Limiting free speech is wrong

Daily Lobo columnist

It is certainly understandable that some old lady clutching an icon of the Virgin might not fully understand the meaning of free expression, but it is always disappointing to see university students assume a similar intolerant stance. It is in fact frightening that the American university, which ought to be a haven for free speech and contentious dialogue, has become a breeding ground for students and others anxious to limit the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, the single most important clause in the Constitution.

Here it is again: free speech is free speech, limited only by the need to avoid creating an immediate physical danger. It is not limited to that which is inoffensive or sensitive or in good taste, and it most certainly is not limited to that with which you or anyone else agrees. Indeed, the constitutional protection is primarily designed for those who utter things that stir up negative reactions.

Those who object to the Daily Lobo publishing Horowitz’ ad, like all who want to limit free speech, seem unable to see the other side, a characteristic of ignorant or narrow-minded people. Many would find an inflammatory and extreme demand for reparations for blacks offensive; are they entitled to demand it not be published? Limit what the white racist can say and you limit as well not only what the black racist can say, but what anyone can say. These people are essentially demanding “because this offends me or because I disagree with it, you cannot see it.” And if it is published, further action will be taken to insure it is not seen, such as students at Brown stealing copies of the student newspaper because of Horowitz’ ad or black students occupying the Lobo offices some years ago because of a column they did not like or brownshirts beating up an editor because he defended Jews.

Nor do the anti-free speech crowd think through their demands. In the matter of “hate” speech, for example, who is it that decides what constitutes prohibited speech? A referendum? Politicians? A Committee of Decency, such as that proposed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who must surely offend many with his frequent cross-dressing?

Will there be expressions, such as “nigger,” that are prohibited to some groups and permitted to others? And who decides who belongs to a group; can a person who is, say, 10 percent Black legitimately use the term “nigger?” The inherent silliness is hard to ignore.

Airheads in Congress are once again pushing for a measure to protect the American flag, despite the clear position of the Supreme Court. In addition to the abuse of the First Amendment, they also are unable to perceive the utter impossibility of defining exactly what constitutes an American flag and what constitutes desecrating it, all of which will end up in the hands of the people least qualified to make such decisions — attorneys. These are many of the same politicians who are arguing against limiting campaign contributions because it would violate free speech! Undermining basic freedoms in order to protect the symbol of those freedoms is a fine irony that apparently escapes our national leaders and sundry American Legion commanders.

And don’t give me the “I don’t want my tax money supporting this crap” argument. UNM is a public, tax-supported institution; should people be free to limit what we can teach or what I can say in my classes?

If you find some public-supported art, such as Alma Lopez’s hilarious virgin or that god-awful sculpture in front of Popejoy Hall, offensive, then work to eliminate all public support for the arts rather than trying to censure what particularly annoys you or, worse, intimidating gallery officials, as Speaker of the House Ben Lujan has done with his threatening letter.

The Lobo is to be commended for publishing a piece that scared the cowardly editors of dozens of newspapers at far more prestigious institutions.

Admittedly, however, I do not understand the ban on escort service ads. The paper runs ads for credit cards and Christian crusading groups, and I fail to see how these are any less dangerous to the student than the possibility of having to pay for some sex.

Find any of this column offensive or insensitive? Tough shit. That’s what free speech is all about. If you don’t like it, write a letter or come and argue with me or picket my office. I will defend your right to whatever profound or silly things you have to say, even if you are Jeremy Reynalds or Laura Valdez.