uninformed about history, for example. And this hurts their ability to state clearly and defend positions.
3
Free Speech comes close to, and often crosses the line that makes the speech incendiary. The speakers goal isn’t to argue an idea, but to fire an emotional response. Often times it really doesn’t matter which emotional response is generated – whatever response it is a win. If the crowd accepts you, you gain a larger base, if the crowd rejects you, you can tell your base that: “They Hate Us!” and your base will agree and thereby create a more polarized environment.
Trump is a master at this technique. It doesn’t matter if you proclaim love-and-loyalty or hatred-and-disdain – either way Trump wins.
Speech today isn’t about arguing the merits of an idea – that is just so old-school and downright boring. Today speech is only about inciting the crowd to love or hate you and it really doesn’t matter. None of today’s speakers actually want to debate substance, neither they nor their audience has the patience for that. It’s all about counting how many supporters you have and how well your base links to you just because they can feel hated or loved along with the speaker.
1
"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism and an understandable weariness with the politicization of sports and entertainment."
Ross, have you watched an NFL game? It is a constant drumbeat of conservative politics and an ode to military and police. It is also partially paid for by the U.S. government (i.e. you and me). You may like it or not, but be a little aware of what you are writing about.
2
You will have to look far and wide to find a conservative who does not "defend the rights of black athletes to publicly protest". Just like every other citizen, they can protest all they want on their own time. However, when the athletes are on the job, they have to comply with their employers' policies. If the NFL wants to allow its players to "take a knee" at the beginning of the game, the NFL can do so, and large numbers of the audience will then exercise their right to turn to another channel. The NFL has now decided that such protests are not compatible with their entertainment product. The First Amendment does not require an employer to permit their employees to protest or engage in political speech on the job. Would anyone seriously argue that Starbucks must permit a barista to wear a "MAGA" hat or when serving coffee?
7
Conservatives thrive on our so-called "victim culture." They are victims of liberalism, of course, and all that implies, as laid out here. Maybe we have the better arguments than the conservatives--God forbid!
1
The difference between a ''left-winger'' and a ''right-winger'' is quite simple.
A ''left-winger'' wants the Constitution and laws there of to be applied evenly to everyone, with only one caveat. No law shall infringe on basic human rights that afforded all upon their birth.
A ''right-winger'' wants the certain parts of the Constitution and certain parts of the law there of to be applied unevenly, as well as certain absolutes. If religion can be bent so that it even infringes on those basic human rights, then it will be hypocritically applied.
Discuss.
5
Agree with much of the negative critique, but have followup questions:
1)Isn't the golden rule itself a kind of "procedural approach"? Also, does your "due respect" for the First Amendment include acknowledgment that it protects five (or six) distinct yet interlocking freedoms, not just free speech?
2) Due process is a big issue in two (undercovered in mass media) Supreme Court cases, Epic and Janus. How far do you agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the Epic case, in which the Supreme Court, via Gorsuch's 5-4 opinion, comes close to gutting the New Deal? Gorsuch blithely proposes that boss-worker contracts (mandatory arbitration clauses, which are now going to spread even more) are voluntary exchanges. Ginsburg dissented, claiming that Gorsuch is oblivious to the real world of millions of American workers. Where do you stand, Mr. Douthat, on the crucial issue of due process--especially the make-believe "substantive due process" of the Lochner era? My point is that contests over the meaning of mere "due process" has huge day-to-day impact on many if not most Americans.
3) John Rawls took what some called a "purely procedural approach" to justice (see P. Ricoeur's chapter in his book The Just). But even Rawls relied implicitly on the sense of justice--and injustice. Our "cry of indignation" (see S. Hassel) almost always comes before our considered convictions. Indignation is not enough, for sure, but it's sine qua non for promoting human flourishing, no?
1
When did kneeling become the ultimate sign of disrespect? When a player is injured on the field, other players on both teams take a knee to show solidarity with the injured player. You are asked/expected to kneel during church. A man traditionally gets down on one knee when proposing marriage. But black men silently kneeling during the National Anthem is taking it too far? These men don’t yell hateful words as they’re kneeling. They don’t hold derogatory signs while kneeling. They bow their heads and kneel to bring attention to the abominable way people of color are treated in this nation. It’s an issue of free speech? Really? Let’s call it what it really is - racism, plain and simple.
5
I have learned that Sunday afternoon is quite survivable without the NFL
Nice going, guys.
2
It isn't mentioned here that a player's public expression of his right to assemble and protest now subjects that player and his team to very large monetary fines, largely without due process of law. What the owners have done, and what should be mentioned over and over is that with the league's approval, owners have taken a direct stand against rights to protest this nation's sad course on civil rights and police brutality by use of a weapon the owners know how to use better than any other: taking money out of the pockets of their players' who protest.
And they do it while receiving antitrust and tax preferences.
The sad irony is that forcing public expression of patriotism has trivialized everything the league and the owners think they are lifting up: loyalty to a flag, loyalty to an anthem (i.e. a song), loyalty to an idealized sense of their definitions of values among them freedom, except, of course, the first freedom to express oneself in an unconventional way in public during the singing of a song. The bullying by the owners is one-sided and dictatorial.
Going to a ball game has become an exercise in a compelled public expression of artificial patriotism. Game openings and 7th inning stretches have become drawn-out songfests of so-called patriotic songs during which one is expected to doff his hat, stand, and pretend to loyalty. The flag is being misused by the owners-on shirts, beer-mugs, hats and now to try to redefine our freedoms. Who makes this right?
3
Free speech is not a lost art. What we are lacking is true leadership that can pull people together. Our similarities and important common interests as citizens far outweigh our differences. Free speech can be used to polarize and there is a lot more airtime and ink spent on that. There is a leader out there somewhere who will emerge. Hopefully very soon.
1
Here's what free speech is all about. The military jets fly overhead in formation, the announcer announces that today we honor our men and women in uniform, and then ask everyone to stand for the national anthem as a sacred ritual where the gladiators of the NFL, merge with blind patriotism and militarism; a world where all is right with the world and where the mighty and sanctimonious US stands over all with its grand exceptionalism. Then all of a sudden, in peaceful and prayerful unison, a group of black athletes suddenly kneel in protest during the national anthem and for a moment the roaring crowd must confront the fact that their fantasy does not match everyone's reality. They are jolted; the cognitive dissonance is too much to bare so they demand that the protesters be silenced so that they may stay in their dream. They prefer not to deal with the fact that their country is not living up to its ideals and that some people cannot sit idly by and allow the unreality to go unchallenged. From such acts come the the uncomfortable awareness that perhaps we must change. On such acts do civilization depend. Viva the first amendment.
9
Beautifully said.
4
Yes, and unfortunately even the supposedly most progressive and "liberal" politicians such as Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy put their F-35 fighter jet military Keynesian fanaticism ahead of the health and home values of their own constituents. They may talk the talk of supporting the NFL protesters but they walk the Lockheed-Martin walk. So, absent perhaps Rand Paul in the GOP, there is almost no one in Washington, DC willing to join the athletes in true protest against the militarism & sanctimony.
2
I think I understand your point, it is not enough to simply "make one's statement", there needs to be a real, workable plan about how to fix it. It is easy to say what is bad about the world, the difficult thing is building something that works better.
There is probably nothing more challenging and meaningful than going out there into the world and figuring out a better way to do something. It requires work, dedication and determination. Most of it is not "visible". It is not something that appears in the "news". What is needed is building or fixing the infrastructure and far less "news"-making activities.
It is not something that one person can do alone. It takes a confluence of people with similar goals to turn that into reality, but at least once in our 200+ year history as a nation, it has happened. It needs both practical wisdom and deep foresight to make a better world.
Whether intentional or not, Ross more or less let the cat out of the bag regarding conservatism in the penultimate paragraph. Conservatives on campus bemoan how Marxists and Post-Modernists monopolize discourse, yet this is largely because conservatives today fail to articulate what education and life is about. Similarly, conservatives rail against political correctness, yet at the same time this also indicates that liberals at least stand for something---for better or worse.
Regarding NFL player protests, I remember how Terry Bradshaw more or less suggested that it wasn't a big deal in the greater scheme of things; in other words, Trump further politicization of the protest was reactive rather than proactive.
Freedom of speech is a moot point for conservatives, considering how little they actually have to say.
3
Why have sports events become to jingoistic, militarized, and fake patriotic? It seems like just about every sports event has to glorify military service, for example. Sports events should be as neutral as possible so that everyone, regardless of political belief or social background, can enjoy the event. Perhaps the best solution is to get rid of playing the National Anthem before every game and get rid of Kate Smith's God Bless America (so bombastic and jingoistic) altogether, and just play sports and popular music.
3
I’m all in for conservative speakers at college campuses. It fosters healthy debate. But there needs to be a reasonableness test.
If the college has to provide a forum for white supremacy to avoid the charge of being an enemy of free speech, then it would also need to provide a forum for the Flat Earth Society.
3
Do the concession stands close down during the anthem? No, of course not, because there's a long line waiting to get a beer or hot dogs. And those on the line aren't standing silent, either.
The NFL's hypocrisy knows no bounds. The majority of those players are black, and anyone kneeling is a passive, non-disruptive expression of concern for those who experience clearly unjust racial profiling at the hands of the police and our legal system.
That the owners would disrespect this silent expression of awareness and concern is symptomatic of the problem, and an affront to the freedoms to which we claim to aspire.
4
On the other hand: Without 'Free Speech' we are certainly doomed.
1
As Jeff Sessions brings harsher penalties for minor crimes, within an administration disinterested in criminal justice reform. As police continue to rough up blacks in the streets.
As a more reasonable bipartisan drug sentencing reform bill is ignored. And the Trump administration sidelines free speech, right of association, and the NFL's “take a knee” ban is seen by experts as fully illegal.
As a president labels the media "enemy of the people,” as would Stalin or Hitler. Demanding a military parade long associated with aggressive totalitarian regimes.
As babies go missing and immigrant families are jailed.
This is America Under Trump.
3
Mr. Douthat presents no actual evidence that universities suffer from "incoherence and despondency"--or even that academics are the real "elites." He just throws around a bunch of buzzwords and takes it for granted that the liberal guilt of his audience will have them self-consciously nodding along.
He compares an employee writing that many of his coworkers are inherently less interested in, suited for, or qualified for their careers and implying that many got there via unfair hiring practices, to men of color silently protesting for the right not to be shot to death without a trial.
And the only support or reasoning he cites for these ideas are other opinion articles, one of them his?
This doctrine of false equivalence is not just incorrect, but also encapsulates the attitude of the Times opinion section lately. Both sides of an issue are not always equal. If one side is not supported by facts (or ethics), it doesn't need a platform just so we can feel righteously evenhanded.
1
The difference between a ''left-winger'' and a ''right-winger'' is quite simple.
A ''left-winger'' wants the Constitution and laws there of to be applied evenly to everyone, with only one caveat. No law shall infringe on basic human rights that afforded all upon their birth.
A ''right-winger'' wants the certain parts of the Constitution and certain parts of the law there of to be applied unevenly, as well as certain absolutes. If religion can be bent so that it even infringes on those basic human rights, then it will be hypocritically applied.
Discuss.
3
How in the world did he get through this whole piece without giving a single moment of thought to who is telling the truth and who is lying?
1
Ross,
You haven’t mention that the invasion of religion in politics is a one sided (one religion) intentional mechanism for politicization of religion. Which is a violation of freedom of speech.
But you lament that liberals are so relentless in inflicting mass media and entertainment with liberal values. Which is just objective description of the real world and actually follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Worrying about players taking a knee during NFL games is akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
A failed sport that causes the premature, and disabling, death of many of its players is no longer the appropriate forum to advance any agenda - be it social injustice or patriotism.
As is frequently the case with these clown parades, there are no heroes here.
The issues championed by the players would be far better off if the players left the sport in protest - if they could garner a majority of players to do so (but perhaps the paychecks are too big?).
By the way, the thought that the size of someone's salary eliminates their right to protest is truly anti-American.
The owners are as tone-deaf as always. Granted a monopoly by our inept congress (historically and contemporaneously), there is no pressure on them to modernize - they act as robber-barons from the 19th century and truly don't care about fans or their laborers. Black-balling protesting players may help keep the player alive and healthy longer, but should never be tolerated.
And the fans... Good gracious - why not go back to bull-fighting or even gladiator fights (the Roman kind, not the television kind)? Protesting the players protesting? Really? To have that right, the fans should play the front line for at least a single down. Better yet, live the lives of the players before they achieved their big-payckheck contracts.
Yes,Mr Douthat,free speech will not save us .......unless its allowed to be UTILIZED WITHOUT IMPEDIMENTS and EXCEPTIONS from any of the privileged few.....whose monopolistc ways and autocratic habits free speech is designed to THREATEN !
"Opinion" columnists like yourself....seem to make, almost, "algorhythmic "predictions .......as if trying to change or reinforce behaviour of readers based on partisan influence rather than US constitutional principle.
"I may not agree with what you say......but will defend to the death your right to say it."
There is no "incoherence" or "despondency" in this principle nor a call for "arguing with oneself" as you unsuccessfully tried to represent and confine "free speech" through your narrow partisan views !
Eventually, serious cuts in what these athletes can earn will arrive. It will be interesting to see if they are still poud to pay twenty million over a career for the right to make their little presentation.
What WOULD have been more honest is if that 49er quarterback had started these demonstrations while he was still the STARTER instead of waiting until he had messed up enough to be replaced?
It is not clear what the point or points of this article are. It seems to be an argument against procedural liberalism: the market place of ideas, letting all flowers bloom. Perhaps it is an argument for liberal communitarianism: promoting an idea of the good, whether on college campuses or on the football field.
Retreating to a less abstract level, it seem clear that Donald Trump abetted the negative reactions of white fans by denouncing the black players, even demanding they leave the country. Free speech may not be sufficient to a workable democracy but it is necessary.
These "rights" we have don't accrue to just one side of any argument. Players have the "right" to protest anything they want, and Owners have the "right" to fire them for not complying with their contract. Once fired, the Players didn't lose any of their "rights" and can still protest to their heart's content---just not on the field, on TV, and in a way that the Owners believe would disrupt their business. The right to exercise Free Speech has never been without consequences, and in fact consequences may be clearly justified and very reasonable.
2
The consequences may also be illegal if not written in the player’s contract.
So is this the case? Are players protected under their contracts, and have the owners overstepped lrgal boundaries in firing protesting players?
"If you want a healthy culture of debate, it’s not enough to complain that Marxists and postmodernists are out to silence you; you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for."
One thing is for sure - Virtually no one who voted for trump OR any of his political hacks are reading this column!
At least there's a chance that some post modernist Dons - Intellectual leaders and those naive - brash. but mentally disciplined students will be influenced by your words of wisdom (not being facetious -this is a commentary worthy of the highest intellectual exploration)
The enlightenment did not happen because of the ignorant masses AND the new answers won't be discovered by 50 million folks who elected a dangerous ignorant grifter as President OR the Evangelicals who sold their souls in his support.
5
I am a Centrist who does not admire either the Far Left or Far Right but I see the Left threatening the ability of Conservative Speakers to speak at college campuses and then the Left backs the BDS movement which is threatening the well being of Jewish students at college campuses who have nothing to do with Israel, I wonder what the Far Left really stands for.
4
Free speech may not save us but getting a few Christian preachers to loudly start preaching that Trump is the Anti-Christ may.
2
I can’t really understand his writing style or the way he talks but I might agree with him if I could. The far right real does have an egocentric way of religiously berating difference of opinion.
2
For me the highlight of this piece is the three-paragraph exposition, expressed not wholly unsympathetically, of the trials suffered on and by the campuses of 'liberal' academe.
Its a long list of troubles unfortunately presented as if, oh, Liberty University, Oral Roberts, Hillsdale are not hotbeds of intolerance, indoctrination, and small-minded refusal to acknowledge even the existence of those who disagree.
It's an interesting choice on your part, Ross, and it raises many serious issues.
2
Thank God for free speech!
"Men and women from all over the world were sharing their stories of sexual abuse in churches, particularly in evangelical houses of worship,
The #ChurchToo hashtag has created a virtual place for a conversation about sexual abuse in the church to happen on a scale that’s larger and more open than anything we’ve seen in religious spaces since the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church in the 1990s and early 2000s.
1
No one has the right to free speech at their place of employment; particularly when if offends paying customers.
3
The Constitution deals solely with the delegated powers of the federal government. It says nothing at all about powers reserved by the people, other than that the category exists. The government cannot prosecute anyone for exercising free speech, but anyone else can freely shun people for what they say.
"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism and an understandable weariness with the politicization of sports and entertainment."
By this crazy logic Mr. Ross the opposition to slavery could be justified as an understandable weariness with the politicization of commerce in the deep South!
As far as patriotism is concerned you of all should have an inkling that patriotism is not generally about singing empty paeans to the flag and the national anthem - most of us think that it is about such things as fairness, equality and our inalienable rights - so admirable described in the constitution that you claim to cherish.
Perhaps a second reading of some amendments is in order here?
4
Culture wars in America are beginning to approach the destruction of religious wars. Beware anyone who professes beliefs over knowledge and science, or wants to impose their beliefs on you. True believers could well be the end of human kinds existence, unless rational thought prevails.
1
The most fundamental divide in the US lies between people who rely principally on reason and people who rely principally on faith.
1
Mr. Douthat, thank you for this article. I rarely agree with you entirely, but you always make me question my own assumptions and conclusions. I wish the academy did as you do.
1
If I understand correctly, Douthat is saying that more free speach will not quench tha flames of a society that is self-imolating. I agree with that. For those who insist that if our liberal democracy is worthy, it must withstand those flames or else it deserves to be rendered unto ashes, I would point out the obvious: that is exactly the goal of a fellow named Putin (among several others). Imitating Donald Trump isn’t the healthy exercise of free speech.
3
"Much of recent left-wing campus activism has to be understood in this depressing context — as a response to a pre-existing crisis, an attempt to infuse morality and purpose into institutions that employ many brilliant minds but mostly promote incurious ambition and secular conformity."
What a bunch of complete nonsense. As if campuses are in a constant state of activism and turmoil lacking morality and purpose. I am a neuroscientist in the private sector, but my many friends in academia rarely encounter any of this "left-wing campus activism." Except for a handful of disciplines and events on campuses, social and cultural issues aren't even a topic of discussion. It's not as if math or molecular biology classes are suffused with tension about the religious and moral implications of differential calculus or mitochondrial DNA. The vast majority of university teaching and research promotes profound curiosity, stimulates creativity and innovation and has nothing to do with religion or secularism. Please don't buy into the false narrative promulgated by religious conservatives like Mr. Douthat that campuses are places of uninspiring, overly ambitious drudgery and promotion of secularism.
10
You say that the reasons why some Americans protest the protesters by “exercising their rights and turning off their televisions or ditching season tickets ... include a typical conservative cluelessness about black grievances, a performative and commercialized Americanism that parodies healthy civic life, and the toxic identity politics that Donald Trump is constantly encouraging.”
I hope many people will go to school on the way you phrased your point and try to emulate this clear, honest, and fair way of describing our situation and defending or attacking a position.
I was also happy to follow your early “principled argument” link to the Reason article drawing a line from people on the right aggressively policing the political thoughts, words, and deeds of others to people on the left who aggressively do the same.
There’s a good recent movie, starring Bryan Cranston as the writer Dalton Trumbo, about the Hollywood blacklisting of left wing writers and performers during the 15 or 20 years after WW II. With these sorts of questions of principle it shouldn’t matter much whose ox is being gored.
2
I wish I could banish all sports from my cable TV subscriptions.
3
A “hedge fund with a library attached” model of administration would still prevail. (we're talking about universities here.)
This is so true, and it's getting true-er every day.
1
"a performative and commercialized Americanism that parodies healthy civic life," At least in NYC, it is difficult to ferret out what this Americanism looks like. A "healthy civic life" is also buried by real estate barons who own politicians. Partisan politics and political correctness are far more evident, but these too are buried in Smart Phones.
2
Thoughts:
"Free Speech Will Not Save Us"
Maybe not, but restricted speech will surely doom us.
"classical liberalism", in reality today's conservatism, was a term coined to distinguish its political beliefs centered on individual personal rights from those of "social liberalism" which sees society as series of interlocking, co-dependent social groups.
3
This is what jumped out at me in your column, and really bothered me, Mr. Douthat:
"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism and an understandable weariness with the politicization of sports and entertainment."
The NFL owners could care less about patriotism.
President Trump could carer less about patriotism.
The NFL owners are welfare queens who, like Trump, have figured out how to use the system to enrich themselves. Billionaire NFL owners use tax money to build stadiums, game the system to not pay taxes -- to quote our dear leader, "That makes me smart."
Here is an eye-opening article about the billionaire NFL owners who have gamed the system so they can make taxpayers pay for stadiums:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nfl-can-punish-kneeling-players-becaus...
This is phony patriotism, wrapped in a flag, Mr. Douthat.
12
Everybody with a cable TV subscription pays rent to these billionaire sports team owners.
1
We have entered a period of time that is a game changer where our communication abilities are concerned. As a people we haven't been here with this degree of strength for a very long time and have had to live without the full understanding of the function that Hermes (Mercury) serves upon our lives. Free speech is more of a place, than an idea, and arriving here powerfully will not only save us, it will also allow us to fully understand our new found freedom, and raise our voices to a pitch not heard for many years.
Remember when the Pentagon Papers were released, Daniel Ellsberg expected the media and the public to be alarmed by the sheer volume of lies spewing out of serial administrations about our progress in Vietnam.
Instead, the media focused on process. How did he get the papers? Did he violate the law? To whom did he give them? Who was he working with?
The main story was buried by media tedium.
The same is happening here, with this issue. The question is not the reach of the First Amendment or compliance with Donald Trump's cramped view of American freedoms, or even the authority of the NFL franchise owners to make such a decision. What good is a protest that happens out of sight?
No. The real issue is how and why sporting events have become hopelessly militarized with flyovers and flag waving. Why do we play the national anthem at a football game? And what does the commercialization of our armed forces do fir the 99% of Americans who have no personal stake in, or understanding of, our military services and what they fight for.
8
Yes, it is all about who is leaking, and not about the substance of the leaks.
1
This is the worst kind of “both sides do it” false equivalence. Conservative ideas are debated and discussed on campuses all the time - ever attended a business or economics class? The consistency is allowing all protests - from players taking a knee to students shouting down provocateurs who really aren’t there to discuss alternative ways to, say, reduce gun violence but merely to incite (see Milos or Ann). Douthat throws out all sorts of accusations with nary a scintilla of evidence. It adds nothing to the discussion.
5
Consistency does not consist of allowing all protests, from people on the left quietly taking a knee to people on the left shouting down those with whom they disagree.
Consistency consists of allowing people on the right or the left to make their points in effective ways that don’t unduly cross the boundaries of interfering with others, while not allowing people on the right or left to make their points in ways, such as shouting others down in a university auditorium or classroom or at a public meeting, that do unduly cross those boundaries.
1
Ross!!! Isn't it fantastic that Ireland voted to repeal the 8th Amendment outlawing abortion???? And by really big margins!
Surprised you didn't write about that today because that is really something to celebrate.
5
While I don't agree with everything on this article, it is well stated and fairly written. Hats off to you, Ross.
1
From the Whiskey Rebellion to Occupy Wall Street, the American state has consistently used violent force to crush popular movements, most notably the Wobblies (the I.W.W.) and the Communists (the C.P.U.S.A.) in the two great Red Scares after the two World Wars. At this moment, US secret police are infiltrating Muslim and Environmental as well as Marxist and Anarchist groups, planting informers ("informants") and provocateurs to entrap their members and disrupt their activities. Why do you ignore these facts?
The precious "civil liberties" of the rightists you feel must be protected never extended to radical or Socialist movements.
1
Ironically, particularly during the Bush years I looked at football as emblematic for how the US and the GOP approached the war in Iraq. Football players wear all this gear only to just shove each other on the field and butt heads, like our approach to war, big weapons and big equipment.
Now Trump has actually made even the NFL appear like it has liberal (really anti-Trump) leanings. IMO, I think the reason Trump is so adamant about kneeling is that he really is angry that football makes black men wealthy and that is the real issue because Trump is a huge racist.
So what does all this have to do with free speech? I do agree the right to free speech does not give Mr. Trump the right to continually lie on Twitter or his surrogates and press secretary to spew lies and propaganda in the media.
I think free speech means the right to the truth and not propaganda. In this age of media the truth and propaganda get mixed together because people pay attention to sound bites. So #Spygate takes the place of #russiagate, one fake and one real. We need media that calls out propaganda and does not let a Congressman shade the truth on national TV. I think politeness in the media is killing us. Lies have to be called lies. Free speech means access to the truth.
4
Ummm, as owner of the USFL's New Jersey Generals, Trump signed Herschel Walker to the biggest contract in football history, more than players (of any race) were then receiving in the NFL. But "he really is angry that football makes black men wealthy and that is the real issue because Trump is a huge racist"? And Herschel Walker stands with Trump in condemning the NFL protests.
He may have some resentment left over from that era of the upstart USFL going against the NFL but it seems Trump is just more of a ruthless opportunist than anything else. Saw this issue as a way to inflame insane cultural divisions.
1
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Douthat that our particular problem is a big one, but I may part company with him on why it exists in the first place.
Since Ronald Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine (That should tell you something right away - that a Republican got rid of a mechanism to guarantee fairness on the airwaves.), the right wing has developed a might media infrastructure to disseminate its collective worldview, which includes hatred of all things liberal and leftist.
If Mr. Douthat wants the cause of our national incivility, he needs only turn on Fox News, any Sinclair Station, or the EIB radio network.
3
OMG, where to start with this.
I agree with live in a culture with warped values,analagous to your aforementioned toxic waste dump. But I was struck at my daughter's high school graduation ceremony, the salutatorian was going to UT Austin Plan II Business. Plan II is a demanding, classical humanities-grounded tract UT has offered for decades to those who qualify; and how can it be a bad thing if this is hinged with a real interest in Business? On the other hand, I am dismayed that the competition to get into the Business college at UT is so intense, that to be accepted now, you essentially have to have Ivy League credentials. This betrays I think an underlying materialism handed down from parents and the general culture, and this is a bad thing. At it's extreme, it produces shallow, unprincipled egomaniacs who manage to rise to the top, or even become President of the United States, and then fail to see that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is not subject to selective application.
The NFL is also that toxic waste dump referenced. The people who really care about it will not turn off their sets because of some public protests; it might, however, make them think a little next time an unarmed adolescent black male is gunned down by a police officer.
3
As is usual Mr. D., half the commenters ignore or distort your points, the better to advance their pet peeves and ideology. Your first section dealing with the NFL was a brilliant dissection of the conundrum facing that league and its gold-plated owners.
You could have added to the list of their woes the predicted demise of cable TV sports networks which bring in a huge revenue stream for NFL broadcast rights. Those owners are indeed caught on the proverbial horns of many dilemmas, and a few kneeling black players may be merely a symptom of deeper institutional problems.
In another publication, a writer/essayist of liberal (not hard left) persuasion candidly revealed the negative reaction he received to his even-handed treatment of campus speech controversies. A well to do donor complained that she has no need to hear anything about conservative students as she viewed them as intellectual cretins. Trump is a symptom of a much larger problem of tribalism, hyper-partisanship, and the corrupting influence of identity politics on both wings.
2
When's the last time Douthat had an original idea? I mean, isn't the purpose of government to do the greatest good for the greatest number. If Russ understood that simple concept, he would see why people are protesting a government that is doing the least good for the greatest number, while doing the greatest good for the smallest number. Duh?
2
If free speech is exemplified by the commentary section in response to Douthat’s op-ed piece on free speech, we will soon realize that free speech can turn into cacophony. What ca be heard above the din?
2
No cacophony. Project Blitz is an absurdity in the domain of the US Constitution's establishment clause. Given its regressive futility, Project Blitz doesnt even rate the status or utility of a legal fiction. Double that for the Mississippi missile.
Watching violence in athletic activity seems to stimulate so many to exhilaration, similar to watching donald perform at his rallies.
A vicious check along the boards at a hockey game, a thunderous body block to the head by a 300 lb lineman leaving the victim semi conscious rearranging a few neurons that might eventually lead to a dysfunctional brain brings on cheers and applause when carried off the field. Protesting quitely against documented cultural violence on behalf of the victims garners hate and vicious remarks.
This after all stood announcing their loyalty to country and each other by singing the anthem.
We ALL have the right to speak, but not to be heard.
In my lifetime, a long one, we've never had a President who deliberately incites people of different races and religions and even sexes to dislike and distrust (or worse, hate) one another. Ironically, it is Trump's own freedom of speech which he is practicing. Unless he commits an actual hate crime, he cannot be stopped from expressing hateful and bigoted viewpoints.
This has set the tone for all of these events described in the NFL and on campuses.
In my view, Trump's extremist personality, has brought out the worst in many of us, including myself.
I want to step away from reactive thinking, (often anger on my part; for e.g. I find the NFL owners racist and reprehensible and feel the player's have been denied freedom of speech, which immediately inflamed my thinking). But instead of so often being angry and upset, I think seeing the problem squarely and trying to do something about it in a civil way is the best step. I am hoping the NFL players will take court action to protect their speech. As for what I can do, it is to be more dispassionate, step away from anger and hate and try to always take positive steps.
Making nice to the likes of Trump is an exercise in futility.
Free speech is worth a try.
We currently have some censorship laws, for example, outlawing libel. You can also find cases where journalists have been jailed, including NY Times reporter Judith Miller. The First Amendment promises, but doesn't guarantee, free speech.
Is there any doubt that if Julian Assange hadn't published the Iraq War documents he would not be imprisoned for more than five years so far? Suppose we implemented a robust amendment protecting free speech, including provisions effectively preventing the government from pressuring corporations or schools from suppressing any views -- shouldn't we try that first to see how far that takes us?
3
Assange is hiding from an outstanding sex abuse warrant from Sweden.
1
You are right on some points, but very wrong on others. The most omportant the fake patriotism that has been spread by our completely corrupt government headed by Trump. Fake patriotism has been around for many centuries and has always been used by dictators all ober the world.
It is the easiest trick in the book of learning for dictators. People all over the world fall for that ugly trick that will hide everything else that is really wrong with the government and the President. It hides his ugly racism, his white superiority, his endless need for revenge to all people who don’t like him. It hides his and his cabinet members and supporters of endless stealing and lying. Look at your history and you will be shocked how many wars have started how many dictators have gained their power by using extreme patriotism.
Of course it is always false and with Trump it is very obvious, he learned it from Putin, Hitler, Mao,
Franco, Musolini and even from Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexandet the ‘Great’ and the British Empire.
And all ended or will end in comple disaster.
It is about time to understand a healty love for your country and a diseased sick love for your country that makes you falsely believe that your country is unique and therefor has rights to rule the world.
Let football games be football games. Play patriotic music elsewhere.
1
“To Sin by silence, when they should Protest, makes Cowards of Men.”
A. Lincoln
Conservative America is willing to enjoy, even to reward black athletes and celebrities as long as they know their "place" - entertainment, athleticism, subservience to "the man".
Yes, conservative bigots have a right to their bigotry, to tune into NASCAR rather than the NFL, but if they do, they deserve to be shamed and they deserve their sad place in history, as America evolves, fitfully - though it's slowly bending toward justice, I do believe one day we'll get there.
1
Funny how the NBA put the rule the NFL just installed regarding the National Anthem in 1996!
Sorry, but progressives are the most intolerant people I know. They cannot win arguments based on facts and reason and almost always turn to name calling.
I have no problem with NFL players, or anyone for that matter, protesting for their cause, BUT not when they are at work!!
How many of these NFL kneelers are actually doing something positive to help communities on their own time and dime?
Haven't seen ONE in the war zone called South Chicago.
1
Ross Douthat is the only consistently serious and thought provoking conservative columnist I know of. I’m glad he writes for the Times.
I must have missed those thought provoking columns.
Mr. Douthat eludes to the Trump presidency as contributing to the coursing of speech on both sides of the spectrum, but insufficiently in my opinion.
When Trump was elected largely because of his rhetoric of division, and continues to flame division from the bully pulpit by constantly attacking those he disagrees in the vilest language heard to date from any president in history, he sets the tone for the rest of the country to follow. One cannot blame anyone for fighting fire with fire, when fanning the fire emanates from the top.
We have a divider in chief in the White House at the very moment when what we need is a healer.
Free speech in the USA came under particular assualt after the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. Nixon's silent majority then further helped quash free speech by electing tricky Dick twice. Conservatives also demonized Muhammad Ali, Tommy Smith and John Carlos; now the same war mongering bigots who pine for the good old boy days of a plantation style economy, are demonizing the biracial Colin Kaepernick for protesting cultural oppression of minorities by the moneyed status quo. This status quo that includes the NFL owners and the POTUS have weaponized money against free speech.
The weaponization of money goes hand in hand with America's culture of gun violence, that is a form of tyranny in contempt of social pacifism and real free speech, against egalitarianism. The flooding of American society with weapons has had a chilling affect on true free speech, just look at vile and violent hate speech directed at the Parkland teen survivors who mourn their friends and just ask for peaceful sanity in our schools.
Shame on America's cowardly, violent, greedy and feckless leadership. You are not meritorious or exceptional, except in the fact you are exceptionally dishonest and poor examples of leadership, and that you belong in the conniving hall of merit. MAGA our all American backsides.
2
Some perspective would be nice. Can we not recall when anti-communist loyalty oaths nearly destroyed free expression in universities across the country? Mr. Douthat and others aren’t wrong to worry over the state of free speech in higher education. There are some egregious examples out there. But it’s not like any of this is new. Too often the arguments over how to defend or apply the First Amendment are just proxies for a more substantive debate over the issues at the heart of our arguments. People aren’t really arguing over the patriotism or lack thereof in the NFL protests. They’re arguing over the merits of the cause. No president who can insult a POW’s service has any credibility lecturing these players on respect for our country.
1
With Citizens United, our Supremes decided that money is the dominant form of speech. In effect, unless you have money to back you - the more the better - you can speak until you are blue in the face and few people will hear you.
3
Kaepernick and and others certainly have a good cause and a right to protest but not in my house - not even my yard - maybe on the sidewalk if it is done peacefully. I would probably join them out on the sidewalk. I might join them on the sidewalks fronting a football stadium. Inside the stadium? Not so much. I don't have the right to protest in the stadium - irrespective of my Constitutional Rights. I run the risk of being arrested.
As far as the anthem is concerned, I love it and I love hearing it before a game. It reminds me of my identity as an American - our successes in building our nation, the work that remains, our cultural unity, our cultural divisions. It reminds me of playing in my high school band during football games. In fact, you can't have a REAL football game without the anthem.
Kaepernick made a mistake (in my opinion) but I give him the benefit of any doubt that his heart is in the right place. I am going to choose to believe that he means no disrespect to our national symbols so closely associated with our veterans. I am going to choose to believe that he is speaking out against racism.
Take the protest elsewhere. Take it to the National Mall. I, and millions of other like me, can join in on the National Mall.
Leave the flag and anthem out of it.
I read Mr. Douthat infrequently and usually strongly disagree with his neoliberal catholicism. But his column today is, in my view, concise, thoughtful and correct. Free speech can only help resolve conflict when it abides by certain rules. Just as football can only be played if the goal posts remain indisputably fixed, free speech can only be more than an exercise of sundry opinions when certain rules or conventions are followed. First among them is agreement on what can be factually agreed upon. If their are "alternative facts", i.e. no facts that can be agreed upon, there is nothing of value that can said. Or as Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said: "If one cannot speak about something you must (should) remain silent". Free speech is almost without value in a post-factual Trumpian society.
1
The First Amendment says nothing about individuals restraining the speech of other individuals. The First Amendment only pertains to the government restraining speech. Period. Employers can restrict the speech of their employees. The NFL can choose to play the national anthem at every game, or broadcast a public prayer, or display pictures of tortured chickens, or whatever they want to display - and if their players want to say something of the opposite nature, they can stop it. The problem here isn't that the First Amendment is being abused, but that we have a President who is using his pulpit to attack free speech without overtly limiting it, getting the public - and his base - to do his bidding, rather than getting the government to cross the line on free speech. The problem is that the American public is being played, and doing a very effective job of restricting speech all by itself. You don't need tyrannical laws if the public is willing to self-tyrannize. Should the NFL stop players from kneeling? I wish they didn't, I wish they could find a better solution. But the only solution that would follow the spirit of our Constitution is to take the anthem out of the sport. But hey, I'm just a citizen, and the NFL isn't the government.
2
Observes Douthat: "So the N.F.L. owners have a multilayered problem, cultural and financial... Everything about the intersection of sports and race relations and the Trump presidency is simply toxic, and expecting free speech to flourish where those rivers meet is like suggesting that a Superfund site cleanup begin by planting daffodils in the most polluted stretch."
Whether free speech flourishes is beside the point that protest speech is constitutionally protected, even against legitimate profit motives. Hate or love free political speech, it is the very foundation of our nation's existential continuity. In the end, the publising and/ or expression superior socio-political ideas will vanquish inferior positions.
Free speech may not be the solution but it is a cherished right in the United States that must not be degraded. If you can shout me down or or silence my voice, it may not be too long before it's your turn.
3
Anthem are rituals. Rituals are oft-repeated, intergenerational expressions of solidarity that bind together groups of people. In the United States, Americans keep discarding them, one after another: school prayer, marriage, history, merit, physical activity, reading, honesty. OK, this is not a perfect list. I travel extensively and the change does not appear to be limited to the coasts. I'm throwing together some thoughts but you get the idea.
Are we replacing them with anything meaningful? Are we "getting" anything worthwhile in exchange? I think not. We keep "winning" these minor battles while removing the pieces that support our societal house of cards. More importantly, this trend, I think, portends a more ominous cloud on our future. We are falling apart. This time, maybe for keeps.
2
Well said and just the way the one world order cabal wants it.
The oligarchy has been at war with traditional America for Over a hundred years. Murdered a conservative President in 1963 to get their social engineering bills into law to further the process.
Yet this is ignored by the complicit media
There is that old saying that the antidote to offensive speech is more speech. Vigorous debate -- especially in the academy -- must be cherished and fully supported. Places of learning exist for the free flow of ideas -- even if abhorrent. What better place to have concepts in formation than to be roughed up and refined -- burnished -- in the arena of bare-knuckled civil discourse? That is how critical thinkers -- those who will lead in helping to knit together the shreds of moral and intellectual fabric -- are trained and cultivated. Unfettered and informed debate also provides that moral and intellectual elasticity essential to a peace-loving world. That is, there are precious few ideas however expressed that will ever break us in two.
3
No Ross, Free Speech is not a relative concept. The First Amendment is to Democracy what gravity is to planets-Its the thing that keeps everything from flying off into chaos and incoherence. So no, you can't have one without the other and when you start to mess with Free Speech (or gravity) strange and unpredictable things begin to happen, like the rise of despotism and the opportunity for fracturing the basic structure of our hard won system of checks and balances.
And yes, over and over history teaches us that would be despots and their coconspirators know that the right to express dissent is the glue that keeps a free people together, and that's why the very first thing they begin to do is to attack it, and will go to great lengths to shut down, confuse or suppress this concept. So for myself, on this Memorial Day Weekend, I think its time for us all to consider taking a knee, Mr Douthat.
2
Please take your knee this weekend and remember all who gave their lives for you to do so.
When back to work on Tuesday it would be wise to stop kneeling.
Mr. Douthat, as always you force your observations to fit into neat boxes of "conservative" or "liberal" (and then twist your arguments to favor the former). For those of us who are interested in analysis of our times from a variety of viewpoints, it would be refreshing if you could free yourself from the need to put a "conservative spin on virtually every column. In the era of chaotic Trump, we are particularly interested in clear insights that rise above a predestined viewpoint.
J Rosen
4
"The humanities in terminal decline." You are a fool, Mr. Douthat. Civilization isn't built on Gilded Age economics, Roman era conquest or even Boston Market frozen dinners. It's built on the study and analysis of the humanities. The humanities include the study of history, of philosophy, of literature. Those are the heritages of civilization... the studies and works who tell us where we came from, how we evolved and who we are today. The very fact that you're able - permitted - to write here today is a direct product of the ongoing study of the humanities. A crucial outgrowth of the study of American humanities includes the phenomenon of American freedom of speech. We all - or at least most of us - believe in that as the backbone of freedom. It doesn't matter if the speaker is a soapbox orator in Central Park or a millionaire football player. The latter may be have a larger audience than the former (and that's becoming a problem in our growing plutocracy!), but all of us - each and every one - has the right of self expression. Black football players are expressing their discontent with their perception of discrimination against Black Americans. That is their right! And nothing you can say can mitigate that right.
6
What does it mean to "take a knee"? Does it imply rejection of your country and say you'd rather not be a part of America, and are opting out? What do you hope will happen? That everyone in the audience will join you by dropping to their knees? The symbolic rejection of the "home of the free and the land of the brave" discounts our veterans who have sacrificed much to protect our country and our democratic way of life. I suggest that instead of dropping to your knees, you take some of your millions of dollars earned in America and donate to the inner cities where the downtrodden live. Put your ball playing money where your mouth is and thereby set a good example. You will only incur ridicule by your current actions, and nothing good will come of this. Grow up and get busy.
3
Why do you assume that peacefully expressing one's frustration with police brutality against Black Americans prohibits donating to charity?
1
I don't believe police brutality is what this is all about. This is a rejection of America since they have chosen our flag and the national anthem as the symbols to denigrate. There are other peaceful ways to inspire young people who see you as role models. Again, I ask, what do they hope will happen, since all we see so far is push back, nothing constructive.
"The symbolic rejection of the "home of the free and the land of the brave" discounts our veterans who have sacrificed much to protect our country and our democratic way of life." First of all, the protest was originally toward police brutality of blacks and other minorities. Let me repeat, it is a protest of police brutality. The right wing spin has done an exemplary job of diverting the spotlight from that subject and making Kapernick and others seem unpatriotic. As an Army veteran I see the protest as a form of free speech and a way of exposing the continued slavery and minimalism of minorities. Since day one of this protest, the talking heads, along with NFL owners, have obsessed about ratings on the networks, ticket sales and fining players for disrespect to the flag. They've done a great job of ignoring police brutality, severe head injuries and the daily mistreatment of minorities in our society. As a veteran, I applaud the NFL players making a statement against unequal treatment in our country. I also believe that if these players are forced (fired) out for "inappropriate behavior in the workplace " that they could fill arenas speaking out against the powers that have decided to ignore our constitution!
A cycle of conservative speakers triggering left-wing activists ...
classical liberalism ... only wants to defend its own right to argue — will end up talking only to itself.
The foregoing tidbits of Douthat's thinking offer a clue about the author's thinking and intended takehome from this article: There is nothing morally and intellectually wrong with right-wing politicians and pundits, we are necessary.
Progressives must give us (the right wing) more airtime. To argue against a conservative is to argue against free speech. Only elitists argue against right-wingers. Elitists are the new enemy of the free speech. Simple, huh??
You might remember the old saying "A massacre is when the enemy does to you what you wanted to do to them."
1
Interesting piece that occasionally lapses into obscurity. Can you explain "ambitious scientism"?
2
And why do we need saving, as your headline says? Because Republicans and Fox "News" have been repealing the common good, with no replacement in sight. You write, "it’s not enough to complain that Marxists and postmodernists are out to silence you; you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for." The football players know what they are for: equal protection under the law, like the Constitution says. The Parkland kids know what they are for: the right to life--i.e., not getting shot. University faculty know what they are for: developing a life of the mind. What are American conservatives for? Why, making money, unfettered by any regard for the common good. NFL "owners" (yikes, owners??) want to make money. Gun manufacturers want to make money. For-profit fake colleges want to make money. They call that "liberty," and they lie to get it, but it's really greed.
2
Free speech alone will not save us, but the unfettered suppression of it can destroy us.
Simply throwing up our hands in despair by pointing at the deeper structural problems underpinning this latest assault by Trump (aided and abetted by the prehistoric thinking NFL) is not a persuasive argument or salve.
Among the "big 4" professional sports, the NFL has always led the way in hypocritical, slavish pandering to our most pretentious and phony jingoistic leanings. Their cheap, opportunistic displays of patriotism using military personnel as props have rung hollow for years and have become parodies of themselves.
Not that the NFL is self aware enough to notice, but if they were, they wouldn't care anyway.
They are almost as shameless as Trump.
1
The kind of “faux” and “in your face” patriotism which has been so much on display since Trump and the GOP took over the government should not and MUST NOT ever trump freedom of speech in this country.
Nobody has ever expressed it better than Samuel Johnson (1775)-“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Amen!
2
When "free speech" and the cry of, "Fire!" invades a crowded theater that has no fire, we have no free speech, only mayhem. Free speech has become free action. Our founders gave us the former so we could stand and express ourselves in a space designed for us and others to be heard. That space is not a busy freeway. Nor is it a space that leaves tons of trash behind and nothing resolved but greater divides. Nor is it the space of a football stadium designed to play football and not a stage of opinions expressed by a supplicant knee down. Stand up. Get your head straight, rent a hall, or find a corner near your local park, then stand and deliver. All you do by kneeling is subservient. Stand and find a place to deliver. That place is not a football game.
2
In the 1950s in England the national anthem was played in cinemas and one was supposed to stand as it was played. If you did not stand up you were given looks of opprobrium by those around you. The Brits had just come out of a war ten years earlier so were a little sensitive to the national spirit. Then came the sixties and now the anthem is no longer played before or after the movie in cinemas. The British managed to denationalize their entertainment.
Nationalizing the media and other forms of entertainment, by forcing militaristic values on civilians, is fascism. Trump and his henchmen are well on their way to turning the US into a fascist state or a banana republic.
3
This article is a subtle take down of our democracy's foundational tenet. First, "free speech will not save us" and in a year he'll be asking "why do we need free speech." The NFL case isn't about free speech; it's about the deterioration of our society at the hands of Trump's racist populism and elitist conservative apologists like Douthat.
1
It will be quite interesting to see how football fares this coming season. I am a fan, but a conflicted fan because of head injuries and how much the taxpayer foots the bill for these 'owners' who 'own' football players. As soon as I heard that the 'owners' have now forbidden their players from expressing their First Amendment right, I was done. Maybe others would be done if the owners had not chosen this path and allowed the players to express themselves against police brutality (nothing to do with the military). I guess we shall see. I hope the players unite and ALL of them tell the owners to go stuff it. Without the players, there is no football, Mr. Owners. I'm 100% for the players.
And free speech can never become the lying speech. Our Dear Leader does nothing but lie and he does it freely but he makes us all pay dearly for those lies. The downfall of our country may happen because of all his lies, freely spoken any time he pleases, and believed by so many people. Or not believed but they don't care if he lies. They think it's funny. They don't seem to understand the damage of lies freely dispersed. It's like a virus let loose upon us all.
2
It's ironic that a photo of Colin Kaepernick - someone who has been blackballed and had his NFL career ruined for exercising his free speech rights - is at the head of this editorial. The people endeavoring to ruin his career care nothing about free speech rights, or rights in general. They care nothing about your rights, Ross. They are owners, and they believe that people of their ilk should own the players that play under them. They are like slave owners in that regard. Indeed, because of the vast sums of money they possess, they believe they should own the government as well. Politicians are bought and, by God, they better deliver once they've been bought.
1
Passengers on the Titanic were free to debate and discuss. Whether they took a knee, or sang "God Save The King", the ship sank anyway.
The NFL sides with fans/customers over lecturing liberals who hate the league, don’t even watch it. Bravo.
Ross,
Your Catholicism seems to haunt you, and once again it seeps through your writing and, as it was intended, limits your viewpoint.
"If you want a healthy culture of debate, it’s not enough to complain that Marxists and postmodernists are out to silence you; you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for."
Why?
Can't education and human life just "be"?
Can't that be good enough?
1
The issue isn't free speech; it's tolerant and open-minded listening.
2
This column in a nutshell: Share my views, my background, and my reasons and I will respect your right to protest. Alle is klar?
2
After 62 years on this planet studying history and politics excuse me when I turn my back on the current conservative movement. Their policy ideas simply haven't worked. For instance, Kansas is a mess financially and socially because they allowed Brownback to lead them down a path of despair. The same with Wisconsin and Scott Walker.
The idea that someone can show up at a public university spewing hate speech of a white nationalist or nazi is acceptable is simply wrong headed. I will never listen to them or allow them to use a public venue to speak their insanity. It simply isn't acceptable.
If that makes me intolerant, as I have been called by some hate mongers in my area, then so be it. I will always fight for the right of all people to exist in this society. The conservative views and hate speech of the far right--not so much.
3
The NFL is a victim of its own creeping and creepy marketing strategy. Football games, which could be enjoyed for themselves, are now wrapped head to toe in promotions to attract and control the consumer on as many levels as possible. The wrappings include a hyper nationalism, pop culture, sex, and any product willing to pay for air time. The strategy has produced the monster we see today.
How true your statement is HSM...
They are, however, private organization based on the making of obscene profits...and paying their entertainers staggeringly large salaries...
And how they go about that business is their business, is it not, and a far different issue than the alleged supression of Colin Kaepernick's constitutional right.
On the latter subject, I urge you to reread the First Amendment and note that it applies specifically and exclusively to the actions of GOVERNMENT.
If you become cognizant of that fact, your argument is going to have to be significantly altered to get past the problem of being based on a false premise.
1
The Owl, I agree with you completely regarding business. Business IS business.
But I don't see where I made an argument other than the one implied that the NFL's issue is one of it's own making, nor do I see a false premise on my part.
Did the NFL not invite the pledge, and the coupling of it's image with that of a particular type of patriotism? No one made them do this. If they then find themselves in the middle of a heated social/political problem...well, then, maybe they didn't think far enough down the road when creating that business model. Mine is not an argument for or against any freedom, it is more an observation of unintended consequences of a business trying to be a business but becoming a lightening rod.
Shorter Ross Douthat: "If you let right-wing dissemblers like Milo Yiannopoulos, who pulls stuff out of his behind and calls it fact, speak on college campuses, we'll let football players take a knee to protest very real police brutality against unarmed black men."
It should also be noted that Tim Tebow, a white evangelical "Christian", also took a knee to protest abortion rights and I did not hear Donald Trump in those days call for HIM to be expelled from the country.
2
All I need to know is that whenever someone in this great nation is forced to do something against their will, when what they are doing is not harming anyone, then his/her Constitutional rights are being infringed upon. And I may also add, that by and large, in many many cases, it is usually a person of color whose rights are being compromised.
So shame on the NFL, shame on Donald Trump, and shame on you, Ross.
3
I think the idea that anyone should be forced to stand for the National Anthem is disgusting. This country was founded by rebels who were willing to defy their king and, by proxy, God, to stand up for what they believe. It is unpatriotic to force anyone to stand. If they want to stop the protest, they should stop using the anthem as a false sign of patriotism. It has no place at a money making public event. And if they insist on this jingoism, we should applaud the brave individuals who stand up for others by taking a knee. They are the real patriots.
3
The law of unintended consequences. Kneeling has created a much bigger debate about free speech instead of a debate about the reason for the kneeling which I think is about the unfair treatment of blacks in the US.
In the US, freedom of speech is reserved for the very wealthy (they cannot be financially ruined) or the very poor (nothing to lose). For the rest of us, we have to watch what we say or end up financially ruined.
Me, I just wear a flag pin, a cross and continue in my despicable ways with a clear conscience.
2
What a feat of acrobatics, to completely ignore and dismiss the reality of people deprecating, abusing, and assaulting women. Fingers in the ears won’t silence us; neither will scolding nor the irrelevant jeer “politically correct”.
1
There's enough doublethink in this bramble of paragraphs to make Orwell cringe. Enough! The snake of American racism cannot be tolerated, but resisted by any means necessary.
6
I never bother to read Ross Douthat’s columns anymore. I jump right away to the comments section where I get interesting takes from gemli and other commentators. I note that many of the comments reference Ross’ loose associations and non sequiturs. Exactly!
Just read the comments and you will learn more. Plus save time.
5
The NFL....is an entertainment colosus.....it has no challenger. Its a monopoly. It controls everything. Tax Free.
Free Speech is definately NOT the issue. A very clever white boy....Colin Kapernick.....discovered a tactic which puts him at the center of attention and makes him a fortune.
Y'alls been played!!! There's no business like Show Business.
I'm sorry....I know that comment comes out like passing wind in church....but there it is......and you cant deny it.
The NFL is collapsing under its gross revenues by trying to make itself "socially relevant"......there's no money in social relevance. The game was created in an era where the multitude of factory workers had one day off for "relaxation" , "fun", "entertainment"....football was the perfect outlet.........
Here we are in the 21st Cenutry....no body works in giant factories anymore.....only a corporate raider/lawyer type can afford a seat in a stadium named after a larger corporation..to be entertained by athletes wearing corporate logos, using corporate produced performance enhancing drugs....entertained at half-time by Hollywood corporate celebrities(Halftime used to be that break for another beer....absolutely nobody watched the halftime show).
NOPE...sorry....I see absolutely nothing remotely connected to the Holy Scripture of "Freedom of Speech" when some over-rated millionaire athlete throws a temper tantrum because he got benched and released.....He's a con artist.
1
Am I alone in finding this article incomprehensible? What exactly is Mr. Douthat’s message here?
3
Translation: if you dare reject perceived orthodoxy (people are equal, diversity is good, systemic racism, white privilege), you ARE the problem and require thought and behavior modification far beyond the "procedural" First Amendment.
1
We are now living, not as citizens who exercise their rights, and responsibilities in a constitutionally protected society. We are, rather, living as consumers targeted by the social media according to the emotional buttons we’ve demonstrated we like pushed.
MSNBC, FOX, CNN serve up their customers what they like:
Those who like what is presented and purported to be rational, science based historical and evidentiary content are PBS, MSNBC customers. They support the ratings and ad revenues of those media outlets. And their social media habits inform what will be effective in pushing their buttons.
I could characterize the FOX and Conservative talk radio consumer—but I’ll skip that because they are, in the end, customers no different in their consumption habits than the first group.
And then there are the Infowars consumers—no different in that they are just targeted consumers.
As media-targets, we are all of us, just engaging in a feedback loop of what we like being thrown back to us, ever-more stridently accompanied by images of products we might like. That goes for the cello-playing college professor and the NASCAR-loving bass-fishing mechanic.
The worst aspect of all of this is that we are perfectly free to live as we wish and ignore anything that we don’t like. We don’t have to believe in election results, respect Supreme Court rulings, news reporting —its all”fake” or “rigged” .
The only consensus reality is that there isn’t one.
Why do the folks who hate political correctness insist and demand on the political correctness of standing for the National Anthem? Is there a reason other than hypocrisy? Such as perhaps racism.
2
It is more than a little specious for Trump to gratuitously trash the intelligence agencies which keep us safe, then strong-arm football players from kneeling, in the supposed name of patriotism.
Free speech, and " all viewpoints " is why you have this Job.
Just saying.
1
The US would experience an instant lift to its public IQ simply by ignoring absolutely everything any presumptuous fool has to say about what an imaginary being, created in the image of humans to explain the whole universe, thinks about anything.
2
The part left out in this column is that Mr. Goodell kneeled to trump without the consent of the team owners. Some of them are already rebelling against this new “rule”, by speaking out, by saying they will pay the ridiculous fines, by calling Goodell out. We should always call out what’s done in our name that we absolutely disagree with.
The students at the University of Chicago recently stopped a speech by Steve Bannon. Is that a denial of free speech, or just acknowledgement that Nazi, racist, unfounded ideas are unacceptable on that campus? I’m going with the latter.
The planet has become too small a place for atavistic poisonous beliefs. The racism inherent in a system where unarmed black human beings are shot in the back (or front, for that matter), by those who pledged to protect them, is astonishing. A good man who isn’t afraid to point that out by being the already-public figure he is, who then sees his action twisted into something it never was, is being barred from playing a game he loves, because of racism, and a coward’s fear of a subhuman fool who has dictator-like tendencies. If that is free speech, we’ve gone horribly wrong here in America.
Would it help if we ditched our racist, militaristic national anthem for something more worthy of a great nation?
And another thing. When did kneeling become a sign of disrespect? It used to be just the opposite. Should kneeling at the communion rail be banned?
1
The NFL capitulated to Trump's racist comments. So it's not about free speech, but a combination of usurping the civil rights of the players, as well as the bottom line. What is egregious is that like most Republicans they allowed Trump to put his racist, polarizing persona to factor into their decision. It's another sign of Trump pushing the nation towards an autocracy. It's a very dangerous precedent and the NFL should have ignored his disgraceful anti black, anti civil rights agenda. It will backfire.
Nightshift having a late dinner? Let's try again:
When it comes to football and "free speech" it's really a matter of commerce and expectation.
When you pick up a copy the NYT, you might want to read "All the news that's fit to print" but don't want to read the Opinion Kingdom's hate and distaste for Trump--a given. So, you just don't turn to the opinion section because you know what the day's diatribes will undoubtedly present.
Same for those who tune-in--skip the self-serving political intro, go to the coin toss.
Unfortunately, those who buy tickets will have to suffer through the nonsense, but then, they knew that before they handed over the $60 for the seat--sans a discount from the players for stealing your time and money to serve their notions of "social justice".
2
Only $60!!! What stadium are you sitting in?
It seems that during the past year give or take that there have been a number of opinions written by the conservative journalist of the NYT on the subject of protests against extreme right wing speakers in college campuses. Free speech is a powerful thing but as with all privileges and "rights" it comes with a responsibility, a responsibility to respect the equality of others and to speak to what we believe as truth as opposed to lies, fabrications or reinvented truths. Conservatives own trump and the Republican party. You may feel that you are under attack by progressives, liberals, lefties, snowflakes or whatever you want to call us, you are. When you come back to your senses we'll have a dialogue.
2
Hmmmmm.......I just had a weird thought..........I wonder if Colin Kapernick has ever bothered to exercise his right to vote? Wouldnt that be a whole lot more effective than refusing to stand for the country of your origin?
A dear friend and mentor of mine was fond of saying --
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
For years, I never quite understood what he meant by that -- until I did -
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
When I'm preparing to play my instrument, I use a tuning device to help find the correct pitch --
Some people use digital tuners with a dial - which displays how close (or far) you are from the exact pitch -- and they use their eyes to tune tune a musical tone - and sometimes - as the dial is slightly below or above the pitch - they figure close is okay and are happy with that -
I use an analogue tuning box which generates a firm and definite tone - set to the pitch to which I'm trying to tune --
With this device - there is no "close" or "almost" --
You're either on the note - or you're not on he note --
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
While Philosophy and Sophistry are fun and make us all feel intellectual - it still doesn't change the fact that A=442 or A=438 is not A=440 -- even if you decide to collectively accept A=442 as being okay - which many people often do --
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
And the real tragedy is -- deep down inside - most people really do know the difference...
1
Freedom of speech will not save us because free speech has not been free since the Citizens United decision amended our Constitution and established that money is speech. Speech is now owned and controlled by the 0.1%, including the American and Russian Oligarchs including NFL owners.
2
The bankers and corporatists DO have a view of what universities are for. It is for training an endless supply of cheap, disposable labor that is already in the process of transferring their present and future wealth to an oligarchy. In their view, universities are not supposed to (a) teach people to think, (b) become familiar with ways in which many other nations really are better places to live than corporate America or (c) that they and their neighbors really matter.
1
"But if every protester suddenly fell silent, the atmosphere in elite academia would still be kind of awful — and not only from a conservative perspective."
As if conservatives held the high ground on the issue of censorship.
Having followed American politics for several decades, the essence of conservative perspective is about foisting the tax burden of the very wealthy on to what's left of the middle class and eroding the separation between church and state.
Which Trump, having solidified as an apparently sincere conservative, has been consistently doing.
Everything else is a dog-and-pony show, or lately, an unending barrage of obvious lies.
5
This is a fine model of false equivalency.
When you shout down a right-wing speaker spreading falsehoods and spouting racism in an educational setting, it is a very different matter from a protest mounted with the intent to call intention to a heinous and pervasive injustice.
Freedom of speech was never intended by our Founders to constitute a license to deceive or to foment hatred against your fellow human being.
5
"When you shout down a right-wing speaker spreading falsehoods and spouting racism in an educational setting, it is a very different matter from a protest mounted with the intent to call intention to a heinous and pervasive injustice."
As my favorite liberal - Nat Hentoff - was always fond of reminding us --
The whole point and purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of others which you particularly find to be offensive, annoying reprehensible and disgusting --
Anything short of that is not "Free Speech" as most liberals prefer to define it...
50 years ago The Republican Party created the Southern Strategy, the conscious effort to appeal to the segregationist Strom Thurmond and George Wallace Democratic voters.
In the 1980’s the Republican Party gave us the culture wars and Reagan and the dog whistle politics of welfare queens and States Rights and created the Reagan Democrats.
In the 1990’s we got the Newt Gingrich House of Representatives take no prisoners confrontation, the Clinton impeachment, Whitewater, and Vince Foster murder conspiracy.
With Obama, they created the Tea Party and gave us the birthers, death panels, and support of the Confederate flag.
They coopted Christians with abortion instead working to get women birth control.
And all these years, the Republican politicians have been using the Reaganomics talking points of small government and tax cuts for the job creators coming from the right-wing think tanks.
For thirty five years, the rising tide of Trickle Down Reaganomics has mostly helped the wealthy at the expense of the rest.
We are the richest industrialized country on the planet and we have poverty and places with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana.
Germany is known for manufacturing and they have faced the same globalization. They have good schools for the working class, train people for the trades and high-tech manufacturing.
After 35 years of trickle-down Reaganomics, we got an opioid crisis.
8
Ross,
What you beautifully described requires a lot of physical, mental and psychological sacrifice to implement. And therein lies a possible conflict from an evolutionary perspective.
Think about writing on why we all select easier paths.
1
Regarding speech. I think a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is in what order they place the two concepts freedom and justice. Can you guess?
1
There remains one form of free speech that is unspoken. The Vote. I only recommend that instead of using valuable space on arguments like Mr. Douthats, this newspaper and others like it investigate without cease Republican attempts at voter suppression and manipulation.
2
Taking a knee is a sign of love and respect. Players kneel when another player is injured. If you have an audience with the Pope or a monarch, you are expected to kneel. You kneel to propose marriage. You kneel to pray. To become a knight you must kneel.
The idea that kneeling is disrespectful, or disruptive was invented out of thin air by those that believe that black people should be treated differently by police. In other words those that promote race based policy, which is the origin of identity politics, purposefully turned the obvious truth on its has once again, while corporate media plays along.
The fact that the media treats hypocritical twisting of reality to turn racists (who cheer when police beat black activists or shoot them with rubber bullets) into an aggrieved class of victims, while the actual victims of decades or centuries of abuse at the hands of the inventors of identity politics are wrong because they defend themselves, is destroying our society and made Trump possible.
The left judges people based on their actions. It is the right that constantly judges people based on identity.
People cannot change their identities. If you want people to change their behaviors, you have to base policy on behavior not identity.
Law enforcement based on identity creates crime, because people are already being punished for crimes they didn't commit.
2
"Weariness with the politicization of sports"
What does he think it is when the anthem is played, the military jets fly overhead? Oh yes, perhaps this helps to line their pockets. So politicizing with that partnership is okay. The NFL is already hugely politicized. Kap did not start this.
4
Free speech but NOT free lies.
Once a speaker has lied about something very obviously untrue, he/she should be disinvited from speech at any college or university that benefits from tax deductible donations or accepts government money: from federal, state, or local sources.
Bring up the debate about what is true and what is lies.
3
Yes, Ross, something beyond free speech may be needed. But try it WITHOUT free speech.
1
I know what the big problem is: we are suffering from an epistemic crisis. No one really knows what's real and true.
I know why we are suffering from this crisis: It is inevitable because it is a fact that none of our ideas can ever possibly express what is ultimately real and true. For example, I can make a compelling case that Ross Douthat does not exist, just as easily as I can make a case that he does exist.
The problem was explained by the Buddha. He taught that there are two truths: one relative, and the other absolute.
The relative world is the world of concepts, of separated out things, places and times.
Everyone around the world today believes this relative world is the real world.
The absolute is the world of This Moment prior to dividing it up into pieces.
Everyone thinks this moment is what is relative and fleeting.
Only when we understand that the relative world is ultimately illusory, though not completely false, and that the experience of This Moment is what is Absolutely Real and Absolutely True, will we be able to use our remarkable thinking brains responsibly, and without causing ourselves confusion and suffering.
We are a long way from that moment.
But you can start be looking up and trying to understand the Buddha's teachings of the two truths.
https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-two-truths/
hmm - tough decisions.
First:
1) boycott football on TV?
or
2) record the game and fast forward *TO* the commercials to make boycott lists?
or
3) look up a list on the internet?
Okay that was easy.
then:
4) write letters that will be ignored?
or
5) google the advertised products and click the ad lines to feed sponsors $ to google?
gosh, that was easy too.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Where were you in 2009-2010, Ross, when conservative voices shouted down and shut down town hall forums which were held to discuss health care legislation? Liberals have been shouted down in one way or another (Merrick Garland, e.g.)and vilified by conservatives for decades now. It's time we shouted back at the polls. VOTE!
4
I agree with this piece. The fact is that that the free speech argument falls short. And it bleeds over to horrific indifference about lives. We, as a country, are ripping children from arms of mothers, and losing them, or selling them. We are way beyond a free speech movement. And the disregard for truth and fact cannot have any place in free speech. We have lost our way, and I think it all began with lies and fiction on talk radio, expanding from there.
1
It's interesting, Ross, that you conclude that the conservative needs to provide some inkling as to what he is for in order to be considered relevant...
And all the while it seems to be the liberal these days who has problems articulating exactly what they are for, eschewing such dialog in the incessant babble of hatred for Trump and everything that he stands for...
Ignoring the fact that in so arguing you on the liberal side are suggesting that the Trump actually DOES state both what he is "for" and what he is "against".
Oh, the irony of it all !
Will someone talk about the elephant in the room? What does the majority white NFL audience see when it looks at the majority black NFL players and in particular the black men with dreadlocks or Afro hair styles and blacking on their faces as they refuse to stand for the National Anthem? I can tell you what they don't see, they don't see themselves and that makes it hard to identify with the players cause and easy for demagogues to stir up division.
Its the quintessential American dilemma which is why we don't talk about, its an extremely difficult problem for America, but I think it helps to admit it and I'm not suggesting its either zero or 100 percent racism, but it is a part of human nature. These days its called "tribalism" I suppose, it used to be simply "birds of a feather flock together". Like it or not, its real and needs to be addressed by people more learned than myself. The problem is less about free speech and more about human nature evolved over the millennia.
2
We need our elected representatives to serve the people not just billionaires. The problem is still citizens united. The NFL is just digging itself a hole when they should dig glory by working to get rid of that decision.
The players kneel because the anthem has meaning. If we can't protest the anthem the anthem means nothing. Forced patriotism is not patriotism. Forced respect isn't respect. Are the anthem and the flag so fragile?
241
They can protest on THEIR time, NOT in their employers time.
Funny, but I don't see or hear about them doing so in the off season.
How about you protest whatever at your next business meeting and see how your bosses reapond.
8
On principle, you are correct. However, someone with an eye for detail would know this kneeling controversy didn't begin with patriot intent. It began when a 1st string QB was demoted to 2nd string, wanted to get his name back in the headlines (Trump-sized ego), and knew doing something provocative would do just that.
He later legitimized his reason with a noble cause BUT in the same breath said he would start standing if/when he was put back in as starting QB or traded [to a team that would use him as a starting QB].
5
So... you're saying they can protest, as long as they do it in a way where you don't have to see it or hear them?
Hint: As soon as you box their speech with your parameters, you are eliminating free speech. Period.
Imagine if I worked for say, a specialty Chinese food store in an American city. At the beginning of my shift the management requires me to stand for the Chinese national anthem which plays at the request of our biggest customer. If I silently refused to stand (for whatever reason - maybe to protest human rights in China, maybe not), should my employer be able to dock my pay?
1
Imagine I worked as a receptionist for Planned Parenthood and I wore an 'Abortion is Murder' shirt and a MAGA hat to work. Would my employer have the right to demand that I change my apparel?
Its a bit different I think. If in my hypothetical I wore a T-shirt saying "dont buy rice" my employer could tell me to change. THere's a different between silent protest and overt statements.
Free speech is what is supposed to make us different than all other forms of Government. While I may disagree with what you say, I do agree you are entitled to your point of view.
And this is a major problem in both sports and academia, as well as many businesses and organizations throughout the country.
It all comes down to respect.
And until that becomes the norm here, we are in jeopardy of losing our First Amendment rights.
1
In order to balance the competing "needs and concerns" of the powerful with the needs and concerns of the rest of us, freedom of speech must be championed. No excuses allowed.
Ross, speaking of universities, would you like to discuss the fact that Liberty University does not allow followers of Christ's teachings of love and compassion (as opposed to right-wing Evangelicals' teachings of superiority, hatred and division) anywhere near its campus?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/anti-trump-evangelicals-lynchburg....
1
If the NFL and other sports leagues insist on playing the national anthem, it should be once the players are safely back in the locker room rather than before the game, without the benefit of a captive audience. That would sort out the real from the faux patriots.
2
This is simplistic I know, especially in light of this Ross rhetoric, but here it is anyway.
What we have here is the endemic American failure to actually move from unfettered speech to action. A persistent and burgeoning condition.
Our politics is a hyper-partisan shambles and the playground of mega-monied interests. The result is gridlock, a condition in which the fundamental issues and painfully obvious imperatives are habitually deferred or pushed from one partisan extreme to the other depending on who is currently top dog. The list is almost interminable: Civil Rights, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Elemental Human Justice, Existential Environmental Risk, American Perpetual War, and on and on.
America has a monumental and tremendously complicated problem that is just not being addressed. Pretty much lots of free speech and the endemic gnashing of teeth, but little relevant, cogent, and credible action.
4
"...there is a principled argument that the best cure for polarization…" This is the definition of a straw-man. I’ve heard much about polarization but never that the First Amendment could cure it.
Polarization has its roots in our ancient genes, which promote suspicion. Education and some brands of religion can counteract that inclination. What America has, at best, an absence of education (forget accumulation of some skills and a diploma to prove it!) as well as a very American religion. The dollar is the sign of worthiness. This distortion results in some things that are really odd. American football (there are other kinds!) is controlled as a money-making venture, which when combined with television has become a religion for some. The NFL brings together the owners of for-profit franchises. Teams of gladiators are pitted against each other in brain numbing moves. And it's all wrapped in the flag with an added soundtrack of patriotic sounds. Who made the NFL the arbiter of patriotism? Do note that right wingers regularly cite polls that say most Americans want all this. So the First Amendment is now subject to change by vox pop and by love of filthy lucre?
3
Many of our deeper problems might begin to be healed if our universities (& high schools) provided multiple courses in the humanities rather than acting as job training factories. As a culture, we have little understanding of the thinking and reasoning of the great philosophers, the artists, the writers of the
past or the present. Education is more than having job skills.
5
I'm sure you're aware of the numerous cuts made to education in the last 30 years or so...all initiated under republicans.
There is a huge difference between using protest and publicly driven economic pressure to express a point of view and directly wielding the hammer of governmental or direct corporate power to shut speech down. One is democratic, the other plutocratic.
3
You said "you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for."
I think that nailed it. It isn't enough to take down the "other side". You need a vision to inspire your side so that it has a reason to exist. Otherwise you're nothing but a gadfly, and we have plenty of those already.
This lack of a vision is what's currently plaguing the Democrats. They haven't said anything to convince me that they can make my life better. They lack solutions to our most pressing problems.
Meanwhile, I have a simple phrase that helps defuse polarization. "Many things can be true at once." Moderate liberalism and moderate conservatism both have valid points, and both need to coexist in a rational society. It's the extremes on either side that throw the system out of balance.
8
I apologize for responding to the headline (for the record, I read the op-ed attached to it), but here goes.
Freedom of speech may save SPEECH. That's all we can expect of it! Let's not overtax our laws by expecting them to save US as well.
But let's think about all the things speech can do. It can participate in the discovery and sharing of new scientific and intellectual concepts. It can be used to protect the innocent from the accusations of a senseless mob. It can make distinction between truth and falsehood. It can convey consolation and care.
What else can it do? Throw shade, humiliate people, ignore their points, deliberately misinterpret them for an advantage, form a dishonest consensus against a shared rival, and waste hours and hours reiterating useless ideas until everyone is blue in the face and green in the foot.
So Freedom of Speech may save speech, but whether speech saves us depends entirely on what we do with it. Now I guess I should go back to writing slogans for the NRA...
4
True, free speech is not sufficient. But it is necessary! And some of us who are trying to be heard do have an alternative to offer.
A shorter version:
We need to not just speak, but communicate. That also means listening and trying to understand even when we continue to disagree.
While provocative speech must be protected, it is not enough to just provoke.
9
Thank you for the concise summation.
You are on the right page here Mr. Douthat.
Maybe a large part of the First Amendment-free speech controversy could be cooled by trying to restrain ourselves- all of us- in our reflexive, aggressive determination to write out or shout out the correct, definitive view on whatever.
How tedious have we found Facebook of late, when whomever has to publish all of his person political prejudices- their particular insistence in the real truth?
Less free-speech is what's needed now.
Maybe one-on-one encounter groups, discussing today's questions with each other, in the flesh, bringing source reference material- like footnotes in a thesis- would help.
So many of these questions have become too personal and divisive.
Anyway, who's to say...
2
Trump and his supporters have done what, IMO, they set out to do.
They have created a chasm between people and families and friends that will, in many cases, never be bridged.
Flag waving and standing for the National Anthem doesn't make me a good American.
But trying to understand why these men kneel and what they are protesting makes
it a requirement as a good American, and if what they are protesting is reasonable and just, good Americans should be concerned enough to try and do something to alleviate it.
11
Not bad for you Ross but some pointers: there is only fake equivalency between blacks who take a knee to protest racism and exponents of giving an honorable platform for the racism of the odious Charles Murray who believes blacks to be subhuman. The quality of speech is precisely what a good education is supposed to be about. That of course takes us to the heart of what John Stuart mill argued for in contradistinction to his father and Bentham. Your quick and shallow dismissal of js mill has led you humorously into the very errors you consistently make as an acolyte to the school of infallible when speaking ex cathedra (also know as the late 19th century doctrine of papal infallibility).
2
Ross, you write "A cycle of conservative speakers triggering left-wing activists may vindicate the First Amendment, but it won’t help the university escape its current incoherence and despondency. A classical liberalism that only wants to defend its own right to argue — because that’s what John Stuart Mill would want or something — will end up talking only to itself.".
I scratched my head on what you meant by that last sentence. Then I recalled a notable quote from Mill: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any honorable gentleman will question it.".
Is that what you meant?
6
No, it probably won't. But a revolution might. The French had the right idea. The guillotine solved most of the problems. We should be so lucky. One can always hope.
2
A consistent theme of Mr. Douthat’s essays in the New York Times is a hostility to the scientific worldview, or what he calls secularism. Note here how, while he cleverly dodges and weaves he again attacks the fact that universities don’t devote themselves to teaching theology. Mr. Douthat is a clever writer and a lot of that cleverness is deployed in writing deliberately obscure sentences and paragraphs that cloak reprehensible beliefs. Does the Times not notice?
4
I am curious to know if Ross Douthat ever reads the comments to his writing. I would love to see his response to them. I have gotten to the point that I only read the column so I qualify myself to read the comments.
7
Here in the land of coddling narcissistic fools calling themselves "children of God", outright lies spread like wildfire while the truth drops dead after one or two steps.
Free speech works well only where one can readily prove oneself an abject fool with one's own stupid words.
2
Young men who are paid to produce testosterone for Sunday sports are already primed to be entirely irrational. This will end badly for team competition as alignment of spirit is necessary for professional play. Now, misalignment prevails and coaches be dammed. The team owners should not misunderstand that they need to let these stallions be free or they will start biting each other. Of course, the downfall of team sports seems entirely plausible when faced with Trump wanting to break everything and everybody including the Republic.
1
On May 21, 2018 the Scalia Court of the United States of America ruled that NFL players had no First Amendment Rights.
Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority 5-4 opinion.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/supreme-court-nlra-arbitration-g...
3
All your nuances and niceties are irrelevant when the speaker with the world's loudest megaphone spouts dangerous, toxic, provable lies every day and goes unchallenged by those who purport to be our leaders. When I respond to that by not allowing Trumpists in my home, shouting insults at them in public, giving them the finger on the highway, and refusing to respect their ignorant views any more than I do those of the Nazi sympathizers of the 30s, am I damaging free speech? Do you think I care?
5
In Germany in the 1930s, the only demonstrations, when the fascists over the Universities, were by pro-Nazi students. Famous German academics such as the philosopher Martin Heidegger enthusiastically supported Hitler. And the younger faculty members were only too glad to grab the positions vacated by the hundreds of Jewish scholars--all of whom were of course fired.
Sorry but I prefer the response of our American students today to the far-right juggernaut--rough and tumble and unsightly though it may be.
In an age of global Forever War abroad & the virtual destruction of the Labor movement at home, do you expect students to welcome without protest misogynist or racist or warmongering reactionary celebrities?
7
Mr Douthat's belief that we should not have the rights to speak that he gives the unborn, who have no voice, leave us all gagged. Perhaps that is his goal.
7
Only a self-righteous far-right extremist would make a sweeping statement like "free speech won't save us." Why do any of us read your idiocy? I actually feel sorry for you.
3
I played the Star Spangled "Bummer" at all manner of classical music events including the Pops 4rth broadcast for 40 years. I played this multiple thousands of times. I'm retired now and always have been white. It is a seriously flawed representation of American patriotism and should be lost to history. A national anthem should reflect the hopes and dreams of all its citizens. I'm ready to get rid of this" Bummer". Bad unsingable tune, terrible lyrics, terrible historical sentiment in the never heard second verse, all point to the real solution. Get rid of it. For too many Americans it truly is a Star Spangled Bummer.
2
Trump is mad as Caligula and driven only to enrich his coffers and feed his ego. He achieves this through demagoguery and the shameful acquiescence of the entire Republican Party, cheered on by the Pharisees who call themselves Evangelicals. The nation has probably been damaged beyond repair. And Douthitt writes that while there is some merit to the cause football players are peacefully protesting, we should probably move along like the sheep we’ve become.
4
RMF. Let’s hope we are not damaged beyond repair for the next generation of children who are currently aware of all this chaos.
Some of the complaints about conservative free speech that is being shut down on campus is trying to defend racism of all kinds. Not simply bigoted or inappropriate comments but grand dragon KKK, Adolf Hitler, racism with a more modern veneer. Free speech is free, I suppose, but do these ideas have any merit to defend? 150 years plus after reconstruction, WW II, and the civil rights movement pretty much prove it does not. All rights are limited, and hate speech is hate speech.
2
Well said J Roebuck thanks
Interesting euphemism: “toxic identity politics that Donald Trump is constantly encouraging”. Sounds very erudite, but there’s a more common word for it: racism. But I guess Ross Douthat didn’t want to go there.
3
Your GOP President Trump flat out states he aims to "demean and discredit the press" so that "no one will believe them". Would it be possible to be more the antithesis of Thomas Jefferson? No column to un-demean your profession; once known as the "fourth branch of our government"? But you jump on the "black players speaking out, regarding free speech" wagon? My upper range GOP "dog whistle" hearing is getting so much better.....out of sheer constant stimulation.
1
Politics in the arts and athletics has been around since the Middle Ages! This is not something new in the Trump era and to think so is ignorant.
1
Who are these shouted down classical dissidents? The ones who berate workers for speaking Spanish here? The ones in Boston after the Charlottesville murder and street attacks? Or are you talking about people who show up on college campuses on behalf of Erik Prince and Citizens United expecting the same respect they get at an NRA meeting or Heritage meeting or some amphibian retreat in the woods?
4
There is a question of proportionality. Football players engaged in momentary silent protest in a ritual presentation of the national anthem vs. students objecting to raging racists inciting people to hate-filled actions on campus? There is no comparison at all.
The NFL owners are stifling their players because their respectful protests anger the barfly yahoos who threaten the bottom line. Students protest the crypto-fascists and race-baiters out of a sense of ethics.
This is a false equivalence, and Douthat should be ashamed to make such an incredibly misleading argument.
3
Donald trump made everybody stand up for the national anthem. Your newspaper called this a significant win. Donald trump won. Now the protesters can just stay in the locker room as protest. The fans can feel all vindicated and of course patriotic. Woot! I stopped watching football , because soccer is better, and now I know I'm watching mayhem that is damaging brains. I hope the black players find another way to make a living. If we did more to increase the prospects for black men in this country, they wouldn't have to work in this violent sport, to make money for owners who disrespect them and for fans who do the same. It's a tawdry spectacle.
3
Why is there never a story on the Black players that don't or won't kneel? Are people hating on them? How do they feel about this?
2
Mr. Douthat,
While I understand the thrust of this piece and agree with much of your argument, I sure grow tired of the false-equivalent sophistry.
Two cases in point. First, the insinuation that (classically) liberal institutions of higher learning are tone-deaf to (classically) conservative voices. I vehemently disagree. I am a graduate of a small, midwestern liberal-arts school and took all the usual courses in history, literature, geography, philosophy, religion, music and art along with my physics and mathematics major courses. If by "liberal" you mean "fact-based" then we have common ground. The problem "liberal elites" like me (presumably) have is with people who start from an ideological position and then work backwards by creating the justification for that ideology, facts be damned. "The truth has a liberal bias" applies.
The second false equivalency has to do with basic respect for human rights; i.e., life and liberty. I saw recently a headline from a far-right web site (I subscribe to several, just to keep up with the discourse on both sides), "Protecting Yourself from Left-Wing Terrorists," highlighting the horrific shooting attack on Congressional baseball players by a far-left psychopath as an example. Yes, they are out there; no, this is not typical in any way. Statistics show very clearly that the ratio of right-wing to left-wing fatal terrorist attacks is about 37:1. So, no, violence-inciting far-right voices are not equivalent to leftists' voices.
QED
3
I admit I know somewhat less than nothing about football, so all the brouhaha about kneeling during the national anthem confuses me: why do they play the anthem at all? is it part of the game? do the teams get to write off more income if they play patriot? why not just eliminate that element and with it, the controversy?
5
This seems to be a long-winded way to say that our universities have lost religion and therefore lost the ability to impart a sense of meaning to students' lives. Arguing won't get us anywhere. What we need is an epiphany: more faith less reason.
I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise: that secularism has made our universities barren of meaning. Some of us, on the contrary, find that secularism gives life more meaning—because at its core secularism means that we humans are not dependent on god for salvation, but have power ourselves to transform our world. There is no preordained order that provides meaning to our lives if only we resign ourselves to it. Instead, meaning is something we create, and reason gives us the power to create what's truly meaningful: a better world.
The free speech debate really is a struggle over the kind of world we want to make. Speech is not the mere expression of ideas. If it were, it would be harmless—precisely because it would be merely academic. In reality, speech is a way we remake the world. Words don't just express ideas, they do things. We use words to manipulate other people, to affect the way they view the world and the people within it, and therefore to encourage them to act toward the world and other people the way we want. Leftists want more inclusiveness and tolerance. The right wants less. The reason we try to shut down each others' speech is because we know our ideas aren't what matters, but the actions that follow do.
4
I think Douthat understates the commercial aspects of the NFL's problem. It is after all, the NATIONAL Football league, so tolerating disrespect of the NATIONAL anthem is bad for business. Would Coca Cola allow its employees to drink Pepsi at work based on some specious free speech argument? Unlike a public university, when it comes to a place of business, there is really no right to free speech.
1
For a civil society, free speech is not enough. There must be respect for others, respect for their ideas, and a desire to reach accommodation for the good of society. Too often this attitude has been lost. Instead we have attacks on character, othering, dismissing and ignoring, entitlement. Successful compromise requires work, respect for others, and a desire to get along.
5
A lot of people say we need a new fairness doctrine. How about a national civility doctrine instead?
Institute rules of civility for Internet forums. They are already monitored for content so how hard would it be to monitor them for civility?
The Nytimes has the best forum mostly because Comments are moderated for civility. Unlike Yahoo and most other news forums.
It's interesting that so many commenters have chosen to focus on their intolerance for free speech exercised during a plainly political act (the playing of the anthem at a sporting event), rather than on Mr. Douthat's actual point, which is that our problems are much deeper than whether speech should be free; and much MUCH deeper than the narrow speech question whether NFL players should be able to protest during the anthem. Mr. Douthat's columns hardly ever resonate with me, but this one is spot on. Free speech is a luxury we enjoy because we've had a society that can sustain it. That society is at risk. That is where we need to focus.
10
"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism and an understandable weariness with the politicization of sports and entertainment."
I have been thinking about your column for a few hours now, wondering why it bothered me so much, Mr. Douthat.
Then I went back and found the line of reasoning above that you so cleverly slipped into your column. One has to be a real sleuth to decipher your writing and Mr. Brooks' writing these days.
You both are the prime, Ivy League practitioners of whataboutism.
Interestingly, whataboutism came from Soviet Russia and was used to discredit people's arguments by charging them with hypocrisy.
Just like you did in this column with liberals, Mr. Douthat.
The NFL owners could care less about patriotism.
President Trump could carer less about patriotism.
The NFL owners are welfare queens who, like Trump, have figured out how to use the system to enrich themselves. Billionaire NFL owners use tax money to build stadiums, game the system to not pay taxes -- to quote our dear leader, "That makes me smart."
Here is an eye-opening article about the billionaire NFL owners getting away with highway robbery, taking money that should go to schools, teachers, roads:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nfl-can-punish-kneeling-players-becaus...
True patriots don't defer the draft 5 times, unlike Trump.
True patriots pay taxes, unlike the NFL owners and Trump, Mr. Douthat.
15
I'm having a hard time understanding the "what's wrong with academia" problem. What the NYTImes fails to do is distinguish between conservative speakers and racist speakers. It does not distinguish between the Alex Jones conspiracy theorists and people who are committed to facts whether their views are right, centrist or left. And I do not see you making the distinction here. "Climate science is a hoax" does not fly in science departments. The numerous unregulated chemicals floating in our air, water, and soil with not harm us" does not fly as a fact until all chemicals have been tested and research finished. This is not a matter of sheer "opinion" right, left, or center. Show me the scientific evidence.
The same should be true for values. So, my question to you is this: Can you articulate the difference? Who do you consider a nonracist conservative thinker who respects women's rights and bodies? College campuses have a duty to separate out the far-right racists from the educated conservatives who deal in facts and truths, not incitements. Remember Lewandowski
Or Stephen Miller on TV? That is shouting not educated discussion.
So, let's talk values. The problem even for right-leaning evangelicals is this: they watch Fox news and listen to right-wing radio more than they read the Bible or hear sermons. Church ideas (not socializing--that is a little different) do not occupy their mental space. This has become a problem for lots of religious leaders.
4
I couldn't agree more. As a professor in the humanities at an Ivy League school, the characature of us in the media is bizarre to say the least. If conservatives think we don't tolerate free speech, why not sit in on my class and see for yourself? The issue is precisely as you put it - in academia we focus on logical arguments and rigor. And even in the humanities and social sciences, what gets shouted down are basically racist apologists for colonialism and those with an acute ignorance of history. We will let uneducated people speak and argue with them, but racists are beyond the pale. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Will free speech save us?
Perhaps not.
But we won't be saved without it.
5
The definition of necessary but not sufficient.
James Densmore wasn't fired from Google for "wrongthink". He was fired for emailing an offensive rant based on pseudo science that called into question his ability to serve effectively on the team.
Also note that private employers- including both Google and the NFL- aren't restricted by the 1st Amendment.
5
Quoting from Liberty University, a conservative college, to the newly-formed club of Democrats: “I must inform you that the College Democrats club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club,” it read. “We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University.”
So, Ross, your attempt to be even-steven is not so even at all.
5
My own contribution to free speech today. The companion op-ed piece, “The Other Names We Must Not Forget”, by J. Kael Weston had no comment section. So I just wanted to say thank you for a meaningful reminder on this Memorial Day weekend.
As for this column, speaking about what one is FOR- Weston reminded me why we....tried. What we hoped for. That we did it wrongly, left too soon, lacked full understanding....maybe so. But, we tried. We were...FOR something. Once.
1
I wish most people that support NFL players’ right to knee would give it a thought to consider protesting at their own job. Most average joes would get disciplined or even terminated for saying political, social, or religious statement in front of customers.
1
The NFL is bowing to government pressure in restricting the protest of its players (or employees).
That government pressure does not pass constitutional muster for the NFL or for any other employer.
We have to start with defining "free speech." In the Constitution, speech is defended from government retaliation. And the right to assembly - to a platform to air the views - is again a right that the government cannot deny a platform.
But "Free Speech" was never without consequences; and assembly has limitations. We can form a protest, but may need permits, and have limits if the protest is likely to create an atmosphere of violence.
So we might get hauled off on charges for acts of civil disobedience, but we have the right to make our point. The NFL may choose to stifle its players, but they are morally wrong and Constitutionally protected. Ann Coulter may get annoyed about being denied a platform by protesters, but as long as the public institution didn't shut her down for her views, she has to live with the problem that most people don't want to hear her. She has the right to speak, and I have the right to shout her down.
All of this is for the good, because we need to be able to speak and we need to be able to shout down speakers. We need to be able to speak up for injustice and shout down demagogues.
Free speech and assembly are not our problems. Our problems lie in our own failure to hear the lies of our own side and hear the truths or the other side. And our failure to think critically rather than parrot back claptrap we heard on talk radio, FOX or MSNBC. Liberalism (capital L) requires brains that are fully engaged, not humming along in neutral.
1
"Everything about the intersection of sports and race relations and the Trump presidency is simply toxic,"...
I'll go a step further and say: Everything about the Trump presidency is simply toxic.
That aside, Mr. Douthat, I agree with you that free speech won't save us. When we can't even agree on the definition of a fact, there isn't a middle ground for the two sides to meet. The possibility of a debate doesn't even exist any longer.
You have written columns recently where you make bold arguments without citing evidence (i.e. "Liberalism's Golden Dream," and "The Redistribution of Sex" to name two). Let's make a deal: you stop making statements without supporting evidence, and I'll find middle ground for us to have a healthy debate.
2
Kneeling is regarded as an expression of respect.
Kneeling football players do protest police racism and brutality by refusing to stand.
But they are doing this in the most respectful way, “standing” in the tradition of peaceful protest.
College kids who shout down conservative speakers voice political disagreement, and colleges who avoid inviting them are concerned about unrest and upheaval. The toxic political environment is to blame. The president stokes it all the time to his advantage.
When the NFL, their viewers, the president suppress the kneeling of black athletes they use the suppression of free speech to suppress blacks and their civil rights. They take away free speech to perpetuate exploitation, discrimination and racism. They stand in the tradition of segregation and Jim Crow.
Liberal colleges only suppress a diverting opinion, that already has a huge media platform and that is supported by the executive power of the president.
How can one be so blind not to see the difference?
2
What of "free speech" that advocates for violence against minorities? Should that be given the same platform as reasoned, thoughtful, peaceful speech? Or, is it analogous to yelling fire in a theater?
How should one confront calls to violence? Wait and sue?
4
I agree with this. Free speech is expected to achieve what it cannot possibly achieve by itself. In an age of mass-manufactured bots, shibboleths like "marketplace of ideas" and "the best cure for bad speech is more speech" become increasingly hollow.
Neither left, right, nor the disconnected and ignorant center (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-wor..., understand what free speech principles were supposed to be connected with, and what broader social and personal ends they were hoped to serve.
So today we have "conservatives"cheering bigotry as refreshingly "anti-P.C." and in the next breath cheering Trump's attacks on the free press. "Principled" this isn't. "Conservative?" Only if you buy Corey Robin's controversial thesis that conservativism was *always* about authoritarianism and dominance by the powerful, *never* about human liberty or human flourishing.
Of course, nobody can agree on where the limits should be set, or by whom. By Facebook, Disney, Fox, and AT&T? By Donald J. Trump in his majesty? By kids at elite four-year liberal colleges?
So, yes, the absence of shared values or a willingness to share a society is a bigger, underlying problem. America has managed influxes of diversity before. But to do so, Americans need confidence in themselves, their institutions, and their fellow citizens. Such is sorely lacking today.
If you want to take political themes and memes out of sports, drop the national anthem altogether. You could then have time to sell sell more beer as well.
2
Man, talk about food for thought! That is plenty of food!.
Coming to Mr. Douthat's column after having read Frank Bruni's column "Aristotle's Wrongful Death", and Maureen Dowd's "Grifters Gone Wild" this morning, I should consider myself well fed. However, there is a common thread that perhaps another commentator might have picked up. If they did, I apologise for having duplicated their efforts and the reader's workload.
I got the first twinge of the thread from Mr. Bruni's column. By the time I read through Ms. Dowd's column, the thread was a lot clearer. Now, it stands clearly visible. That thread is the problem of lack of a sufficiently high quality of committed citizenship, probably arising out of an absence of "general education requirements", "shared experiences", and "common points of reference" that each person needs to have been exposed to from childhood. The quoted phrases came from Mr. Bruni's column. To me that lack carries a direct link to the grifters described my Ms. Dowd, and the relationship of the NFL owners to their players and the wider community, all the way to Mr. Trump.
I normally don't find cause to agree with Mr. Douthat, but today I must admit I do agree with him.
1
"Which suggests that the dissident, “dark web” intellectuals who have gained a following by warring with those activists ultimately need (as some of them seem to intuit) a competing moral and metaphysical vision of their own"
For all of his obvious intellectualism, Mr. Douthat seems to have very little understanding of those he refers to as the "dark web". First, he repeats the mistake often made by Times columnists of referring to those who use Long Form Conversation as if they were a monolithic group, all having the same point of view, and all advocating for the same things. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ONLY thing these people have in common is that they use non-traditional media to engage in extended discussions of important issues.
Secondly, asserting that "dark web" people need "moral and metaphysical vision of their own" indicates what seems to me to be stunning ignorance those who use that long form.
A few examples: Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have written books defining their views on morality and on metaphysics. They are very different views (no monolithic viewpoint), but they are very specific. I just finished listening to Steven Pinker explain in detail the dangers of impeding campus discussions, and Jonathan Haidt also gives lectures on this issue. Et al., Et al., too numerous to mention.
Does Mr. Douthat have anything more than a cursory understanding (if that) of what is talked about on the "dark web"? I think not.
Seems Ross is conflating a few things here and I might be missing his major theme/point - but here are the thoughts he spurred in me.
Most of my conclusions one would say end up on the Progressive/Liberal/Secular Humanist side of issues but I'd like to think I get there because of honest reasoning and not ideology. So I try to follow these principles:
Be intellectually honest and logically coherent.
Take an honest scientific approach to gathering facts, understanding things, and drawing conclusions.
I'm an imperfect being, I am sure I fail sometimes to follow my principles. I do have an Id, Ego, and Super-ego to contend with. And I am sure I am NEVER 100% right in my conclusions; sometimes wildly wrong.
Yup we all fail re: knowledge, perception, and bias, and we all are to some degree wrong or lacking in our conclusions.
And we all have to seriously deal with the "it's easier to be critical than correct" conundrum and the "put your money were your mouth is" dictum
But back to the principles.
They rely on abundant "free speech" and that we honestly and attentively listen/think when non-vacuous different viewpoints are offered cogently and honestly.
Also on participants that want truth to win and not their own selfish aims or ideology. That really want the best possible conclusion/solution to be issued.
Unfortunately the powerful GOP morphed itself into the Bizzaro World version of honest discourse and decision making.
That is our PRIME existential problem.
1
The football players have a free speech right to kneel.
The rest of the public has free speech right to question what these seemingly mindless stunts are intended to prove or what they will ever accomplish.
2
Ross, au contraire! Free speech is what has saved us all thus far. The problem now lies in the venue chosen. It's not a stadium, nor is it a knee down. The knee down means that's where the ball will be spotted after your carry. There's more work to be done. Get off the knee and get it done. Run and throw and speak standing up. Not on your knee.
1
Whatever happened to ....put yourself in the other person's shoes?
Refusing to respect another's point of view and the attacks on freedom of speech are chiseling away at our democracy. What were once foundations of our society and almost universally held values are now dust filled, quaint memories. America 2018.
It is what it is, Ross. Strident rhetoric and racial conflict will continue to grow as our country becomes less white. No minority wants equality - they want power, then domination. Fair enough. That goes for Whites, too. There will be another civil war of secession at some point. Probably ethnic cleansing too. The Balkanization of the United States is coming.
2
I was disappointed that this article devoted so much space to the football players and the intricacies of managing this commercial field. For disclosure, I do not give a hoot about football.
A freedom of speech is a tricky concept to put in practice. There are always those who are convinced that they, and only they, have the right to speak and be heard. The softy liberals succumb to the violence of the leftist radicals. The freedom of speech is clearly distinguishable from incitement of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination and hatred, and it must be defended by force against the right, as well as the left.
1
Free speech is certainly useless when there isn't any actual thinking involved in the speech, which is pretty much where we are in America today. I think of the now archaic term "rat race," referring to a win at all cost mindset. It is a me first attitude that doesn't for one second question why one wants to be first or what one will get from it. Football is a perfect example. Players get out on a field and beat their brains to mush because they'll experience the thrill of being first. At least they've done something. The thrill of victory or the agony of defeat for the fans happens in a vacuum. Then fans get mad because these players expect to be accorded the small dignity of expressing compassion for oppressed people. No amount of free speech will save us from this kind of mindless cruelty.
2
But when free speech involves religious values that some ascribe to that enables them to deprive their workers of contraception or a wedding cake or photos for a gay marriage then Douhtat is one hundred percent in favor of those 'free speech rights'.
1
Gee whiz. Now we're blaming the NFL's woes on our universities. What's next, floods and pestilence? Give us a break Ross. Maybe part of the problem with schools and universities is that we expect them to resolve our social ills.
2
Conservatives say their speakers' right to speech is being denied by liberal college protestors. No it is not.
The right to free speech does not mean the right to speak where you want.
I'm surprised conservatives don't understand this. The NFL is not denying the right of its players to protest. It is denying them access to protest where they want, telling them to stay in the locker room when the anthem is played.
No different than what the liberals are telling Ann Coulter.
1
Wow, the point blew by you at 30000 feet. A college is supposed to be a amalgamation of different ideas. That’s how people are taught to think. When one only listens to people with whom they agree, only one person is thinking and it’s not them. It’s not about a constitutional right.
What Mr. Douthat neglects to mention is that conservatives are fighting for freedom of speech, and liberals are fighting for freedom from it.
The opposite used to be true, but for the past 25 years we’ve been living in the post culture-war matrix created by the victorious left, and they control news, movies, television, music, social networks, and universities.
The left is laying a foundation for a humorless, edgeless, hypersensitive society where words are weapons and articulation is akin to assault. To see that plan in action one need only glance across the pond where opponents of unfettered immigration and critics of religious fundamentalism are being intimidated or jailed using deliberately vague "hate crime" laws, which invite abuse and permit governments to silence opposition to their policies.
As sure as I know Rian Johnson ruined Star Wars, I know that the left's aversion to free speech and adherence to political correctness put Donald Trump in the White House. If you want to give him another 4 years, by all means, keep it up.
2
I had high hopes while reading the first few paragraphs. You wrote well about the blindness of conservatives and progressives when it comes to free speech then you spent inordinate amount of time bashing upper education. You explored an interesting topic where blinders often serve, I give you that, then you modeled it for us, thanks too.
Ross makes some good points, one being that reacting and protesting is not enough: We need to say what we are *for*.
Democrats being *for* a for laundry list of extreme positions, is not working. The only winners, seem to be the sponsors of one party or the other, who in some cases are the same sponsor (donor).
More pointedly, Democratic activists seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with them on *any* issue, is beyond the pale.
Anti-abortion? In favor of *any* restrictions on immigration? Pro-gun? Upset by protests - designed to flout norms to gain attention - because they flout norms? Upset by bipartisan legislation which has given *decades* of trade deficits? The Democratic Party not only has no place for you, but will *hate* you for expressing any of these opinions.
Guess what, Democrats? A lot of swing voters - and even former Democratic voters - hold one or more of these positions.
Guess what, Democrats? Your blue wave isn't coming. Wisconsin was once a blue state (with two Democratic Senators - now just one), and incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin stands a high likelihood of losing in November.
Traditional FDR positions on economic and labor issues are winning issues with swing voters. Immigration, Anti-gun, anti-abortion, pro-trade deficits, are divisive, losing *wedge* issues. And banker funded candidates feed into the corrupt Democrat narrative. You lose on *all* issues, when you keep losing elections.
3
In the early days of World War II, when the outcome of that great conflict was anything but certain, public schools throughout the country sought to encourage patriotism among students by holding daily exercises which included standing to pledge allegiance to the flag. Children of a small religious sect, the Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to take part in this ceremony. based on their sincere belief that the pledge amounted to an act of idolatry which was forbidden in the Bible.
The reaction was fierce. Many children, some only 10 years old, were expelled from school.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States held this action to be a palpable violation of First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion and speech. In what is now regarded as one of the great moments in Supreme Court history, Justice Robert Jackson, writing the majority opinion for the court, declared:
"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."
Sports coaches are usually the highest paid employee of a college/university, as well as the highest paid public employee in the state they operate - yeah, there's something wrong with higher education in America. There's also just plain something wrong with America - it's called greed.
1
Every business has stated outlines of what behaviours it will and will not tolerate from its employees. I understand that this area of employee behaviour has NOT been spelled out in the union agreement between the NFL and its employees, but that needs to happen.
This expression of anger - including rank deception at times - is costing, and will cost, the NFL millions of dollars as their TV ratimgs continue to suffer.
So, does an employer in the entertainment business get to control its employee's behaviour when they are on-camera? It is really as simple as that.
Oh, that the Times would dibide reader comments based on whether the commenter is or isn't a football fan. What a tale that might tell.
The shouting-downs are not because of a "culture going bad". Instead, the shouted-down speakers are racists, patriarchists, homophobes, etc., most of them either greedy or in the pay of the greedy and are paid to tell any lie and insult any group that they want, in the service of the greedy.
And the operating "deeper form of wisdom" that Douthat mentions turns out to be ticket sales: NFL owners more concerned about their profits than about rampant violence by uniformed officers whose job is supposed to be to protect us and keep us safe.
So it turns out that Free Speech Will Not Save Us because Douthat's "Us" is the NFL billionaires kowtowing to racism and expecting their contract workers to toe the line.
1
So, Ross is advocating against "Free Speech." He want laws that require some people to lose their "Free Speech" rights so that those he politically agrees with can exercise their "Free Speech" without the inconvenience of having to respond to different views. It seems to me that this is the typical Conservative Right's view that their "Free Speech" rights are more important that the Left's "Free Speech" rights. In other words, Ross Douthat, the great defender of the US Constitution, only wants it to apply to his side.
The column, as good as it is, is one sentence: it’s not enough to have free-speech, you actually have to have something to say.
The Republican Party has not had anything meaningful to say for 16 years.
So here is something - it’s time for liberals to obtain the right of free speech in the workplace. I see no reason why someone who sexually harasses their employees, cheats them out of wages for overtime, and probably commits a workplace violation daily, has the right to tell employees that free speech does not apply in this ethics-free zone called corporate America, and in so restricting the right to free speech, denies employees the one thing needed to earn a dignified living - Information to bargain for better compensation.
The primary reason that wages are not going up in America may be because if you talk about how much you make or someone else makes, now you’re going to be fired.
This is not the case in the public sector. Public-sector wages are public information and yet somehow civilization seems to survive when Public-sector employees have the ability to discuss compensation in the workplace.
Players who kneel before the flag have a very clear idea of what the flag is for and what they honor by kneeling before it, indicating their fealty to its higher symbolism.
They know the symbol of the flag is not supposed to be used to sell merchandise or chicanery or racism. But the owners do not share that understanding, seeing only their bottom line.
2
A few years ago, I was late to a ball game at Wrigley because my companions wouldn't take a taxi, preferring to use their "Uber
App" on their smart phones. Unoccupied taxis were whizzing by but we waited and waited for the Uber driver. We didn't get to the game until the 2nd inning. I wanted the whole experience which included standing for the national anthem.
By the way, I'm a liberal Democrat who sides with the football players who 'take a knee.' If a baseball player took a knee during the national anthem, I would still stand, remove my hat and possibly sing (off key). My imaginary baseball player taking a knee wouldn't bother my experience with the National Anthem one bit.
But, garble aside, the essay is riddled with category errors or false equivalences.
An example: While Douthat lends one phrase to acknowledge "a performative and commercialized Americanism that parodies healthy civic life," (as regards, I think, football patriotism), his overall tactic is to make black activism and military-themed, commercially funded football patriotism two sides of the same toxic coin. They are not. And this reveals the broad omission that renders the whole piece rubbish.
The Constitution and its amendments are concerned with justice and the careful balance of power. Much therein is explicitly written to guard against tyranny. Black activists have no power, other than minor, fleeting celebrity. NFL owners and their sponsors have enormous economic and political power.
This false equivalence pervades every dimension of the piece. On college campuses, Boards of Trustees and alumni/donors wield enormous power. Student activists, whether protesting gratuitously offensive provocateurs like Ann Coulter or seeking "safe spaces" from heteronormative aggression, have no power. Even the so-called liberal faculty have limited power,with tenure under assault and more teaching being assigned to cheap, powerless adjuncts.
The undeniable trajectory of American culture and politics in recent decades has been toward plutocracy, renewed racism and unconscionable inequality of wealth. And Douthat thinks we should all just play nice.
1
Make up your minds: either you're watching a "game" or you're watching a military recruitment event. For those of you who keep yammering on about the players being "employees," perhaps they've decided that their contract didn't include being part of military recruitment and propaganda.
How is the on-field kneeling of Tim Tebow acceptable and that of players wishing for social justice not acceptable?
1
This is not "the Trump era." To say so is lazy, it's playing to what people want to hear out of a pundit. The man has done just about nothing, he's accomplished nothing, it cannot be his era.
Typical unfinished Douthat writing. He lays out some problems, the tacks back and says free speech won't solve anything.
What is he trying to actually say? Not that he has to offer any conclusions or advice, but I see no particular insight here.
Ross Douthat is a reflection of much of the blankness of when he came of age. I remember being an older undergraduate in the late 1980's when "conservative" students at the University of California, San Diego, were throwing out all kinds of observations like this. When queried for any kind of follow through, they were generally not interested and literally could not give any. It's sort of post modern, Dada type of political intellectualism. The vacuum of serious thought that the 1980's were made the rise of Trump somewhat inevitable.
1
For decades now the national obsession has been acquiring wealth, mostly in any way one can. Poison the planet, cool, I'm getting rich. Lie, cheat, steal, cool, I'm making bank. Exploit the poor, cool, I have a family to feed.
So now a foundational principle, free speech, is up against greed.
Guess what wins?
I continue to support the players and their right to free speech. I know this goes against many of the white citizens (I have to constantly listen to them complaining) that are part of the NFL boycott. This has become a racial issue, as it was when Cassius Clay refused induction into the Army because he spoke out against the Vietnam War and John Carlos and Tommy Smith accepting their medals while raising their fists in a black power salute during the 68 Olympics.
People are free to boycott the NFL, just as I am free to stop supporting businesses that support "45." I can turn off fox "news," or refuse to support politicians that accept money from the nra.
Rights don’t save people. We save each other. The right to free speech allows people to say the right thing at the right time; it doesn’t teach them what to say or say it for them. And it doesn’t mean people will follow through on what they’ve said.
Let me break it down. Good words spoken with ill will don’t do any good. If you’re not willing to help the people you’re speaking to or speaking about, then just drop the pretense and admit you belong to a hate group and your speech is hate speech.
What percent of people complaining about the flaws of the other side are willing to help them get better? What good is free speech for people unwilling to say or do anything helpful?
1
Free speech may not save us, but conservative ideas surely will destroy us. Taking us down brick by brick, Douthat and the conservative voices of failure, lies, hypocrisy, status quo and the power elite...
1
Those on the left need to speak with their feef, or in some instances, their remote control fingers.
Stop attending/watching the NFL.
Send the message to the team owners that their free speech views weren't respected by the actions of the owners.
Revenue speaks.
1
What Mr. Douthat neglects to mention is that conservatives are fighting for freedom of speech, and liberals are fighting for freedom from it.
The opposite used to be true, but for the past 25 years we’ve been living in the post culture-war matrix created by the victorious left, and they control news, movies, television, music, social networks, and universities.
The left is laying a foundation for a humorless, edgeless, hypersensitive society where words are weapons and articulation is akin to assault. To see that plan in action one need only glance across the pond where opponents of unfettered immigration and critics of religious fundamentalism are being intimidated or jailed using "hate crime" laws, whose deliberate vagaries welcome abuse and permit governments to silence opposition to their policies.
As sure as I know Rian Johnson ruined Star Wars, and that the MeToo movement will sell a billion "personal" robots, I know that the left's aversion to free speech and adherence to political correctness put Donald Trump in the White House. If you want to give him another 4 years, by all means, keep it up.
3
As a college student in the early 1970s, I was imbued with free speech. But there was pushback on free speech even back then. It’s nothing new.
As far as the “kneeling” thing in the NFL, so let the NFL fans offended by it turn off their TVs. They’ll be back... men and increasingly women have to have something to talk about the next day. And my God, don’t mess with the mass hysteria known as fantasy footbal
The founders and settlers of this country had the Magna Carta. Yet it ultimately took bloodshed and violence to live free. A cautionary tale?
Free speech that affirms liberty and justice for all? Sure. So, is hate speech free speech? I would have to say no.
Certainly, you are also free to say nothing, which, in most cases is probably the best choice.
When vilified for pointing out that the person (wrongfully) killed was being chased for allegedly committing a crime and not -- hunted down without provocation in his backyard -- there's a problem. In other words, if one cannot say 'if A had not happened, then B would not have happened.' In other words, one is not allowed to express the 'A' part of the story, which means there's a huge problem with free speech (as if 'A' were not a FACT!) Worse, to repeat, several times, that this does not make B OK, it's just that without the A, there wouldn't be a 'B'-- to have that turned into "You believe this person deserved to die' that's the free speech assigned to progressives; in other words, free speech gone awry. Cherry picking is OK, in this mindset, as is straw-manning, and slippery sloping. Filling in the missing pieces of the story is not OK, apparently, it's "offensive." This is where the anti-free speech militia wants to take us, and why this writer defected from "progressive" politics. It's obfuscation at its best, and needs to be argued down using the tool of "free speech (AKA facts). Pretending certain problems do not exist for the sake of moral superiority is not going to solve our problems. Call it "free speech" -- I call it the inconvenient truth (ironically).
1
Well put. What can we do about it? Did you intend to strike such a dark chord?
We get it Ross, free speech is all well and good as long as it doesn't cost anything and you don't disagree with it. You only "admire the principle" of freedom of speech and only to "some extent share it," but refuse to acknowledge that the First Amendment is not discretionary. The Founding Fathers didn't give a fig if very powerful people, here "the N.F.L. owners have a multilayered problem…to which a simple why-don't-they-respect-free-speech solution seems woefully insufficient." Throughout history very powerful people have always had a problem with free speech and tried to suppress it. It's why the right exists. Our constitutional democracy is founded upon the principle that you don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them no matter how powerful you are. The counter-protests are also protected speech, but they're not driven by "admirable patriotism," at their core is racism. "Sometimes the problems are bad enough that the procedural approach isn't a solution. And with due respect to the First Amendment, I think this is one of those times" is a despot's argument. It's certainly one Trump would love. It's nice to know you respect the First Amendment, but hold it should not apply and dismiss it as "procedural." It was specifically created because freedom of speech is always "essential" and never "procedural" or "discretionary" in a democracy. It was created to stop people just like you from using the excuse that things are "bad enough" to suppress speech.
196
While I generally agree with both the sense and the words of your remarks, Robert, you need to go back an read the First Amendment most carefully.
You've got it wrong.
The First Amendment says nothing about private individuals and companies establishing rules that limit speech. Nothing at all. No even a hing.
It does, however, clearly state that GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW to restrict the freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.
That is a VERY different concept than the one that you are trying to apply, a concept that goes against the basic concept of individual freedoms as articulated in the Declaration of Independence where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right or all men.
You start from a flawed understanding of our Constitution, and derive an extremely flawed conclusion therefrom.
8
Really? Ross said all that? Where you’ve run with what he actually wrote seems willfully perverse. And other than an occasional flair for writing well, I’m not a Ross fan when it comes to his point of view. I sense that he could write “we all need to come together yo” and your typical nytimes comment would take him down for an outrageous cultural imperialism and hegemonic ambition.
3
Sorry, The Owl, but I don't have it wrong. I'm a former prosecutor, and have been a criminal and civil rights attorney and a federal appellate attorney for over 20 years. Harvard Law Professor Benjamin I. Sachs, considered the leading expert on labor law, just wrote that while "in general, the constitutional right to free speech applies only to censorship by government entities, not to what a private sector employer like the NFL does...the players have a viable free speech claim (because) the president of the United States has been actively involved in the league's decision-making process. In an earlier round of the protest dispute, President Trump called on the league to discipline (players) for...the anthem protests and threatened to use the tax code to punish the NFL if they allowed them to continue." Worse yet, "the owners have made clear that their adoption of the new rule was only made in response to presidential intervention." Therefore, this is not classifiable as just a private decision made by the owners. The decision to stop players from protesting was made only because President Trump threatened to use federal law, including the federal tax code, to punish the NFL if it did not restrict the speech of players. Sachs concludes: "the NFL anthem protests are not a tough case. We have players engaged in fully peaceful speech acts, on a subject of core national importance, and in a context where they are literally debating with the president of the United States."
24
Have you ever wondered why academic institutions are mostly identified as liberal rather than conservative? Is it possible that when people are exposed to a more diverse community and are introduced to an horizon beyond the confines of their childhood, that they may tend to mature and grow? Is it possible that when people are exposed to new ideas, new challenges, and new possibilities their mind opens up rather than become ossified? I once had a professor that said - until you leave home and go off to college, you are nothing more than a collection of your parents prejudices. Have you ever wondered why academic institutions are mostly identified as liberal rather than conservative? You might want to think about it.
1
This article reminds me why I love Ross Douthat and often severely doubt my liberal upbringing and sentiments.
In a word, I think conservatives are head and shoulders above liberals in their knowledge of philosophy. If "liberals" were to spend a few minutes reading Soren Kirkegaard, they will know that mandating equality will be akin to attacking a lawn with a vengeful mower that thinks rose bushes have no right to stand taller than grass. If they knew something about what Douthat calls Post Protestant Morality (I was intrgued by the term, googled it and I read an excellent review of it in " An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America.")
In Post Protestant Morality, the old upholders of American morality, the Mainline Protestant Churches, have no confidence because the 60's found them implicated in racism and sexism. Because they have been made to feel guility about their racist and sexist transgressions, they opt to do whatever black and female radicals ask of them. (Shelby Steele). The gospel has been redefined to consist of that which the "multicultural community," and all of its pseudo intellectual permutations, wants.
But Douthat, ever the fair player, doesn't let the right off the hook. Speech has to be speech for something. If it is only speech against something, then debate will only be aimless, pointless pugilism. And so the right, justifiably aggrieved by our souless nation, must argue for something.
57
"In a word, I think conservatives are head and shoulders above liberals in their knowledge of philosophy"
1) OK, some evidence please.
2) How is this a NYT pick? This comment has little academic foundation but lies instead squarely on the shoulders of religious dogmatic thought. Church and State anyone?
3) Speech against injustice, violence and inequality is quite simply speech for American values. Why do conserves always miss that one?
46
I agree. I thought it was an excellent article. Well reasoned and stated. The end applies to the current state the Democrats are in also. They need to articulate what they are FOR as opposed to just being against Trump.
2
Ah, but the rose/grass analogy is woefully inadequate to human civilization for the roses do not direct sunlight to only their patch of the yard as wealthy rent seekers use their wealth to influence government rules to privilege their station in life. And the grass is not deprived of rain b/c it is being hoarded by taller fauna who will stockpile it for the exclusive use of their offspring as the 1% do. Both types of vegetation experience truly equal access to opportunity unlike the different ethnic groups in our society.
I too love to read Douthat's columns b/c they force me to flex mental muscles that are at risk of atrophy in deep blue Seattle, but to say that a conservative's command of philosophy is far greater than a "liberal's" suggest the ideology is somehow superior on its face, which puts you in the same camp of progressives who accept directives from "radicals" without critical examination.
22
We have already politicized sports by making them jingoistic. Why do we play the national anthem at games? Once I attended opening night at the Metropolitan Opera and I was shocked and disgusted when they played the national anthem. I felt like my palace of international culture was soiled by nationalism, and degraded. Perhaps because I realize that this is not a good country, and not one worth celebrating or praising. The NFL protesters are heroically protesting the injustice, racism and violence in our country. Until we have a safe country where all people feel secure, we cannot call ourselves free. Free speech won't make us free. Only laws which impose taxation on the rich, affordable health care, and equal justice for all people. Until we have equality imposed by law, we will have justified protest.
132
"...this is not a good country..." is I fear likely to offend and, in the process, push aside the larger and immediate question, to this native-born American in his eighth decade and whose grandparents migrated here shortly before 1900.
Have events - probably well symbolized, but not exclusively, by the Trump presidency - rendered a canard that which until fairly recently was the presumption and fervent hope/expectation of those described on the base of the Statute of Liberty as well as their descendants: that America was/is a way better country than most - if not all - of the rest and that, with the good will and effort of all those here and to come, would become the best?
To be clear. I believe that to be an entirely fair question, confirmed in good part for example by the re-ascendance of fascism in much of Europe and other forms of authoritarianism in different places.
And I am sad that while I don't want what I've described to be a canard, I not only don't know the answer but neither do I know whether my children and grandchildren should stay here and strive - and possibly fight - to validate that presumption and hope.
5
Your palace of international culture?
I thought it was merely an not-so-opulent opera house that hosts a business dedicated to the genre.
Perhaps there is where you drifted off the line in making reasonable arguments.
5
The government won’t save us. The idea that morality can be imposed via legislation is absurd and the pursuit of those ends, no matter how well intentioned, always have unintended negative consequences. In my experience, when arguments like that are presented by a member of the liberal upper middle class it is less about pursuing social equity and more about pursuing an anxiety free existence in an isolated, expensive urban enclave.
1
Ross
You are obviously unfamiliar with the rules governing NFL players. By contract they get Tuesday (most weeks) off to conduct personal business. This would be the proper time to make a protest. Spend the day in talk radio or march in the streets. Game day is a work day. Most working Americans know that when at work and on premises of the employer you have to abide by certain rules of decorum. For example let’s suppose a newscaster from say ABC news elected to not wear a shirt on the newscast to promote the free the breast movement (yes I know it’s absurd).
The players have a venue, it’s called their off day. All would be well if they utilized it.
29
If the terms of employment, as expressed by the players contract, can, or does, prohibit some conduct which is symbolic rather than physical- the difference between taking a knee and a DWI-what’s different between that and and employer of accountants, doctors, grocery clerks stipulating that discussions about politics, race, salary levels at the business are prohibited? Yes, those employees can discuss those subjects away from work but, I would argue, you don’t check your opinions at the door of your employer. An employee may be bound to protect company information of a proprietary nature but expressing your ideas on site would seem to be simple to understand.
3
In forty years spent in the workaday world I have never had an employer require that I stand for the national anthem in the middle of the work day. Make no mistake, this is both a political and a marketing ploy on the part of the owners, to maintain their favored station in Amercan commerce.
From time to time I have been asked to participate in a political event that my employer supported. On such occasions I have been given the option to opt out, with no negative repercussions.
The solution here is to play the game, and skip the anthem.
20
That’s not how protesting works. You don’t protest when it is convenient for you. You protest during time of maximum exposure when people will take notice. High school students walk out of school to get noticed. Professional athletes protest most effectively by doing so when the camera is on them. If you want them to only protest on their days off, you are effectlvely telling them not to protest.
152
At American universities, deplatforming and violent protests are rare and happen more to liberal speakers than conservative speakers.
Let me say it again: at American universities, deplatforming and violent protests are rare and happen more to liberal speakers than conservative speakers.
New York Times. Dear, old gray lady. Why. Why do you keep letting your columnists talk about this tired, completely untrue point? What do you gain? What good do you think you're doing? Why?
5
Can you give us examples of liberal speakers getting shut down? We can provide a whole list of conservatives getting shut down.
Brilliant.
1
Douthat: "I admire the principle of this position of 'a commitment to the letter of the First Amendment and a broader culture of free speech'... But it’s also important to recognize that these virtues depend on deeper forms of wisdom and consensus..."
Douthat is on the right track but he, like so many others, overlooks the historical wisdom that is the basis of enlightened societies. It is called the "Social Compact", namely, that for every right ensured for an individual, the individual has a concomitant responsibility.
For example, the right to free speech has associated with it the responsibility for SELF-censorship under the circumstance where the net effect of the speech would be much more harm than good.
It is so American to be fixated with our rights because of our history and what was enshrined as a matter of law in our Constitution. But our Founding Fathers were well versed in the enlightenment and embraced the notion of a social compact as the basis of governance. The reason that we do not have a Bill of Responsibilities is that that the expectation of self-control cannot be a matter of law, but of morality and conscience. During their time, religion was foundational and they did not feel the need to have religion's moral teachings be spelled out in the Constitution. It is ironic that the Founding Fathers would scorn much of today's debate over free speech that neglects the deeper principle of a social compact and consciousness of self-control.
4
Damnit, Ross.....how in the world do you describe the backlash against a protest which is clearly about racially biased police brutality, as "admirable patriotism"?????? What in the world is patriotic about it? What is admirable about it?
Let me help you with that: NOTHING. It has nothing to do with patriotism, unless you think it is America's mission to shoot black people at traffic stops. Jeez.
11
I found this column , like other recent ones by Douthat, to be utterly incomprehensible. When compared with the clear ( and clear eyed) style of Bruni and Kristof, I find a thesaurus to be more fluent than Douthat.
Moving on.
6
As so often, I have to read Douthat's column three times to get it, but I do get it.
1
Vince Lombardi, coach of the Green Bay Packers, in the early 1960's, stood up to white racist Americans and rich business owners when he stated that any business, restaurant, hotel, motel or any other institution that refused equal service to his Black Packer Players, would be "off limits" to all Green Bay Packer business in the future.
Unfortunately, we don't have real men like Lombardi anymore in leadership positions in the college and sports industries, who will stand up to racism against Blacks.
Africans were brought here with chains around their necks to serve as slaves in American society. They have fought for freedom and civil rights just like any of us Whites would have done. They have made America Great long before it became a codified racist coded slogan.
They have been incarcerated, hung, burnt, slit open, humiliated, and discriminated against in housing, voting, health care, and employment.
They have so many talents that have made America a wonderful place to live, including music, sports, dance, cuisine and many others.
The people who should hide in the locker rooms during the national anthem should be the racist few who figuratively "spit on the American flag" with their subterfuge of American Democracy by making it harder for Black Americans' votes to count by supporting Voted ID, and gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Yep, that's you Scott Walker and all of you Republicans!
Have a thoughtful Memorial Day celebrating your racist "laws".
12
A wake up implies spring, when the birds start their chirping that will last all morning long. We have the great chirper in the White House, flew in just about the same time Neptune turned its corner on the detrimental light of winter, the first magnitude Fomalhaut in the Pisces degrees, (the eye of man). We haven't had free speech for so long we certainly are not qualified to intelligently talk about it. The owners have it wrong about the fans being turned off by the players protests, because everyone in the arena knows the time is right for all to be playing to a new tune anyway. None have witnessed the degree of mutable Air (communication) that is directly ahead and waiting for us . Mercury’s star in Gemini, Aldebaran the other eye, is there to transform the way we think and communicate, a restoration in the making as some have already found out, a new understanding, of why this is not the time to be getting caught with your pants down.
This right-wing nut's cheap argument is so boring.
1
In 1934, A German football club was forbidden to play for 12 months on account of they did not give the Nazi salute when they entered the field. What goes around . . .
9
This is a good conversation
I work and make very good money.
My employer prevents me from having a voice in social media around things that could hurt business- ie this dumb administration, this environmental apocalypse we are perpetrating, or the bad local government or corporations that abound in NYC.
I have made a decision to comply in order to provide for my family and pay for ridiculous college tuition.
That decision happens millions of times across corporate America- suck it up we told.
So it becomes a very sticky - bite the hand that feeds you - debate in the NFL.
The best thing to do would be to quit and start a better league or team made up of dignified owners that respect workers rights. That will never happen...
... so as long as they cash their paychecks - suck it up.
4
Upheaval in the economy makes for social discord. In U.S. history we are living through a time that has striking parallels to the 1870's through the early 1900's. The underlying causes are not the same, the dislocations are similar. How anyone could have thought that major population increase in a comparatively short period of time combined with an unprecedented re-arrangement of age cohorts would not lead to social disarray is astounding. At the same time the world economy is going through fundamental reshaping: the emergence of long-suppressed Asia, the very re-definition of work with the waning of 19th century industry with the newest technologies of which computerization and developing artificial intelligence are just a part, but an important one, how else could there not be anger and social and intellectual disarray?
2
Regarding taking a knee, kneeling is a sign of respect, obeisance, deference. It was something I did when I attended Mass. If the NFL players wanted to show disrespect for the flag they could have done that in any number of ways.
This "controversy" is another episode of the ongoing DJ Trump reality TV show. It also gives him a chance to stoke the base. Roger Goodell and the NFL are happy to have a distraction from the concussion issue.
The issue which is driving the protest, the disproportionate death rate of black men at the hands of the police, is not being discussed.
8
Douthat decries the lack of " morality" and a" higher purpose"in universities and I wonder what he means by that. I suspect it is some kind of religious education. The purpose of man is to live the few years he has to live in harmony and justice. And these ideals can be pursued if students want to. The problem is that society is fixed more on material success than on achieving those goals. Hence the dilemma of universities, and between the practical and the ideal, I give you one guess which wins out,
1
The NFL uses the flag for commercial purposes and promotes itself through jingoism. Their notion of “free speech” is freedom to exploit the flag for their own bottom line.
In contrast, players kneeling before the flag are emphasizing fealty to the flag’s noble symbolism for ideals of which the NFL is not even dimly aware.
15
It is interesting how Mr. Douthat plays identity politics when he thinks he can speak for all conservatives while denigrating every left leaning individual. The people protesting are acting as individuals not in allegiance to some particular club. They believe their own liberty is at stake when some powerful individuals want to take it away. When "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is threatened people are allowed to protest peacefully. The disrupters at speaking events are just that, and are not there to preserve Constitutional rights. They prefer mayhem or chaos. Instead of laying out a position's merits, the arguments dissolve into stand offs, with more than two ships passing in the night.
9
Why is the national anthem played at games anyway? The pressure on everyone eo stand and put your hand over heart is also an infringement on our right to express our patriotism in the way we feel is most appropriate. In my high schoo, kids whose families were Johovah witnesses we're exempt from the pledge of allegiance and standing for the flag, acknowledging to rights, of speech and adherence to their faith. If we stood to salute the Constitution, that would be better.
21
This article was well meaning but it ignores the pernicious effects of social media, especially the financial ones. Using the media to attract attention to make money is very profitable. Fox News would be much less successful financially if it had fewer commentators saying outrageous things. I am convinced that many conservatives are overjoyed when they are banned from speaking on a college campus – all the better for book sales. I am thinking about someone like Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos who clearly say the most outrageous thing possible to optimize the attention and one supposes the financial rewards.
While this sort of behavior is common across the entire political spectrum, it seems to have become a money-making tactic used by certain types of people on the right. The phrase of ‘triggering liberals’ minimizes the level of vitriol that people will go to just to garner a bit of attention.
7
Yes, indeed, the freedom of speech and "honest" debate should be granted to all right and left-leaning individuals so long as the debates do not deteriorate into a fight between dogma and belief on one side and science and data on the other. Freedom of speech does not grant individuals or institutions their own "alternative facts." The epidemic proportion of using made up information that suits the needs of the right-wing demagogues does not make for a good debate. So, the real issue is not whether everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and honest debate but where do we draw the line of "honesty" which is sorely lacking among most of the right-wing debaters.
Right?
15
Ross,
You are over thinking the issue. Just accept that we are in a New Dark Age.
We have two basic world views that are diametrically opposed. Unless and until some common paradigm emerges, we be in a tug of war with our fellow citizens.
The other end of this New Dark Age will most likely be that human kind will find itself is an authoritarian police state and/or a protracted set of wars. Something akin to a high tech Sparta may develop.
The only thing I see that can save what we call The American Experiment is for there to be a Second Great American Civil War. One of the two diametrically opposed world views in this country needs to become ascendant and that will not happen through the ballot box but only after a lot of blood and pain.
8
While debating free speech is worthwhile, such arguments seem surreal when we are currently separating children from their parents as part of what our government labels a " severe deterrence" program. We then compound that obscenity by losing track of those children. The only certainty is that in 10 years or so, conservatives will be arguing that however abhorrent it may have been, the times demanded this action. Nevertheless the directors of the program will be promoted because of their professionalism.
7
Douthat wrote:
"But they also include a typical conservative cluelessness about black grievances, a performative and commercialized Americanism that parodies healthy civic life, *and the toxic identity politics* that Donald Trump is constantly encouraging."
Wow! After years of hearing Conservatives denounce Liberals for "encouraging identity politics," I almost fell out of my chair after reading a Conservative admit that they're just as guilty of that venal sin too!
Proclaiming oneself a Christian values voter is as much identity politics as being a Black voter (or a Latino voter, or a Feminist voter, or a LGBT voter).
Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is as much of a proclamation of your own identity as it is for the couple who's trying to buy the cake.
Banning travellers from Muslim countries is identity politics, because it's based on the premise that we're not a Muslim country.
The algorithms of gerrymandering are based on identity politics.
Racial profiling people of color by cops, mortgage lenders, is a form of identity politics.
Cursing in the supermarket at strangers who look different than you do is a form of identity politics.
Creating political ads that portray people of certain races/religions in negative ways is a form of identity politics. (Remember Willie Horton?)
The Right has been using identity politics (and has indeed been driven by it) for as long as the Left. "Defending" mainstream American values is identity politics!
26
No Mr. Douthat, Free Speech alone will not save us, but the corollary, NOT having Free Speech, might just sink us, once and for all.
20
Yet another Douthat straw man argument.
No free speech/First Amendment will not magically solve all of our problems.
But it is far better to have free speech/a strong interpretation of the First Amendment than to narrow/restrict free speech/First Amendment.
Free speech is a core foundation of democracy. The First Amendment is a core foundation of our democracy.
The NFL is a business - the once extremely successful business model that is now beginning to crumble: the brain damage issue that won’t go away no matter how much NFL tries to cover up, young people are generally less interested in sports (the once very successful ESPN model that is also in trouble), the billionaire owners have always been allowed to collude and violate anti-trust laws, to violate the rights of its star employees - the players. But the NFL has the right to restrict the free speech/legitimate protest rights of its employees/players - there is no constitutional right to play NFL football. The NFL will appease its conservative and non-political fans, but will alienate its more liberal fans and its minority communities fans. The NFL was going to lose either way, but it chose the morally wrong, but perfectly legal/constitutional (other than the anti-trust part) path - that’s not news for a bunch of billionaire owners.
The outrage is that we have a President who openly and constantly attacks free speech/First Amendment. He even recently said that the protesting players should be thrown out of the country.
18
I part with Mr. Douthat when he invokes the Google case. The issue there is the creation of a hostile work environment, and since work is essential to survival, more rigorous standards of conduct must must be applied. The law broadly recognizes the uniqueness of the workplace in the overwhelming power given to employers.
7
"If you want a healthy culture of debate, it’s not enough to complain that Marxists and postmodernists are out to silence you; you need your own idea of what education and human life itself are for."
Indeed the nature of higher education has changed. All schools, even schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, are now basically polytechs. The parents and students just want the student to be trained to get a good job in nation where the financial divide between the haves and havenots has made "genteel" poverty impossible. The faculty remember an older model (left over from an older mission related to training clergy and civilizing an aristocracy ) where universities tried to get their students to think about what it means to be human, to be a member of society, what are their rights but also what are their responsibilities. But since we do not have a coherent vision of these any more, this just can not be done, and anyway our students are no longer future ministers and lords who either need this for their job or have so much wealth that they didn't need to focus on job training.
12
from where i sit, both problems stem from the dogma thst the market is the arbiter of right and wrong. when capitalism became our religion, we lost our way.
22
You are right, the market system is amoral, mob mentality. It’s often decided by what is cheaper for immediate costs and not what is right or wrong or sustainable for the future. Which is why it needs regulation when it goes astray. Too many confuse capitalist markets for democracy.
7
Markets only work when they are regulated. Regulation is only fair if it is democratically created. On the other hand, the Chinese have a different take on this.
Douthat's comments are mostly on target, except for one: it's false equivalence to group Google's "firing an engineer for 'wrong-think'" with the other left-wing protests.
Like many companies, Google's policy is to ensure that under-represented groups (women, minorities) get considered for jobs and promotions. There's plenty of evidence that women, especially, get socially excluded from the "in" groups in tech companies and silicon valley generally. Susan Fowler's memo about Uber and Emily Chang's book "Brotopia" lay out the bro culture.
James Damore challenged Google efforts to keep Google's culture free from the frat-house environment pervasive elsewhere and as a management employee who interviewed candidates for other positions, how could he be counted on to treat women equally? Instead, he had a chip on his shoulder. So Google was objectively justified in firing him.
4
I support the players right to protest- especially given the importance of the issue (how can BLM be controversial?) - but what about the owners' right to control their "product" - the players, when on the sideline or field, are after all, employees at work. I do not support the "fans" who react negatively to the player's kneeling - one of my students, a veteran, told the class "my unit didn't ever think 'we're fighting for the flag' - we thought we were fighting for the freedoms it and we represented - and that the players are exercisung") but the conservative fans' reaction is real, especially to the owners P&L.
Wouldn't a reasonable solution have been for the owners and the keague to invest (significantly) in a medium such as ads in diverse media in which players could use their well-earned celebrity to get their message heard, leaving the game and time event as it is: entertainment and sport.
In a sense the players are using the owners' free speech.
I do not condemn the players - I just think it is a terrific conundrum because they are, after all and in very real ways, employees on the clock at the moments that they're choosing to exercise "their" free speech.
1
The thing is most stadiums are tax payer funded, so it is a public-private hybrid. Second the owners are following the president’s request, so this is a bit more complex than the owners free speech.
7
How about stopping conflating patriotism with cheap symbolism.
So what's the alternative Mr Douhat who as usual is full of critiques but offers no credible alternative. Liberal democracy of the J. S. Mill variety may be the most imperfect system in the world but it's superior to all the alternatives as Churchill pointed out. As with most things it's a matter of degree. In modern mass society no one has an absolute right to anything. Absolute freedom for the wolf means death for the sheep. All around us are constraints on human behavior that are necessary to keep the social fabric intact. Universities don't allow neo Nazis or the KKK to hold rallies on their premises because they're a threat to social norms and public order. As for the NFL, as we all know it's all about money.
9
John:
There is no single credible alternative beyond improving tolerance in our public spheres. I do not know how we legislate that. The tensions you mention are old and too many people think that freedom/liberty is confined to what they want: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ ("Positive and Negative Liberty," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Our first amendment is its own cultural mess: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300190885/soul-first-amendment ("The Soul of the First Amendment," by Abrams, Yale Univ. Press, 2017) . Other modern developed nations do not take such extreme views of the proposition--this is not to say they are better, but some of them are less tolerant of public intolerance (this includes the UK).
1
The real issue is not the level of free speech one is allowed but the how much humanity and civil rights one loses when one is an employee. The courts have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish employment from slavery where all the rights to one's body, clothing, medical needs, gender identity, ideas, and opinions are owned by the company. As an employee, people cease to exist as a private individual. Since most of us need to work to survive, we sign our rights away in a lot of fine print. That is the issue here. Employer vs. Employee rights.
18
Nicely put.
Free speech is the first step toward reason and harmony.
How else do we realize what are the dimensions and extent of problems? How else do we realize that we are facing a catastrophe, and had better do something about it.
How else does one discover perhaps the most useful principle of intellectual growth: I learn much more from my enemies than from my friends.
C'mon. You've read the classics. The cure for bad speech is more speech, better speech. Justice Brandeis. Sort of.
That's the first step.
And then, once we realize what the problem is, and its gravity, then we set out to get smart.
That's the second step. Not the first one, as you seem to think.
7
"...to some extent I share it: There is no doubt that tolerance and magnanimity are virtues that our society’s warring factions need to cultivate."
I think this is more important than your final conclusion allows, particularly in the face of the guy in the White House who wants people to leave the country because they take a knee during the national anthem during a football game.
People argue for tolerance on both sides of a divide, and we are like warring fans at the game, wedded to our favorite team (some more fanatical than others). We appear unwilling to let loose of the combat, whether about football, the national anthem (maybe stop playing it a football games?), guns or abortion. Somehow the other side never seems to quite understand--a proposition well-known to politicians who rely on the wedge.
Conservatives, in particular, say they don't want their entertainment "politicized", by which they mean they don't want to see any Black man calling attention to police profiling and brutality aimed specifically at them. Those couple of minutes before the start of a game, when some may take a knee could cause such distress as to spoil the fun for the next few hours? I don't believe it.
Rather than deprive American citizens of their right to free speech, why not do away with the playing of the inherently political National Anthem itself? We don't hear it before the start of a movie or play, no TV show begins with it, no form of entertainment, besides sports, that I can think of requires its performance.
Unless we are willing to subscribe to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment in every instance we should not require a person to stand before a flag and song that are supposed to symbolize our right to speak our minds. Let these players exercise their rights or remove the ceremony from the event; the choice seems obvious to me.
36
The price of admission to a sporting event in America should be limited to dollars. Attendees should not be required to participate in a contrived expression of subservience cloaked in its equally shallow image of patriotism. Eliminate the Star Spangled Banner from the beginning of all sporting events; and bring back Take Me Out To The Ball Game during the seventh inning stretch.
The somber rendition of God Bless America that has replaced the lighthearted renditions of Take Me Out To The Ballgame is simply too redundant.
10
The Houston Symphony does (complete with giant American flag) before concerts (so odd).
It is Texas
"But sometimes the problems are bad enough that the procedural approach isn’t a solution. And with due respect to the First Amendment, I think this is one of those times."
This could be a quote from almost any would-be authoritarian. The "problem" must be solved by giving up on our rights (whatever those might be) and putting our faith in the hands of people who know better.
13
I think Douthat is asking for us to actually deal with the big underlying problems like race, sports, and education, rather than arguing about whose free speech is being gored. No one's rights are being threatened in doing so, only our fear and reluctance to bring reason to needed debates. What Douthat doesn't recognize is that such "conflict management" requires agreement on serious rules for fair fighting, in other words, good process.
8
(to verb in NC) I think your understanding of Ross's statement and my understanding of it are not in sync - I never inferred from it that he's calling for a rollback of First Amendment rights. Just a recognition that the preservation of these rights, and the exercising of them, are not by themselves sufficient to pull together a society torn apart by the forces of polarization that are besieging America right now.
Yes, the issues go much deeper, but the NFL players are asking for legitimate rights while right-wing campus pundits express dangerous ideas that have little evidence. The NFL issue is pure greed on the part of owners. They want players to cease being human. It is a workers' rights issue. Workers in the US long ago gained the right to protest, although many states and businesses continue to fight the rights of labor.
As for the freedom to speak on campuses, many right-wing speakers express ideas that are academically questionable to say the least. They lack evidence that any grad student needs to right a paper, thus why would they be allowed in places of learning. I can express whatever ideas I want, but if I want to be invited to speak at Yale, or publish in a refereed publication, they need to have evidence to back them up.
Furthermore, NFL players that kneel during the anthem are protesting a real problem. Most right wing pundits that pose as academics create their own problems and then publicize their questionable reasons.
12
The intersection of big time sports and patriotism is also questionable. The National Anthem was not an issue before 2009 when the NFL was paid by the military to have the players on the field for the NA. This was done to bolster recruitment.
Is there something special about sporting events that attracts super patriots? Like any other contrived problem this will soon dissipate and be replaced with some other issue equally nonsensical.
10
I cannot fathom which "shared values" Douthat thinks are in danger of vanishing. It certainly isn't the shared value of democracy, which rests on the principle of not suppressing opposing viewpoints.
But then, I don't understand Douthat's claim to be "saving us" from something. At times, he seems to perceive a threat from the Fury called secularization -- released by the Pandora's box of Constitutionalism -- as eroding the appeal of Religion, hence denying the necessity of Salvation.
I don't agree that the purpose of Law is to nurture a society in which souls will be able to find salvation, but then, Douthat doesn't ever say that so directly, either.
4
Yes, perhaps that is the answer: Democracy.
Allow other viewpoints to be expressed, and if you don’t agree with those “other viewpoints”, vote against them on Election Day.
This one is a no- brainer. Freedom of speech is not about content (with a few exceptions), its about access. The absolute right to speak your mind no matter what anyone else thinks and to not be threatened by those in power (the government) because you do so. Like I just did with this blog. I think if you look at the history of Supreme Court's decisions regarding the first amendment you will come to the same conclusion. The suspected political orientation of the Justices played no role in this. Whatever suspected political bias you might think they have, they have shown fidelity to the first amendment.
5
It was both surprising and fitting to me that when Antonin Scalia died it was revealed that his best friend was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was also indicative of the divide, the Great American Schism of the early 21st Century, that pervades while offering nothing positive for the future, except here, where there existed two highly intelligent members of society who could agree to disagree. Isn't that the essence of freedom of speech, this agreement to disagree; to let someone say things that will strike some of the listeners as the worst thing they've ever heard? Isn't that a fundamental tenet of democracy, to give voice to opposing views and see with whom the majority agrees; perhaps even to perform that seemingly impossible miracle of compromise where appropriate? We are now caught in a cultural bloodbath and unless we can limit both sides from calling on the worst of their cultural police to protect us from hearing what the other side has to say, it may even turn into a virtual bloodbath. Some will surely protest that there is false equivalence in defining this problem, but they couldn't be more wrong- this has become a crusade in which both sides seem hellbent on silencing the voices on the other side and it seems the more "wrong" each side may be to the other, the more militant both sides have become. That is not part of the definition of democracy; that's part of the definition of revolution.
10
Trumpism is reveling in the propagation of blatant lies. It is a public mental illness.
Jerry,
On Monday May 21 , 2018 the court decided 5-4 with Neil Gorsuch delivering the majority opinion that the first amendment was conditional and people like NFL players truck drivers and those who were employed had restricted 1st amendment rights.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/supreme-court-nlra-arbitration-g...
There is nothing inherently bad about "taking a knee." In another culture than American football it could even be the respectful thing to do.
Free speech is as American as football, and every single person on every side of this argument values his own freedom of speech, and would react badly to any attempt to limit himself or herself.
Still, this was marketed as an insult to America and the Flag. It was done in a ceremonial way on national TV, designed to put the insult in-your-face. So, a lot of people reacted as if they'd been insulted.
That isn't free speech. That is, "Insult me? You . . ." and we are off to the races.
Does someone like Trump glory in "You've been insulted! What are you going to do about it?" Well, yeah, it is a moment made for a guy like him.
Thing is, it was an insult. It was meant as an insult. Trump is actually right about that, for once.
The cause being asserted is important. Asserting it by national insult is counterproductive, and only feeds things like Trump.
18
how do you know that taking a knee "was meant as an insult"?if YOU felt insulted, that response is yours to own. I see taking a knee as a kind of prayer that the nation will live up to its credo that ALL men are created equal.
1
I never saw it as an insult and I don't see the evidence that it was meant as an insult. And an insult to whom, exactly? The United States? The NFL? Veterans? You? I saw it as a quiet "remember" amidst a business organization's attempt to appropriate patriotism for its own glorification.
1
Who marketed the protest as an insult to America and the flag?
Certainly not the players.
No, it was Donald trump and the right wing propaganda machine that did that.
There was no insult to America, the flag, the military, or anyone else in this protest.
Trump glories in manufacturing insults, then riling his base by baiting them with lies, conspiracy theories, and appeals to their prejudices, grievances and belief in their victimhood by left wing "elites" in government, having channeled the far right wing movement that has been intent on making America into its own image since the late '70's.
He didn't originate their tactics; he just ran with them. Only Sarah Palin came close to having his combination of ignorance of democratic ideals and intellectual foundations, demagoguery, skill at playing the media, and disinterest in the truth or exhiting any kind of ethical compass, that was uniquely suited to taking their movement into the White House.
Mr. Douthat is right about this - we need to reclaim our political moral compass.
And protecting and defending the right of free speech, including protest, for *all,* not just for one's own demographic, is essential to that goal.
1
America's problems have never been free speech it has been an inability to listen. I am old enough to remember the 1964 GOP convention and Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan. I have been saying it can happen here for 54 years. Now that it has, for those who don't remember.
https://mashable.com/2016/07/21/1964-gop-convention/#PnF5L1lSmkqL
America didn't listen then, they didn't listen in 1980 and they didn't listen in 2016 and they still aren't listening.
17
Sadly, Mr. Douthat is correct. Free speech will not save us because there is increasingly little in the way of shared values to be saved. Many of us recoil at Starbucks kicking people out if they fail to spend enough money. Others recoil at having to share an otherwise pleasant space with people they find distasteful. Many of us want a commencement ceremony with traditional pomp and circumstance. Others wish to enjoy commencement in a manner that befits their own, distinctly different values. Perhaps more fundamentally, many aspects of sharia are fundamentally at odds with the classical liberal foundations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
There comes a time when the diversity we've been told to celebrate dissolves into mutual disrespect and warring political factions. The common ground on which we have stood is vanishing.
18
"Truth", like much of everything else in this infantile nation, is measured only by how much money it garners.
Samuel,
You are so correct but I hope I am wrong when I use the past tense. I believe there is no common ground and there is no United States of America and there will never be again.
https://mashable.com/2016/07/21/1964-gop-convention/#PnF5L1lSmkqL
"Extremism in the defense of .............." has destroyed a once great country.
Extremism is antithetical to liberty.
In school I never questioned or even thought to question why our coach said the Our Father with us before football and basketball games, nor why the National Anthem was played before every sporting event. I was a very patriotic young man, as evidenced later by seven years as an Army officer.
I am still patriotic, as much as possible given the lunatic-in-charge and recognition that about 35% of the citizens think he is somehow ok. But I no longer believe the National Anthem has any place at a sporting event. We play sports because we love the sport, not for love of country. Save the Anthem for the Olympic Games.
My $0.02.
191
Ross Douthat makes some good points for thought; however, in regards to the issue that started the latest round of this controversy: the NFL is a business, not much more. There is no reason to play the national anthem at a sporting event, any more than there would be reason to play it when I go buy a mop at Walmart.
JC
75
Yes Ross makes an important point about the larger problem an issue in America which is both a loss of shared values and changing standards. Re the NFL and national anthem though, a national sporting event like the NFL, NBA or MLB have been and continue to be more than a commercial exercise equal to a visit to the mall or Walmart. Those sports leagues and teams represented a shared American experience that brought everyone to the same place no matter their socioeconomic place. So, people do stand and salute or recite the Pledge at NY Yankee games and stand at NY Knickerbocker games. Oh, and by the way it’s not just an American thing. On a recent trip to Spain to watch Barcelona play their La Liga rival from Valencia, before the game started a song was played, sung even shouted by the fans , the Catalan regional anthem which connected all 90,000 people in the stadium.
Perhaps it’s naive to expect, hope for in this day and age that there are areas of common connection - but Walmart isn’t it that’s for sure.
1
The national anthem is played at NFL games because the armed forces pays the NFL to play it - as a recruiting tool.
In resolving free speech conflicts, common sense goes a long way. I think Mr. Douthat abandons free speech rights too easily. Take the NFL. Kneeling during the anthem was Kaepernick's means of protesting racial injustice. But the perceived dishonor to the flag was deemed intolerable by Gooddell.
There are many other ways to protest racial injustice other than by kneeling during the anthem. NBA players have worn protest shirts and the NBA is fine with them, but does not allow anthem protests. What works in the NBA would probably work in the NFL. Compromise is a virtue. Unfortunately, it is overlooked by Mr. Douthat and too many others.
8
I want to clarify your post. Yes, Goodell found the 'perceived' dishonor to be 'intolerable'--but from a business standpoint only. He has a league to run, and the controversy over the knee-taking is not helpful. Nowhere have I read that Goodell personally feels that players are disrespecting the flag. He believes the players should stand, but he doesn't believe players who don't stand are dishonoring either the flag or our country. There's a difference.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/11/557072923/nfls-roger-...
2
This is such a shallow view of the situation. He "has a league to run" ignores the fact that without the multitude of black athletes who are protesting there would be no league. He is ignoring the talent at the expense of the future of the league. #NFLBoycott
As a Canadian I find it particularly ironic that flying the Confederate Battle Flag is considered patriotic especially at GOP political rallies.
1
From the Supreme Court West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
"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."
This ruling clarifies that government officials cannot force how one expresses patriotism - which is pretty much what Mr Trump is asking for: a certain class of citizen (NFL players) must stand in a certain way to show respect for the anthem and flag. The President opined that if you did not care to do patriotism the way he prescribed, that the NFL player should probably leave the country. His position - adopted by the NFL owners - requires a forced expression of nationalism in an environment of paid-for pageantry patriotism.
58
The NFL is a corporation, not a group of free people gathering to play a game. Many professions require specific behavior at work. When police and fire responders are in a ceremonial capacity, they must wear specific uniforms, stand, walk, sit, salute in prescribed formations and stand at attention for the national anthem. Free speech at your place of employment can get your fired with no legal recourse. So as a reminder the NFL is not a game in some park, it is a real business.and the business can make its own rules.
6
Considering the NFL as a corporation, the context of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 558 US 310 (2010) is of interest. Citizens United found that corporations enjoy the same First Amendment protections for political speech as do individual persons. With the finding that money is speech in this context, teams or their owners have thus contributed generously to political campaigns (both parties) although a majority of those donations have been to Republican candidates or Republican PACS.
It could be argued that the owners' limitations on "employee" behavior imposes desired political expression from the NFL owners operating as a corporation and thus is compelling an employee to express patriotism that meets another "person's" (Citizens United corporations as persons) political platform.
Police officers are government agents empowered to enforce laws and maintain safety. They are not equivalent to a football player in terms of employment with a private sector corporation that lists itself as a recreation/live entertainment business on its required financial reporting forms.
Yes, indeed, and it is a business that makes unreasonable demands of its employees and customers (as if the NFL really considers the fans customers anymore). Instead of calling itself the NFL, why not the National Military Recruitment League (NMRL)?
Oh, I noticed that the league is fining the players (employees who can pay whatever given their salaries). If the NFL were truly serious they would terminate unruly employees.
Here is my proposal for how we as a society can do a better job honoring free expression and perhaps becoming more tolerant of one another. Let's pass laws that stipulate that no one can be fired or sanctioned by an employer or a school for expressing their political or social views, as long as they do it on their own time. At the workplace, the employer should not be required to provide a platform for their employees to vent--no matter how sympathetic the cause may be. But, on their own time, an employee's livelihood or future should not be threatened for expressing his or her opinions--no matter how noxious their ideas--because to do otherwise is to coercively suppress unpopular ideas.
9
Charles, I would support such a law if it also stipulated that an employer could not force an employee to express, or appear to express, the employer's political or social views while at the workplace. It's gotta work both ways.
4
Thank you!!! That is completely correct!
I'm really tired of this discussion about the football players. People have a right to express or not express their patriotism in any way they want. People should not be forced to express patriotism at all, and they certainly should not be forced to express it in the way other people think it should be expressed. There are many ways to express patriotism. We not only have freedom of speech, but we also have the broader freedom of expression, as well as freedom to have our own ideas, points of view, etc. The conservative compulsions to be conventional and to conform are truly vapid and tiresome.
27
Freedom of speech was never an end. It was and is an essential means to a well functioning society. So don't just be silent while those you disagree with speak. Also learn what you can from them and teach via your speech what you can.
The football players are employees of the team. If they don't like the working conditions then then should quit.
6
...unless of course if the working conditions are unconstitutional or unacceptably repressive.
6
So becoming unemployed is your solution to the problem of having unpopular opinions?
This article is pretty classic Douthat - make a trivially true point to the tune of "speech isn't enough on it's own" and then add the illusion of depth in commentary by introducing another trivially true proposition to the tune of "we must have positive visions instead of attacking other people's".
On the matter of banalities, what this piece fails to grasp is that it is precisely the blunt, anodyne nature of the act of kneeling - which merely 'raises awareness; the most amorphous of activism's objectives - which causes concern. If this already warrants suppression, people dread to think what would happen when black people create platforms for their "own idea of what education and human life itself are for" in Mr. Douthat's words.
Classical liberalism doesn't stop at some abstraction of freedom. There are the frameworks for what life is for (and in them, the enshrinement of Mr. Douthat's right to practice Catholicism, especially should it become unfashionable in the modern orthodoxy!) and fairly reasonable outlines and justifications for them on how we should treat people. But Mill or Douthat or any singularly brilliant chap can only write universal (ergo necessarily blurred around the edges) philosophies and the work of adapting them to present contexts must be done by present peoples. This work is what is happening in campuses right now, not the postmodernist death spiral fever dream that alumni use to vindicate "back in my day" declarations.
13
Bravo! I'm a professor who doesn't teach political science. I, like most of my colleagues, keep my political points of view to myself. That's appropriate. But, the conversation in the classroom is encouraged to be free and open with rules that one must listen to the other and make rational responses if warrented. Perhaps Ross should spend more time in classrooms actually listening. My classroom experience isn't unique.
We live in angry times, spurned on by a privileged, spoiled, infantile president, who loves to tweet taunts at all hours of the night.
Perhaps freedom of speech and, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” need to be updated for the 21st century.
Or, perhaps the problem is that people don't want to take into account all the words in the 2nd Amendment and leaders don't want to denounce heinous speech.
You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that President Trump should say you're a fine person when you give a Nazi salute or that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell should meekly stand by and say nothing.
The idea that we have a president who egged on NFL owners about football players taking a knee and that the NFL owners actually decided to fine players for this act is much more frightening then visiting lecturers getting booed.
A president is using his immense power to censure protests.
Think about that, Mr. Douthat.
82
Mr. Trump is accustomed to speaking on behalf of the great majority of people who have NO voice in public affairs.
Did you also hate it when the previous president used his immense power as a media icon and man-god to promote rap music - with all its violence and abuse of women - by inviting its headliners into the White House more than once?
Or was that acceptable simply because you happened to like him?
1
For once I agree with--and am grateful for--Ross's contribution.
But as a lifelong Democrat and godless socialist, I know his solutions will not be ones I want to see.
I am waiting for someone to PLEASE suggest some solutions to the moral ills that Ross correctly identifies that take us forward instead of backward. Surely our best thinkers can think of ways to create community and social cohesiveness other than sending us all back to church.
National (or international) service is the only idea knocking round that makes sense to me, but that never seems to get any traction.
Ironically we desperately need the help that the universities ought to be providing.
10
The problem seems to be that a segment of the population believes that honoring icons or symbols are what determines patriotism and love of country.
Since this is the main problem I believe I have an answer to this dilemma and it should work for the owners, fans and players. The players come onto the field and just before the anthem is sung they turn on command, salute the flag, put their hand over their heart and then bow their heads and kneel down. Once they have shown respect for the flag by saluting it and having hand over heart, no longer can anyone question their patriotism or love of country. Just make sure that when this takes place they spell my name correctly.
6
Why play the anthem at all at a sporting event?
The Olympics = yes, but if it's Cleveland vs Boston? We want to watch (or play) a game.
I love the National Anthem and tear up almost every time I hear it, but have come to believe it has no place before every sporting event.
11
Is it really so difficult for a college to
inform their students that you may not
physically attack visiting speakers ?
You may not shout them down.
You may not swear at them.
After all no student is forced to attend the
talk by the visiting speaker.
As for players in Professional Sports.
Take out ads or run one during one or more of the games.
Otherwise, accept you are an employee and you
must follow the rules or face the consequences.
9
The First Amendment says that the Government cannot impede speech. So while employers can tell employees not to engage in certain speech while at work, the President of the United States telling citizens that they cannot protest is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. One person refusing to listen to another (or shouting down another) is not a violation of anyone’s right to speak.
And of course people who don’t like to hear certain speech are free to ignore it or in the case of the NFL, speak about why they disagree with the players protesting and/or change the channel.
As I see it, the problem with the current NFL situation is that the Government (the President) has sought to restrict speech - which our Constitution forbids. And the lense through which the new NFL rules (which forbid kneeling during the National Anthem) are viewed is now muddied by the President’s actions.
19
VP,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Trump is not Congress.
The President of the United States did not tell the owners of NFL teams they had to restrict speech.
The NFL fans sent a message to the owners - we don't pay big bucks to come to a game and watch prima donna millionaires showing lack of respect to our flag. Large numbers of fans quit buying tickets. Larger numbers of fans quit watching the games on TV.
Would you prohibit NFL fans from exercising their rights to not pay for tickets, to turn their TV sets to other channels?
An alternative is to cancel the anthem and/or let the players remain in the locker room until after it finishes. This, in my opinion, diminishes the players. It would also create new, unforeseen, unwanted consequences down the road because it wouldn't end there. Ill will begets greater ill will. This is a proxy war fought on a surrogate battlefield over societal rifts that are never going to be resolved, much less addressed, at football games.
When Kaepernick first took a knee, it was a courageous, sincere gesture for which he has paid a steep price. He made a sacrifice for a greater cause. Who didn't respect that? Now, it's degenerated into test of wills bereft of purpose. For now I guess the players are "winning" though it is increasingly apparent that the victory is an empty one.
7
Apparently you are forgetting the courage of black students in the south who stood in the face of actual harm and virulent derision - requiring protection of federal troops - in order to achieve the radical relief of an appropriate public school education.
Or, more recently, the momentum of the #metoo movement, which has brought to bear significant pressure against powerful men to call them to answer for inappropriate behavior that for far too long was considered if not their due, an unfortunate cost of doing business with the rich and powerful.
Neither of these cultural sea changes began fully formed and voiced. They started with just a few people standing up initially.
Colin Kaepernick, like the early champions of school desegregation and proper penalties for sexual harassment/assault, was most certainly not respected by all - hence the ongoing debate.
But, at the same time, the ongoing debate is evidence of its effectiveness in raising the consciousness of the nation, while indeed a "test of wills," it is most certainly NOT "bereft of purpose."
If it were, why are we here discussing it?
1
Until a few years ago, players did not come onto the field until after the anthem was played. Them the military decided to start paying NFL owners big bucks for the right to use the players as promotional props for their recruiting efforts. Going back to the status quo ante would in no way diminish the players. It might just help a little in beginning to diminish the ridiculous fiction that football has anything to do with patriotism.
Dominants assume what they say is either common sense and plain talk or on behalf of an established consensus afraid to speak up. Subjugated assume what they say is unheard, scoffed at, and wonder what free speech means in a dominant history that blames its victims and punishes them for what they endured, even welshing on forty acres and a mule.
For most of our history, the subjugated have been without voice and few of conscience able to hear them. In the past speaking out could be a lynch mob death sentence. And those who did speak loudly and freely spoke against them.
On our way to a more perfect union, there's been progress, such as fairly consistent federal enforcement of First Amendment rights in the courts, in public education, media, and, unfortunately, in politics where money is protected speech.
The dominants interpret federal intervention to be advocacy on behalf of the subjugated that's unfair to dominants. The subjugated see federal initiatives as begrudging, political and temporary.
Among dominants free speech is a tool for chest-thumping provocation. Among the subjugated it's speaking truth to power. This isn't a collision between the two. It's two mega- supertankers passing in the night.
We shouldn't forget that free speech is also the right to hear. If anyone's listening that is.
Free speech isn't for agreement. It's for disagreement.
20
A compelling article. Some great lines including "a performative and commercialized Americanism that parodies healthy civic life". Required robotic responses to Anthems and Pledges have always been anathema to my own sense of freedom and independence, the things these are supposed to honor. The shallowness, the hollowness of those gestures before sporting events and the continued compliance of most attendees is one of the most ovine behaviors of Americans. I am profoundly uneasy in those situations. If we want to depoliticize sports, why on earth are we playing an anthem and requiring everyone to stand? Just start the game.
And yes we need much more than just free speech, though free speech is a prerequisite to solving our problems democratically. A much greater cultural emphasis on thinking and reflection before speech would be welcome. The recognition of the corrosiveness of libertarian ideology to democracy, to decency and justice would be welcome. The repudiation of profit as the prime or only measure of good is essential. The recognition that cooperation can be far more effective than competition in many areas of the economy could lead to far greater prosperity and advances in science that benefit humanity, not tethered to some CEO living the high life. Yes, a good deal more than free speech is needed.
12
I think its time we eschewed playing the anthem before commercialized sporting events, anyway. What's the point of it anyway? They're not civic rituals, but moneymaking entertainments...
1
Long past time. The national anthem before a game is kind of disgusting when you really think about it.
Prior to 2009, the NFL Operations Manual required teams to be on the sidelines for the playing of the national anthem EXCEPT for primetime televised games, when the teams would emerge from the locker rooms AFTER the anthem had been played. There is no reason this latter approach should not be the norm going forward for ALL games.
Furthermore, the military should stop paying the NFL for the flyovers and the service personnel handling outsized American flags on the field prior to games. The NFL has monetized patriotism, just as it has monetized sex (the cheerleaders), violence (the game itself), and the physical well-being of its players (CTE).
54
Where would we be without freedom of speech especially on college campuses. We would still be a country where slavery and Jim Crow is still practiced; where women are still chattel with no rights to an education, control over their bodies, or a right to their own money let alone the ability to vote; and a nation where LGBT people could be fired, denied housing, and otherwise discriminated against. The civil rights movement, womens rights movement, LGBT rights movement, and the battle to end the Vietnam war all started on college campuses and in churches across the country. We are who we are because of free speech.
As for the NFL, the national anthem needs to go. You can't play the anthem and then tell NFL players they have no right to protest while it's played. The NFL chose to monetize patriotism to help attract more soldiers and to help Americans feel good about the troops they have largely ignored. A veteran told Colin Kaepernick that kneeling down before the flag wasn't disrespectful and he would have a greater understanding than the hypocrites who don't stand for anything other than their sports and beer.
Conservatives and liberals may not disagree but free speech gives us a chance to persuade each other and perhaps meet in the middle. The day we stop talking to each other is the day we're truly in trouble. Free speech allows us to evolve as new information becomes available. That's what makes America great.
24
You certainly (still) have free speech as a citizen. Not necessarily as an employee. It’s been this way as long as I can recall. Employers set rules for expected behavior of their employees as it relates to their clients or customers. No one knows how many calls or emails the NFL teams received from their customers that stated they didn’t like to turn on a football game and see what they perceived as their traditional actions , players standing and saluting our flag during the anthem, being hijacked for a political protest.
The NFL responded as is their right to do so. They changed their policy. Accept it and move on or write/call them and let your opinion be known.
I for one want far less politics thrust upon me and not more especially at expensive to view sporting events. This week the protest is about this topic but next week it could be about abortion, gay marriage or immigration. Where will it end?
So NFL players, show up, suit up, stand up and follow you company’s policies. Outside of work, protest 24 by 7 if you want.
Just let me watch the game, enjoy the anthem and forget politics for a few hours.
This has worked well for years!
4
Norville,
I'm sure it's worked well for years......for You.
Interesting how you say you want to just forget politics. But it was Trump (and his trusty sidekick, Pence) who have done all they can to politicize this. And you take his side. And then you say you want to just "forget politics for a few hours".
It's amazing how many Trump supporters are suddenly well-versed in employment law.
I'm sure that you would feel the same way if players were forbidden to wear MAGA hats.
How about you play the anthem at home, right before the game, and while you're at it, pay particular attention to the phrase "land of the free".
I highly doubt you've ever had to worry about the possibility of experiencing what happened to a Milwaukee NBA player recently for taking up two handicapped spaces outside a drug store. Six cops were at the scene, and they were clearly out-of-control and spoiling for a confrontation. They shouted at him and surrounded him like a pack of hyenas, and proceeded to throw him violently to the floor and taser him (of course, the police version is that they "decentralized" him (whatever that means) and he was lowered to the floor "in a controlled manner")...What a despicable coverup.
Unfortunately, incidents like the one above (or worse) happen regularly to people with a skin color other than white. This is the reality many American citizens face.
You can choose to acknowledge or ignore this.
As they used to say on football broadcasts, "You Make The Call"!
"...tolerance and magnanimity are virtues that our society...need[s] to cultivate. But...these virtues depend on deeper forms of wisdom and consensus, and they can’t always sustain themselves in cultures and institutions that are simply going bad...the idea of free speech is part of a superstructure that can easily be pulled apart from below by contending factions, or crumble when its cultural foundation disappears...
"...sometimes the problems are bad enough that the procedural approach isn’t a solution. And with due respect to the First Amendment, I think this is one of those times."
Staggering - and despairing - are the effects on this reader of Mr Douthat's contention that the basic predicates for free speech are so eroded as to preclude realizing the benefits widely understood for centuries to be derived/derivable from its exercise.
That Mr D would express it IMO warrants its being considered by thoughtful and fair minded persons. Worsening these effects is that Mr D offers no suggestion that anything might even begin restoration of these predicates; nor is any such apparent. "O tempora o mores."
1
This op-ed is wordy nonsense trying to make connections where none exist. Of course the NFL is making a business decision. If you notice the penalty for kneeling during the anthem is a fine. This places them in a win-win situation regarding revenue - possibly.
The decision itself also creates an entirely new issue. Some players who didn't care to take a knee may now choose to do so in order to send a message to the owners.
The central problem with having Kaepernick as a bellwether to this movement, is that as a football player, he is essentially expendable. A crisis for the NFL will come when someone who commands ratings - a Tom Brady or Aaron Rogers - decides to do the right thing.
Veteran players need to show some back bone. I'm praying for some mass kneeling.
Suppression of free speech has nothing to do with patriotism.
37
Of course free speech in itself is not a solution: it's a precondition for solutions to be worked out. It's not superstructure but an essential part of the structure. Yes, the recent movements to suppress free speech (by the Trump administration, by the NFL, by some on college campuses) are motivated by deeper problems in society and culture, and we're badly in need of ideas to solve those deeper problems. But even the best ideas won't help us if they can't be freely expressed and rationally debated. We're caught in a vicious circle, but getting everyone to agree on norms for free and respectful discourse (and protest) may be our best hope for starting to break out if it.
2
"The reasons for that counterprotest [against the kneeling athletes] include an admirable patriotism ..."
The "patriotism" of Mr. Trump, the NFL owners and the other counter protestors is anything but admirable. They believe only white Americans are real patriots. They believe one must worship the flag and genuflect before the military.
They have it all wrong. In America the military reports to civilians. The flag is important because it stands for free speech, the rule of law, etc. And real patriots are skeptical, independent, thoughtful, decent and tolerant.
102
And real patriots pay taxes...as opposed to Donald and the Grand Old Phonies who love to bankrupt the national treasury with their billionaire tax-cut welfare programs.
37
"But if every protester suddenly fell silent, the atmosphere in elite academia would still be kind of awful — and not only from a conservative perspective."
Wouldn't it be strange if students and instructors at universities dealt with their own disciplines? Between teaching, doing research and serving as advisers to graduate and post-graduate students, faculty would seem to have enough to keep them busy. Students have more than enough in their course material to keep them busy too.
But what about that vibrant academic and intellectual community? Firstly there is no reason that this should be in a university.This model is very much today a US one, fueled by students paying such high tuition that they want their money's worth as a college experience. Those students who have to work and might be married with families, usually concentrate on study. Those students in countries which heavily subsidize higher education tuition usually also want to stick to their topic and not endanger their support.
Does this harm the university experience? Does it make for worse chemistry or math or sociology? Not in my opinion.
In my classroom there will be no politics and nothing extraneous to the discipline being studied. There is also no "free speech". My rules and they have worked for 4 decades.
4
How does education and society advance when people / students are frozen into such limited expectations?
6
To Scott Johnson
Education advances just fine in my classroom in my field. And it will advance just fine in my colleagues fields. My students come to university for an education in field X or Y. This too will advance society. Why should political discussion take place in a university? Or in my classroom? How does that advance society. That should be taken someplace else.
On one hand you have universities struggling with a difficult and at times complex balance; on the other we have the President of the United States, openly hostile to the free press, and promising to "open up" libel and slander laws. These things are not equivalent.
13
The problem is that Americans - the real Americans that generate advertising revenue and ticket sales - think free speech is only a right and not a responsibility. It was written to prevent Congress, specifically, from silencing the expression of political opinions - but it implies that we all, we the People, expect those views to be articulated without hindrance.
The scenario in which the President of the United states has used his bully pulpit twitter account to suppress this silent articulation of angst, this scenario is frightening.
20
Can you envision a scenario where the NFL fans are forced to buy tickets to games when they had stopped because they did not want to watch a few millionaire players behaving like prima donnas? How about a scenario that forced NFL fans to turn their television sets to the game although they did not want to watch the few millionaire players behaving like prima donnas?
That's what the NFL owners responded to: the loss of revenue that provides the million dollar+ salaries for the players.
1
I have never worked for an employer who would tolerate political or religious protests in the workplace - period. Every NFL player has his free speech before and after the game. To compare the NFL owners seeking to keep divisive political acts out of their place of business to left wingers attempting to silence speech in the public square is an abusive comparison.
14
I agree with you.
Except that I have never worked for an employer whose business model depends on "performers" entertaining hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people while making money by selling patriotism.
Perhaps if the NFL had not monetized patriotism, you'd have a point.
93
Have you ever worked for an employer which the Department of Defense subsidizes to parade you in "patriotic" propaganda parades, in support of causes with which you might disagree? That is what's actually happening to NFL players. They are being forced into overtly political (yes, the military IS political - its funding, its recruitment, its deployment, everything about it) marketing stunts and you're complaining that they're being political about it.
1
Seb, all businesses try to associate with people, groups and events that they think enhance their product and the NFL is no different. Ever work for an employer that tries to get employees volunteering for various causes and the photos are in the paper with the company name? I don't know why you think that makes political statements by employees in the workplace ok.
What I hear you saying in your article reminds me of that classic Monty Python skit about The Argument. Paying to argue and the only retort from the "professional" is " no, it isn't" or "yes, it is". As the ability for us collectively to have meaningful debates with well informed points and counterpoints seemingly has disappeared in favor of the "drop the mic" moment, I fear the re-tribalization of our culture threatens to create an ungovernable population. What is man-made can be man-unmade, and I feel as though, as you point out, "A classical liberalism that only wants to defend its own right to argue... will end up talking only to itself.[sic]", will indeed become the new normal for all tribes unless there is a path to salvation of civil discourse that respects all well informed positions. Simply saying "no it isn't" or "yes it is" has to return to the annals of comic misanthropy.
4
People can't argue properly anymore because (a) that's not on the corporate-drafted standardized tests, and (b) because our brains are like the rest of our bodies in that they are what they eat (i.e., getting a ton of tiny amounts of trivial information by tapping your smartphone all day is a poor substitute for in-depth reading of books and academic papers).
Freedom of anything only works when people know and care enough to exercise those freedoms responsibly.
"Liberal democracy," as we call it, is contingent on the maintenance of a robust civic culture via social norms. Part of the burden of possessing freedoms is that you must respect them by knowing when it is appropriate to exercise them. That, in turn, requires people to understand what role they play in society.
And this is where we have a problem; before our Constitution guaranteed the right to free speech, it declared certain humans to be "three-fifths of a person". Much, if not most, of the country doesn't even think the consequences of this history can be felt in the present. But hey - that's a subject for the humanities, right?
Humanities aren't having an existential crisis. They are under sustained, systematic attack by the capitalist class, who understand that the humanities disciplines teach students the importance of distrusting concentrated power. We still have every reason to be here, and students who want to study, but the state and federal government don't want to fund our programs because we've come to believe, as a society, that is our sole providence on this Earth to be worker bees for gigantic multinational corporations.
You're so close to seeing it, Ross. It's staring you in the face. Keep it up and you'll hear the whispers in the back of your head, soon: "Marx was right."
21
Ross, hadn't you heard?
Taking a knee doesn’t matter. Demonstrating in public spaces doesn’t matter. Letters to the editor don’t matter. Petitioning lawmakers doesn’t matter. Even op-eds or their electronic equivalent don’t matter - unless they are delivered on Fox & Fiends. Nothing matters except one thing: as today's interpretation of the first amendment has it, not only is money speech, but it is the dominant currency thereof.
35
Playing the national anthem at the beginning of each game makes patriotism part of the job, and that in itself is wrong. If you don't think players should be able to express their political opinions by kneeling, then stop making patriotic display part of a job that in all other ways has nothing to do with politics. Forced displays of patriotism are the emptiest kind.
If you want to take politics out of football games, cut out the anthem.
576
The anthem is not "political" because it does not advocate for an issue or position. Rather it is a common expression of our solidarity, black or white, liberal or conservative, for our country, people, and the defenders of our freedom. If you find that political, then I'm not sure what you would exclude from the category.
4
No, let the players take a knee in protest.
15
@MFW
You state that the anthem is an expression of national solidarity and is not political. My question is: To whom is it a symbol of solidarity?
It depends on your perspective as to whether the national athem is political. The national anthem is the symbol or the representaion of a nation and its political system.
During Apartheid, Black South Africans did not cheer the national sports teams or recognize that national anthem. Why? Because the anthem represented a political system and a country that denied them their basic human rights.
To the oppressed minorities, the playing of the oppressors' anthem is a constant reminder that they are denied full and equal participation into the system/society.
It is hard to claim an anthem is an expression of solidarity when after that player takes off his sports uniform and then walks out of the stadium or arena, he can be subjected to dehumanizing interactions and possibly life threatening assaults by those who wear police uniforms or by ordinary citizens ...simply because of the color of that player's skin.
Until there is true equality...stating the anthem is an apolitical expression of national solidarity is patently false. And by forcing Black athletes to forego protests of systemic inequities, reinforces the notion that Black free speech doesn't matter and that Blacks are indeed second class citizens.
Given the reasons why the players are protesting (and the ever-increasing evidence validating those reasons), the question of whether to support those players is simple -- morally speaking.
It's a shame that some folks confuse themselves over such an easy question. They say it's because of money.
But the rest of us know it's only because of themselves.
11
Mr. Douthat seems to think that the problems we face as a culture are too big to solve with free sepeech. Those problems are not going to be solved by repressing speech either. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Douthat believes the Catholic Church should have been able to repress the freedom of speech expressed Saturday by the voters of Ireland. Democracy, even in a Democratic republic, cannot be without freedom of speech.
16
For its own employees, the Times has now chosen a different approach.
“We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy,” the memo warned. “While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.”
Remember, when NFL players take a knee, they do so in the uniforms of their employers, in a workplace paid for by their employers, and before a TV audience provided by their employers.
By contrast, while someone might be identified on, say, Twitter as a Times reporter, it’s not a Times platform.
In this sense, a reporter posting on Facebook is more akin to Mr. Kaepernick’s appearing at, say, a Black Lives Matter rally, off hours and out of uniform.
Mr. Douthat is on a roll in the last couple weeks, and he continues this weekend.
I liken the free speech problem to the "Repeal and Replace" dilemma of Obamacare. Free speech advocates attack their institutional enemies just as the House Republicans attacked Obamacare, passing symbolic repeal, after symbolic repeal.
When they got real power to do so, they failed in large part because they and America at large realized there wasn't anything to their campaign besides bomb-throwing rhetoric.
I see no parallel to the NFL protests. NFL players creating awareness is not the same as students or trolls shouting down their enemies in the name of free speech.
But, if the current university system were disposed of by either left or right, neither side would know what to do. They are not institution builders, they are screamers and disrupters. Spectacle for its own sake that only ever repeals the freedom of others.
8
So, what are the "substantive" approaches to finding solutions to the societal problems you enumerate in academia, Silicon Valley, and professional football? Can you at least enunciate a substantive argument to help solve one of these impasses? Or, is the basic construct you have provided, that "free speech" is only a "procedural" tool, incorrect and self-limiting?
Evolving constitutional law has furnished many examples of "speech" which is, or is not, deserving of protection in our society. This can ably serve as a starting point in our attempts to reach some real solutions in those problem areas. To simply abandon the concept of "free speech" itself is defeatist and an easy way to avoid the difficult conversations that must be made.
4
When people speak and listen only to those like views it validates their views and gives them a sense of belonging to a community of like minded people. While one is saying what one wants it is not what freedom of speech is about.
To enjoy the challenge of listening to and sharing dissimilar views and so to consider what we know and think in a different context is actually enjoying free speech, free expression, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to change one’s mind. When that has value, the tolerance of considering different views and the willingness express different views is important and most people will accept it even if they disagree with what is accepted.
Dutch, Finns, Norwegians, live among like-minded people, yet they have much more freedom than we do. A country like ours which has become mired in ideologies is one that has no freedom. We are all constantly fighting a status quo in which we have no rights at all. There is the rich elite, and the rest of us. We are like helpless brats throwing tantrums, whose parents ignore them. Until we have economic security and freedom from violence in this country, our "freedom" is nothing but noise. In a decent country, where people have real freedom, people do not need to protest so much.
The kneeling during the National Anthem is not a free speech issue. If it were, we'd be saying all the football players and all the cheerleaders could protest or advocate for whatever cause they wanted during the National Anthem ritual.
5
NFL's attitude is rooted more in the Republican concept of ownership privilege. Just as conservatives of the 60's thought store owners should be allowed to choose which race can sit at their lunch counter, so too in the NFL the owner is the master, and the players who toil to make their profits are commodities. Republican philosophy is not only a racial thing, though the trope of that weed is a strong one. It is more a worship of the corporate over the individual; all wage earners are inferior to their corporate masters, and while all are humans are "equal" some are "more equal" and the ultimate metric of human worth is literally, human worth measured in price tags. There has been a rot in American values due to conservative political philosophy. Sad.
13
.....1860's conservative thought is more like today's GOP, Ghost.
Grand Old Plantation 2018
18
I see a direct parallel.
Yes, I think Mr. Douthat is correct. He has done a much better job here of skewering both left and right where they each justly deserve it, as well as the plutocracy and others. Good column.
6
Censorship rears its ugly head.
At a panel discussion at George Washington University, Mr. Baquet was blunt about why he’s going all Mike Ditka on the social media accounts of his employees. It’s vital, he says, to institutional credibility. He wants to be able to say of Times coverage that “we’re doing this because it’s journalistically sound, we’re not doing this because we have a vendetta or [because] we’re trying to take him out, and I can’t do that if I have 100 people working for the New York Times sending inappropriate tweets.”
It’s an eminently sane argument—even if rooted in the premise that the Times will be discredited by more honesty about what its reporters really think.
Those "politically incorrect" pundits you mention often have not much to say aside from insults, vitriol and exaggerations. Today, with all too powerful partisan media like Fox harkening back to the antics of the 18th/19th centuries, real free speech requires honest, respectful dialogue by its proponents. As long as they adhere to that model they're on the high road, e.g. Skokie, Illinois and the ACLU. While Trump trashes honest media for his personal purposes (as candidly admitted by him) he merely raises the stakes. Free speech will out. It always has.
4
EMiller writes of "all too powerful partisan media like Fox". How is Fox more powerful than CNN and MSNBC?
Would you restrict the rights of viewers to choose their own news sources?
Would you prefer news using a model such as Russian state-run newspapers Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News)?
In Russia, the people say, "There is no Pravda in Izvestia and there is no Izvestia in Pravda”.
1
The absence of free speech will condemn the United States to a dictatorship, of that we can be certain. Trump himself has confessed to labeling the mainstream media as "fake news" to discredit accurate stories about his countless misdeeds.
More fundamentally, it is a serious mistake to describe what is happening in the United States as a battle between liberals and conservatives, It is a struggle for the survival of our nation and our democracy. It is a battle between Trumpists and those who care sincerely about the future of our country. Trumpists have no respect for the Constitution, no respect for American traditions and cannot distinguish the Apprentice Reality TV show from truly governing our nation. Trumpists live in a closed-in fantasy world where Trump will always be a decent man no matter how many people he shoots on 5th Ave.
That millions of American's could be conned into believing that Trump and the powerful manipulators behind him would look after their welfare is testament to the strength of the entrenched Fox/Breibart propaganda machine, which is the voice of the super-wealthy right wing extremists that have taken over our country. The United States is now just like those so-called Banana Republics that have undergone a right wing coup.
We need free speech for certain. Agreed that It is not enough, as is said here, because we also need an electorate committed to voting in order to save this nation, not from conservatism, but from outright fascism.
14
We have free speech, but no other freedom. We can talk and write all we like, but we have no economic security, no freedom from violence or excessive and unfair taxation, an injustice system, racism and sexism. Our vaunted "freedom" is nothing but empty words. I'm tired of all the noise and all the yak yak yak. Give me real freedom. Give me equal rights with all citizens. Give me fair taxation, affordable health care, affordable housing, affordable child care and elder care. Stop looting our savings and taxing our homes and incomes until there is nothing left. Tax the rich. We have no freedom in this country. It's a feudal system. You can scream and talk all you like, but until we have justice it's just words, words, words.
2
It simply cannot be over stressed that the legality of the "hecklers veto" on so-called "liberal" college campuses is both unique to public educational institutions and is also a direct consequence of conservative public officials seeking to silence student dissent over free speech, civil rights, and the Vietnam war.
Whether defending Milo Yianopolous or Charles Murray, these arguments amount to lazy cherry picking at best, or cynical dishonesty at worst.
4
'Follow The Money' to find out why decisions are made.
I'm guessing the primary motivator of football organisation decisions is 'will we win or lose - MONEY !?'
5
Right - when NFL fans made their decisions to not buy tickets and to not watch games on TV, the team owners realized 'there go profits'..........and the players realized 'there go million dollar per year salaries'.
1
It's almost impossible to grasp your columns because they jump from one slick generalization to another, from beginning to end. Readers jump in and try to grab one or two points to comment on, but the overall "meaning" of your columns slips through their fingers. I put meaning in quotes because it's never clear that your columns have a core meaning. They seem to be an assemblage of your assumptions and pet points modified a little to apply to the supposed topic of the column.
Here's an example. Your definition of a university is, "An incoherent mix of ambitious scientism and post-Protestant moralism and simple greed would still be the ruling spirit." So universities have an excessive regard for scientific inquiry (how much science is too much?), uphold a single secular morality derived from a single tradition (have you talked to any actual college faculty or students recently?), and are committed to ripping off students (do you know that faculty don't set tuition rates?). Magically, these incoherent elements coalesce in a powerful "ruling spirit." Sorry, Milo!
I would ask a student who stated your generalization (or anything similar across the political spectrum) to prove it. I wouldn't dismiss it because the generalization doesn't fit the rigid ideological categories allegedly enforced by universities. I would ask the student to argue the point of view and provide evidence so the class and I could evaluate it. Luckily for you, you're held to a lower standard of proof.
134
I actually read his criticism of colleges as being a criticism of how donor dollars have twittered the missions of colleges away from liberal arts and toward being being "hedge funds with libraries."
However, it is difficult to to discern what exactly he is trying to say. Maybe he should learn to use thesis statements in his essays?
5
BE,
Thank you for that. I was beginning to question if that there was something wrong with me.... because every time I read Ross, I have a very hard time figuring out what he's talking about.
7
And the point is? We should curtail free speech?
6
It almost reads that way. "Free speech alone won't solve all our problems, so why bother with it?"
Tribalism teaches us to dehumanize, for which the only antidote is empathy. Empathy requires understanding, which requires learning, which requires asking questions, which requires listening, which requires not talking. It's not a complete solution, but it's a good place to start.
So, tell me, what do you think?
9
Free speech does not require that one silences one’s adversary by shouting him down but rather that one overcomes the frailties or faults in the arguments or positions of one’s adversary by reasoned debate. The model is the alleged market place ideas. That is what we should be striving to engage in.
It’s difficult to do that when billion dollar corporations control the megaphones but we must continue to strive to do that and to turn around thenwrong head position fo the Supreme Corporate Court that allows corporations to use their unlimited resources and eternal life to shout us all down and support the most divisive and corrosive groups in order to divide and conquer.
Ross, as usual, wants to ignore the elephant, both figuratively and, in the form of the GOP literally, the ability of corporate wealth and religious leaders who are bank rolled with our tax dollars to silence us all.
11
Seems to me all this shouting down business was started by the TeaBags at Obama's first run for president. Am I close, or did I miss something? I don't remember much in the way of really bad manners prior to that. Where were you when all that began, Ross? Busy doing that republican thing - you know, - making "labels" for everything and making sure everyone learned the label FOR everything?
1
To save us from our severely corrupted modern world, Douthat says (perhaps rightly) that free speech alone will not complete the task. He calls us back to the superior morality of the catholic church to save us from a spirit of, "An incoherent mix of ambitious scientism and post-Protestant moralism and simple greed." To demonstrate the need for spiritual renewal, our present social environment is set over against a, "A classical liberalism that only wants to defender its own right to argue".
If this is an accurate depiction of the liberalism at work in American culture today, perhaps what we need is a recommitment to a more robust liberalism that emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility, rationalism, equality, democracy and the rule of law. But I think more likely that Douthat's is just a straw man liberalism pieced together so he can argue that our social problems are so profound we must flee to the salvific embrace of organized religion. The other shoe to drop of course is it is only one religion is efficacious in his mind.
6
Ross wants to bring back religion. That's not likely The big threat on the horizon, only getting attention on the fringe, is some form of singularity (humans merging with AI and the web). In less than 50 years the definition of what it means to be human is going to change radically and all of the issues of today (assuming we don't have a world ending nuclear war) will seem insignificant.
In the meantime, yes. More free speech. Of course.
1
Gratifying to see Mr. Douthat has recognized the complexity of our problems with speech, especially here in the era of social media. But as far back as Plato's "Republic" we have the devilishly difficult problem of lies and their consequences. Plato would have banned poetry because of its fictional component, but in today's arena of free speech absolutism, there is no penalty for conscious lies, and a large percentage of our voting citizens have neither the desire nor the skill to check facts. Yes, "Free Speech Will Not Save Us," and could in these perilous times endanger us, as now seems the case. Worst of all, no remedy seems close to hand, unless our political leaders suddenly discover such antique values as honor and probity. Not likely.
2
The NFL packages its media deals in violation of the antitrust laws. They are allowed to do this because Congress gave the NFL an exemption in the Sports Broadcasting Act. Ironic that the NFL is allowed to exercise free speech the way it wants to but doesn't extend its players the same privilege.
12
"Free Speech Will Not Save Us"
It did in the 60's Ross. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands of protesters, some of who lost their lives we have a strong civil rights bill. And let's not forget how those anti Vietnam war protests help to shorten the war.
Without our free speech we have nothing!
28
Should we not note that the NFL, an employer, is only regulating employee speech in the workplace, as do many, if not most
private employers. These athletes are free to protest anything they want on their own time, and if there were an attempt to regulate that, a very different issue would be presented.
10
I wholeheartedly support the players' message and protest. However, as much as I would like their message to be heard and effectuated, unfortunately, they are not empowered to do so while they are employed with their corporate team. Each team has owners and a Board of Directors, who make corporate policy. Players, having reported to work like any other employee, are contractually obligated to follow their employer's policies and all material terms of their employment agreements. Those contracts spell out the boundaries of acceptable conduct as long as the player is the face and agent of the team. The law has long upheld the employer's ability to restrict an employee's exercise of 1st Amendment free speech during whatever time frame is defined as "work." Apparently, in this instance the NFL players' union has not negotiated a different result for the players. Further, the players haven't filed a lawsuit, asking those portions of their contracts to be declared null and void. Unless and until either occurs, as with any other employee,the player is duty bound to comply with the contract. Any player who doesn't like the contract and corporate policies can choose to disengage employment within the contractual provisions. In the meantime, in the appropriate forums outside of employment, I hope the players will fully and frequently exercise their 1st Amendment rights, using their wealth, prestige and fame to do so.
Free speech has been under assault since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision equated free speech and money. Free speech has been further eroded by the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the Citizens United decision that accorded corporations the citizenship status that allows them to spend as much money as they wish to practice "free speech".
The Supreme Court apparently didn't consider a lack of free speech when there is no money.
As things now stand in 2018, there is no free speech without money. If you have money, you have the ability to speak freely. If you have no money, you cannot speak.
16
In reality the particular examples used by Douthat have nothing to do with the First Amendment (a/k/a "Free Speech") -- which only applies to governmental restriction on speech (by the federal government in the Bill of Rights, by States through the Civil War amendments).
Neither events at private universities (where most of Douthat's incidents have occurred) nor at the NFL (except for Trump's outrageous interventions) relate to government action.
But Douthat is exactly correct that the problem is much deeper - a culture in profound crisis, with the appalling (non-majority) election of a person who personifies almost every malignancy that has grown among us as our supposed (bitterly opposed by probably a majority) leader.
8
Very well put. The problem is not procedural at its root but rather reflects the fraying of the underlying social contract. Every social cycle has both its positive and negative qualities, and we seem to reap the positive at the beginning of the cycle and wrestle with the negative at the end. The American melting pot initially brought together diverse energies from a wide variety of cultural sources that blended together to create often amazing and unexpected synergies.
But the melting pot is more about surfaces than depth. In our current difficult times the imperfect patchwork nature of the American quilt has come to be the dominant social reality. We are strangers tossed together rather recently in historical terms who lack the deep levels of mutual trust that only lengthy and organically intertwined relationships can sustain. The pressure of contemporary challenges has driven us apart and is overwhelming our democratic institutional framework, which requires at least a minimum of trust and cooperation to function successfully. All of this is made much worse by the fact that our common national culture increasingly seems to consist of little more than commercialized hedonism and a shallow quest for endless amusement.
2
It is interesting that Mr. Douthat fails to mention that suppression of ideas on college campuses is not just liberals silencing conservatives - it's also conservatives seeking to silence liberals. Consider, for example, the "Professor Watchlist" web site, dedicated to "naming and shaming" professors who, in the minds of conservatives, are pushing a radical liberal agenda. This identifies professors for right-wing activists to harass. Is this so very different than left-wing students heckling speakers pushing a radical right-wing agenda?
What we have is an epidemic of people so convinced that their beliefs are the nations's only hope that they feel justified in silencing their opponents. Enforcing free speech rights in the name of discussing the issues is the best way out of this morass. It's certainly better than forcibly silencing those with opposing views.
P.S.: To those mentioning Justice Holmes' quote that one can't shout fire in a crowded theater - this came from the Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). That case held that persons passing out leaflets criticizing the draft could be imprisoned for obstructing the draft. I'd suggest that we don't want to go back to the days when expressing unpopular ideas could result in imprisonment.
7
America's problem is not freedom of speech but an inability to listen. I don't know if America can be saved but if it can it will be by listening to what the other side is saying. Mitch McConnell may be honourable but he is the most destructive American on the planet. When Mitch didn't allow a hearing on the Garland nomination I believe he ended America's last hope and the shutting down of Elizabeth Warren my hopes for America ended.
The tree has fallen in the forest and nobody heard it crash.
45
Ross has tried to reach a conclusion about the general importance of free speech to our society based on the difficulty of deciding a few cases. It is way too complex an issue.
One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. (Duh) But universities have cancelled speeches of inflammatory speakers because of potential violence arising from protesters who elect to supersede the free speech rights of the speaker.
The speaker can still give his speech in another venue. NFL players can find another forum to express their grievances. And you may yell "fire" out in an open field, just not in a theater.
Practical considerations can indeed push Free Speech into a different forum than the speakers might wish, but it cannot wipe out that requirement.
But there are cases where "Free Speech" simply cannot override other considerations simply because there is no other forum. In the Citizens United case, acutely relevant to the present discussion, the Supreme Court has decided that Free Speech outweighs all other considerations. They are wrong! That decision blatantly destroys the ability of individual citizens to have an equal voice in selecting the candidates that they vote for. There is no other appropriate forum. That is a much better example of how Free Speech cannot reign supreme in a democratic society.
6
"The owners aren’t interested in standing up for their employees’ right to protest because their bottom line is threatened by Americans exercising their rights and turning off their televisions or ditching season tickets."
I can't believe the NFL is losing money because so many conservatives are disgusted with the way the African American players have knelt instead of standing during the national anthem.
That is so far fetched as to be laughable. No, the real reason is likely the concussion issue, the fact parents would like to get their kids to play, and watch the more wholesome soccer.
But boycott a sport that still appeals to so many in this country because of a Trump-inspired culture war? I don't think so.
Or maybe the drop off is in people disgusted with the phony patriotism of Donald Trump who equates love of country with saluting the flag at professional football game?
Yeah, the same president who evaded the Vietnam draft 5 times, attacked John McCain, and every day thumbs his nose at the constitution by attacking the free press, crossing the separation of powers, violating the emoluments clause, and groveling before Evangelicals to gain their support by violating the separation of church and state, is a huge patriot.
Donald Trump loves to exercise his own freedom of speech by shooting off his mouth whenever he opens it--he just doesn't want those who would criticize him to have the same freedoms.
381
As I wrote in response to gemli, Christine, it is a peculiarly American idea that the commercial rights of one individual can supercede the free speech expression rights of another individual if the latter are seen to eat into the profits of the former.
No other first world nation that I know of thinks those rights are even.
But in the United States, the idea that athletes can be penalized by an employer and a league for expressing a political viewpoint unrelated to the actual conduct of that employer's actual business is actually debated seriously. We have extensive free speech rights, but have often required they be abandoned at the workplace door.
This is not the case in most of the rest of the economically advanced world, where workers have considerably greater protections. And we need to examine (Social Darwinism? Calvinism? Citizens' United? Private election funding?) why it happens here.
45
Yes, and now that the dinosaurs on the Supreme Court have forced all employees of workplaces into arbitration clauses, rather than preserving their class action rights, we have even fewer rights than we did last week. MAGA, indeed.
The Constitution, Mr. Ribotsky, only speaks the the GOVERNMENT passing laws to restrict the freedom of speech, religion or assembly.
It says nothing about the rights of private individuals to do so, nor does it say anything about the rights of employers to require a certain behavior of their employers.
Your understanding of our Constitution and the implications of the rights and limits imposed thereby is woefully lacking, sir.
Once those in power controlled every narrative, and avoided the contradictions of logic and false statements in their beliefs. Once, those who are white claimed political cover, like wolves in sheeps' clothing, pretending to be defenders of valor and virtue, as statues of bronze were placed on public pedestals to honor their willingness to fight fo narrow privilege and a rigid social order controlled by violence imbued in their authority.
Once they attacked Harriet Tubman and offered $40,000 for her death or capture, because she made way with a few runaway slaves who the men offering the bounty could kill without fear.
Now comes new voices of this tradition, drawing upon Justice Taney and SC's Sen. Tillman, lifting up White Citizens Councils and Justice Powell's 1971 memo, with Nixon, Reagan, and Atwater strategy, in the modern era fueled by talk radio that smears student survivors and separates liberty from freedom; a police officer's knee or bullet is acceptable but a silent knee in peace is not--as false equivalencies and payoffs reign and children are lost during their internment.
Now comes Ross, his indignation reversing facts to fit ideology, in a narrative that is a simple grab for power, creating connections where none exists.
In history, America's white supremacists by any name built power through imaginary threats and flag wrapping their response. And deflecting. So we speak of free speech--not missing, lost or dead children. Free speech--not blood spilled.
143
Walter, that is an excellent response. I wish that it could be read by all. Free speech should mean responsible speech. To rationalize injustices should not be protected free speech. Too often we use our intellect to rationalize our prejudices.
11
Mr. Douthat, you suggest that free speech will not cure polarization, or problems in academia, big-time sports, or race relations. Is "cure" a relevant bar?
It also won't make us all healthy, stop climate change, or end violence against women.
Is free speech a cure? No. Is it required to progress? Yes.
Lack of free speech makes all of these problems worse whether it's limiting what a doctor can tell a patient because of religious pressure, or what a scientist can report because of political pressure, or silencing woman who have been abused by powerful men, or fining athletes who are useful props for a racist president, or trying to quiet just about everyone with a different opinion in academia.
More free speech may not be the total cure of any of our most pressing problems but the increasing lack of respect for free speech is making many of these problems harder to address.
The #metoo movement is a good example as it demonstrates that more free speech may not be sufficient for a "cure" but it is necessary for improvement.
25
I find myself wanting freedom FROM speech nowadays. The constant arguing, oneupsmanship, bloviating rhetoric makes me literally feel sick. I get queasy, have a headache and am nxiety-ridden a lot of the time. The only way to deal with it is to unplug from it all and yet I can't...its got me in its grip. It seems that everything, all of our institutions, are in crisis. Somehow we have got to work our way through this not knowing what the outcome will look or be like.
10
Ann, you might try learning to spend one entire day completely away from worldliness. Long. long ago, it was suggested that every seventh day would be a good idea. That seems realistic.
Thank you Harold.
"... an admirable patriotism?"
Oh, Mr. Douthat, why is patriotism admirable? Who said it should be? These N.F.L. owners aren't patriotic; they're greedy capitalists who want a huge profit margin that comes with as little capital outlay for labor and ancillaries as possible. And the ancillaries include, with few exceptions, heavily taxpayer-funded stadia.
The N.F.L. owners also lug around the baggage of "a typical conservative cluelessness about black grievances...and the toxic identity politics that Donald Trump is constantly encouraging." The owners see their employees not as human beings in the context of citizenship and due process but as chattel, owned and mortgaged and appreciated or depreciated on whim.
The N.F.L. playing make-up is roughly 70% black. But the owners' appreciation of the value of their majority-labor force is non-existent, feudal and punitive. Accompanying that duffel bag of "cluelessness" is the owners' inability to understand history as their players do. They've never lived close to the edge where a casual wave may be interpreted, in a rolling-by squad car, as a gang signal, a prelude to violence.
And exactly what does "The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrate? Or, more precisely, whom? I say that the national anthem represents a nod to white supremacy and that every owner knows and endorses that concept.
It has been written elsewhere that the National Football League is a grand planation with the players as field hands--literally.
Mr. Douthat?
57
You missed something. It is the admirable patriotism of the boycotting fans that Mr. Douthat refers to, not that of the owners who, as you note, are in it for the money. And of course the "chattel" players make millions of dollars. So much for indentured servitude.
There will even more boycotting "fans" now. That should make everyone happy!
Now question to J Waddell: how many millions of dollars is sufficient to have your ability to express legitimate grievance squelched? How much would you sell out for?
Not one single player has had his ability to express grievances, legitimate or otherwise, on his own time. If they really feel they’re selling out, they can always quit.
the issue of kneeling for the anthem at the start of a football game is not an issue of free speech. the NFL is a private organization (although it does get an anti-monopoly dispensation from the government) and as such it has every right to control the speech of its employees. if they dont like it they can quit. free speech is only an issue when speech is constrained by one of the many layers of government. free speech is the most important of our freedoms. we all like to at one time or another rail against the stupidity of the government or a politician. what we dont want is to have to worry about one of our neighbors or children over hearing us and turning us in to the authorities.
30
And there should be no problem with telling store employees to say "Happy Holidays," right?
The First Amendment may not apply. I'm honestly unsure if employers have carte blanche to police an employee's speech, or if some limitations apply so long as the work itself is not affected.
That said, the ideal of free speech can go beyond the First Amendment. We hold the value that people should be allowed to voice their opinion and grievances without undue punishment, private or public. Both sides make this argument, that a business should not go out of business just because it refuses to serve a gay wedding, that a Google worker shouldn't lose his job over his opinions on hiring women programmers, etc.
No, this ideal doesn't hold legal weight, but it does have some societal pull.
6
I do take issue with the idea that a private organization has the absolute right to control the speech of the people who toil for it.
How far does that right go? Is it only when the employee is "on the clock"? As we know, today most corporations/employees believe everyone is "on the clock" 24/7. Is it only when people are representing that entity in an "official" capacity? What does that mean? Where is that line drawn?
As I've written in a few other comments here, it is a peculiarly American concept that the free expression rights of one individual can be subservient to the economic profit-making rights of another individual or entity. Without even attacking the "corporations are people" trope, this is not an universally held notion.
13
Right. Like the NFL wouldn't seek "public" protection if the players ever did quite and formed their own league.
8
Another excellence piece by the indomitable Ross Douthat. There is no particular point I wish to disagree with, but one I wish to elucidate: With the great cost of college and my paucity of billions I am, unfortunately, not sending my last youngster, into the bosom of higher education to listen to controversial speakers of any denomination. The kids can debate ideology or politics like I did, for free in Vietnam's humid air or the rathskellers of a state college campus. Spending money on a Milo Yiannopoulos or the equivalent of Julian Assange seems like sacrilege to the sacred dollars I have committed to pushing my progeny toward a shrinking middle class. So in my case pragmatism is principle.
13
Let’s take away the NFL’s tax exempt status. Until they are not playing in my dime I will always encourage protest at NFL games.
13
Number one, the NFL is no longer tax exempt. Number two, even when the NFL OFFICE was tax exempt, it didn't receive any revenue. All that went to the individual teams, which have always paid taxes on their profits.
So you don't have to protest or encourage protest any more.
3
NFL is a total scam. They need suckers who have been robbed of their genuine community so that they will buy tickets to feel like they are part of something. That's another reason to encourage protest.
Or the covering up of brain injuries. Wonderful example for the children.
Yes, but tax dollars still go to building them giant fancy stadiums. Heck, even to build them new ones when they tire of the stadium they are using at the time.
RD is right about underlying causation. We've reached a point in this country where there is just nothing left to say. Reason or facts change no minds. The Right in particular lives on an island of argument in bad faith and the Left increasingly is writing them off as fundamentally evil. The problem is that we really fundamentally dislike moving-towards-hate each other and it is entirely the wealthy puppetmasters of the GOP who are responsible.
3
Mr. Douthat I kept waiting for you to get to the point, and all you left us with is: "But sometimes the problems are bad enough that the procedural approach isn’t a solution. And with due respect to the First Amendment, I think this may be one of those times." You did not explain what a solution might be. If you are trying to say that neither the far left nor far right is open to conversation with one another, I agree with that point. However, contrary to the title of this column, it is free speech that is exactly what will save us, because without it, all we are left with is an authoritarian state.
Free speech gave us Civil Rights, free speech gave women the right to vote, free speech gave women the right to choose, free speech gave us the right to marry whom you love, and free speech gave us a free press. I could go on and on about free speech, because it is one of the most valuable rights we have. This country was born in protest, and because of those liberals who were willing to protest and speak out.
So when I see someone taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem in protest to how racist this country has become, I applaud that protest. It is also a protest of enforced patriotism, which is a step closer to fascism. Why can we not have a conversation about that between liberals and conservatives?
94
The point, obscured in Mr. Douthat's deliberately confusing prose, is that Douthat rejects the very things you note that free speech has given us. Were Ross to clearly say what his solution to the problem of free speech is the Times would fire him.
3
On a local level here in Florida, the recent activities of students from Parkland seems to refute your argument. Organized as a protest against Publix, a large grocery retailer and supporting a pro-gun advocate for governor, students used their First Amendment rights, including speech, assembly and petitioning for redress of grievances against Publix’ support for the GOP candidate.
The result? Publix heard it from an aroused public in response to the Parkland students and the grocery chain pulled all campaign financing for the candidate.
These students wisely defined how to use their free speech and other First Amendment rights.
They will be the future and we need them now.
455
Correction, JT...Public pull funding from ALL political candidates and causes.
And, actually, I think that that is a move that more companies need to take...They should not be involved in our political debates, Citizens United notwithstanding.
But that is a different issue.
3
I don’t think so, The Owl, you see it is cause and effect in this Publix case. The uproar by the public was a direct result of the grocery chain openly supporting a candidate favored by the gun lobby.
The statement by the company about withdrawing all political funding was a way of saving face but it’s clear, it backed down after students used their free speech rights through a vigorous campaign.
Campus speech wars notwithstanding, our problem is hardly free speech but too much speech, enabled by the Internet, ubiquitous mobile devices and the desperate need for eyeballs for advertisers.
Americans often have the attention span of a butterfly in a field full of flowers. We flit from one colorful story flower to another, scarcely remembering what happened the day before.
And so we easily lose track of the big picture. So here's a few reminders:
Our education system, families and government are too often failing our children.
Our infrastructure is crumbling and we are well behind the developed world, including China, in high speed rail. And so we fly, using twice the carbon per passenger mile.
Our health care system is by far the most expensive, but we have worse health outcomes, both harming our global labor competitiveness.
Our carbon output per person is 3 times the global average, speeding our way to devastating climate change.
Out tax code was just changed to further advantage the wealthy, while leaving the rest with ruinous national debt.
And it appears that our President is actively engaged in an international organized crime network, laundering stolen public assets into private real estate, yachts, art and other assets.
Other than that and a few other details, everything is fine.
62
But it is still the greatest country in the world to live for me. And I was not born and raised here. But it fits me. Freedom is a precious thing. Europe is an option for many, but too structured and predictable life for me.
Ross argues an apocalyptic vision of civilization, basically that it’s going to hell, that the career down that infernal path appears to be unavoidable, and that one may as well commit one’s soul (or whatever) to immutable verities, such as the maleness and blondness of God.
His basic argument isn’t that free speech will not save us, but that NOTHING will save us but a return to “true” verities.
Yes, yes, I understand that he writes superficially today of free speech on campuses and gridirons, and his apparent argument is that all this palaver over the right to speak one’s mind means very little in reality if what fills one’s mind lacks real insight and substance. But he filters what some seek to say by a set of assumptions that determine substance, and those filters strain out what doesn’t conform to a very definite idea of healthy “community” based on HIS convictions.
I like all the palaver over free speech, because I subscribe to very few immutable verities, and those few don’t focus on the maleness and blondness of God. In any search for “truth”, we see innumerable strands of spaghetti thrown up against the refrigerator to see which actually stick. Without all those strands, it’s far more likely that we’ll end up with one man’s version of “truth”, and genuflecting before a tall, blond, blue-eyed god who also was inexplicably in life a Middle Eastern Semite with more than a ration of African blood in him.
6
I normally disagree with you but this is pretty good stuff! Thanks.
2
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct to any who want to a country where in’s freedom is not determined upon the power one can bring to bear. Trump’s ability to manipulate anyone into preventing it should be a big issue, but it’s not.
A few years back, when issues of free speech, of equality of opportunity, of disparities of wealth or of political power, of risks of war arose, the discussion became great and so did the analyses and debates over the best policies.
Since Trump entered the scene, the attention is focused upon him to the neglect of everything that is far more important. Trump’s actual effects upon our country and the world is not being considered in any meaningful way.
8
“...who want to live in a county where one’s...”
This won't be a popular opinion here, but I don't think Kaepernick had any business conducting a political protest on a football field. He is paid to entertain people by playing football at a high level. That is what the crowd is there to see, and they don't necessarily want to be reminded of political debates that they would like a break from.
Mr Kaepernick is perfectly free to engage in politics when he is not at work, which is most of the year. He might not get much attention, because there is no sign that he has anything very interesting to say. Pig socks is not the level of debate most people are looking for. There are other black people who are better writers and speakers than Kaepernick. They do a far better job of explaining the African American experience than Kaepernick does.
President Trump also has a job to do. War and peace. Jobs and wages. Immigration and trade. That is what he is supposed to be taking care of. The President's comments on the NFL players protest wasted our country's time on a trivial issue.
Both Mr Kaepernick and President Trump are feeding their egos and needs for attention rather than doing their jobs.
51
Yes, sort of -- but playing the national anthem at the beginning of the games ushers politics right into the arena and the job. A big step in the right direction would be to stop this practice.
I've never understood why they do this. We don't do it for plays and concerts, and I hope we never will.
296
If you want to be free to express yourself, other people are going to have to listen to you with forbearance. If you want to live in a well ordered society where all know their place and never complain, you may feel free from disturbances from others but you must keep your non-forming thoughts to yourself. Allowing players to take a knee in protest is a cheap price to pay for freedom.
39
The massive stadiums are built (and rebuilt) every couple of decades using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Certainly no politics employed there.
Free speech is different from branding and marketing which is the point of many speakers. Liberalism is about “reasoned” debate, not shouting matches.
7
I’m a liberal who doesn’t have much patience with the trigger-warning bunny-hugger set, but I see where their hypersensitivity might be coming from.
The Obama era unleashed a new kind of virulent conservatism that thought it was OK to lie about his birth and stonewall his every initiative. It gave human rights to corporations so that big money could elect favorable candidates. It promoted religion with evangelical zeal, using it to undo women’s rights and to rail against advances in LGBT rights.
So remaining politely silent while a conservative zealot spoke at a college campus might have seemed like conciliation, or at least like a kind of tolerance to intolerable ideas. After all, it was these kinds of protests in the ‘sixties that raised public awareness and ultimately led to advances in civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights in the first place.
Liberals have nothing to apologize for as long as the spokesman for the conservative Republican Party and commander in chief is an ignorant, small-minded con-man. His very presence means that conservatism is irredeemably polluted, and must not go unchallenged wherever it rears its head.
The nature of protests is to disturb the status quo. When black people are arrested for their mere presence in a coffee shop, or are routinely shot by police, it seems a fairly mild gesture to take a knee at a football game.
We fought for fairness and freedom for the past century. We know what it feels like. We're not going back.
612
Like you, Gemli, I am a proud liberal who had little patience with the realm of microaggression and trigger warning, and who tends to think that censorship is more to be feared than offensive speech and writing.
But I have usually understood this as a battle between "freedom to" and "freedom from", which tend to exist in uneasy flux with one another. One's freedom to express racist and sexist tropes violates another's right to not be subject to those tropes. The rights of oligarchs to expand their fortunes and influence conflicts with the rights of those to not be taken advantage of or silenced by the process of oligarchs doing so.
In the end, the balance is still likely best expressed by the sentiment that "the right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins"; the harm must be specific and demonstrable to curtail a "freedom to".
This does NOT lead directly to libertarianism; a harm does not have to be physical--it can certainly be economic, or political, and may call for concerted institutional action to create a "freedom from". What the EU is trying to do with its new internship privacy and personal data regulation falls is a reasoned example.
One thing I have a hard time with, though, is the curtailing of expression rights on the grounds it might hurt some other person's commercial,money making ones. The American (Calvinist) tendency to privilege a capitalist's right over a speaker's is, fortunately, not universally shared.
76
@Glenn. Interest concept of “freedom to” and “freedom from” but unlike physical harm, in the subject of speech, you do not have to listen or read an opinion. You have a choice. But why is it ok to prevent others from listening or reading someone’s opinion, simply because you do not agree ? You can justify it by reasoning that these ideas are bad for society (or the society that you want to live in). If you do not like it, don’t listen to it.
7
I agree with every point that you make in this fine post.
Silence is surrender!
16
Huh? Maybe I read this too fast but the point is lost on me.
Douthat states the NFL shut down the ability of athletes to protest violence because the owners have conflicting financial interests.
Which he couples with... American universities are dysfunctional because students fight over whether to allow free speech to views they dislike AND the humanities are too liberal and insular.
Ergo... self-defined fringe intellectuals with non-liberal ideas need to band together to create their own life philosophy and institutions so that their ideas can gain more traction?
The logic doesn't work for me. (Plus I'm not convinced the second coming of conservative thought will save humanity.)
What is Douthat trying to say? There is something fundamentally troubling about the current battles over ideas and rules and institutions? Or freedom of expression and religious thought alone does not make for a compelling social movement? The first amendment is weak pillar on which to hang the resolution of social problems?
I lost the thread.
132
Me too.
2
It was lost on me at first too, but I believe what he is arguing is that the erosion of free speech is more a symptom of larger problems, and that tackling those problems would naturally allow free speech to flourish again. He says that free speech needs a foundation on which to stand or else it will fall apart and argues that is what is happening now, so trying to fix free speech is like trying to plant "daffodils in the most polluted stretch" i.e. focusing on the wrong thing.
Also as an aside, the "classical liberals" or "intellectuals" would not describe their positions as non-liberal, they would say the campus activists and the like are actually the ones holding non-liberal positions.
Yes, he's incoherent. But the ending few paragraphs expose his usual thing: secular life isn't enough; everyone should believe in God, preferably the Catholic one.
2
I knew Mr. Douthat had a column in him with which I can agree.
The point of freedom of speech is, afterall, speech. We don't, unless we're simply publicity hounds, say things in order to be hired on Fox or shouted down on campus. The point of discussion is not to take sides, or assert power. It's to complicate the issue, or personalize it, to point out that both sides are wrong, or a hundred other permutations.
It's not that the culture has no shared standards that would allow conversation. It's the sadder fact that we share a single standard: the standard of the marketplace. And fear, outrage & insult sell better than seriousness, empathy & knowledge. The powerful know this, and are happy to keep us at each others' throats while they govern us. Conversation is not in their interest. "Free speech" is, because they can afford it.
Within living memory, our government tried to protect the public forum. It prevented corporations from controlling media markets, it required ideological balance, it outlawed unlimited spending on propaganda & political bribery. With the Supreme Court's decision that money is speech, the force of the law is now on the side of preventing dialogue instead of preserving it. We will never develop common grounds on which to disagree unless we protect discourse from the people (yes, Fox news, yes Mr Trump) who want to prevent it with lucrative hysteria.
14
Mr. Douthat is saying here in his inimitable way that free speech should be curbed because whenever or wherever it is allowed it's the right that gets creamed.
9
Alton Ware: I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's saying that speech & debate in America face much bigger obstacles than speakers being shouting down, or football players being fired. I'm sure he would disagree with me on the nature of those obstacles, but I think we agree that the freedom to shout at each other because we can't communicate is not really helpful.
Martin,
In general you are right but take away lies and money from public discourse and you get a message that is tilted to the liberal side. Reality has a liberal bias but can be very effectively counteracted with deception and lies. That’s what freedom of speech is being effectively used for and That’s what Alton Ware is arguing.
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword and there in nothing inherently objective about it.
There is something far more nefarious going on, concerning free speech, that supercedes all other concerns. I would gladly strike a deal with all the free speech advocates, both Conservative and Liberal. You may feel free to have any opinion you wish as long as it is factual. How about that? Our concern, in the present environment, should not be about silencing speech that is counter to our way of thinking, it should be about preserving truth in a public forum. I will listen to anyone's point of view but I draw the line when that point of view disregards the very foundations of civilized discourse. Free speech is no longer free when lies and purposeful distortions are used to gin up your side of an argument. The truth should set the tone for free speech.
416
A deliberate lie is the discourse equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater and just as catastrophic.
15
Well you are completely wrong. Telling lies is protected speech because its not the truth of what you say that matters when it comes to the first amendment but rather that you have the right to speak. We all also have the right to investigate whether what we are hearing from anyone conforms to the evidence (don't like to use the word facts because it implies a conclusion).
8
Exactly CBH - listener beware - fact check
Cultural issues are only part of the matrix of suppression in academic circles.
Freedom of speech in academia has been curtailed for many years, by the religion of science. Though we must never permit the gains of the enlightenment to be obscured by murky speculation, the time has come to open our minds to realities that offer to expand the limits of what we think can be known.
The orthodoxies of science have become as stifling as those of the medieval church. Any curiosity or even evidence pointing to the existence of something beyond matter as we currently understand it is immediately met with the academic scorn of the cult of strict scientific materialism.
Look at the story of Harvard’s John Mack, who was torpedoed for suggesting that UFOs might represent something worthy of academic study. There have been others who have explored the possibilities of the survival of consciousness after physical death, and have been shot down without any examination of their work.
Mr. Douthat is correct that the illness runs deep.
3
I am sorry but your entire argument is just without any reasonable foundation. Science is not faith based, it is not based upon beliefs that require trust in some perfect source of knowledge. Science is a method of determining whether carefully considered guesses about reality can be proven to be correct by all the empirical evidence that anyone who tests them can confirm, and the rejection of them when not confirmed by subsequent examinations. It’s a way of knowing about reality without relying upon absolute truths provided by higher intelligences as are religious beliefs.
35
You do not go far enough, sir. Free speech also includes allowing the methods that make things people say with their right to free speech testable or falsifiable. Free speech means giving people the freedom to test if there is anything supernatural beyond matter or whether UFOS are visiting us. Based on that, the evidence is clear that the supernatural does not exist and that UFO stories are lies and hoaxes. "Researching" nonsense about UFOs would lock up resources more usefully deployed in other areas.
7
It is ridiculous and sad that in the year 2018 there are still people with a medieval, ignorant mindset that thinks established scientific methods are something to be scorned and feared.
The American downward slide into a fanatical Evangeline existence where facts are vilified and untruths are heartily embraced, will spell the end of our nation as we know it.
3
"The reasons for that counterprotest include an admirable patriotism and an understandable weariness with the politicization of sports and entertainment."
Bunk!
These cowardly owners arrived at this Machiavellian solution to get Trump off their backs.
Muzzling the oppressed is not patriotism. Making the very people who are being killed, tased, imprisoned at the rate of hundreds, year in, year out, kneel in front of a flag that doesn't respect their right to live in dignity and safety is unpatriotic and racist.
Free speech, indeed, will not save us. Critical thought and doing things in a moral way, will. I see hope in the Parkland youngsters. Were the late Ronald Dworkin alive today, he'd be right with them, engaging them, encouraging them. The American education system has failed us. Dworkin was right. We are in this sunken place for lack of uniform education. We need to redo it from scratch, without omissions, and with a renewed vow to turn it into the Great Equalizer it was always supposed to be, free of tinkering by this or that political interest group.
Racism - what is is and does - at this late date, should no longer be fodder for debate. But here we are...
---
Dworkin on politics in public school
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/07/08/ronald-dworkin-on-mistakes-the-tea-...
43
The only way to assure what is taught and how scholars approach the acquisition of knowledge is producing the best outcomes are freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and well reasoned skepticism of established beliefs that supports intellectual freedom. The standards must be well considered rules and methods that all can apply to evaluate how reliable what is asserted.
1
Casual Observer,
Critical thinking skills, an education steeped in the humanities, a deep knowledge of philosophy, logic, from the earliest age and through the learning cycle, fully and equally funded ... All the things neither party ensured remain in place as a right for all Americans and a benefit to our society.
9
Pop quiz: what party was it that had on one of its official state platforms, a declaration that it rejected the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools? Google it.