Among the general public, and even among some libertarians, no natural rights concept is more often misunderstood than that of the fundamental right to self-expression.
Former Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee Wayne Root decries two recent events as being violations of free speech, suggesting that protests and open criticism are somehow antithetical to the libertarian credo. This article attempts to illustrate that he is mistaken.
In the first example, Root blasts the Catholics at Notre Dame who protested against Obama's speaking engagement. Root says the university should welcome a diversity of viewpoints. On a personal level, I agree. But let's not confuse personal preferences with rights.
Freedom of speech, just as in all other forms of freedom, means being free from restrictions by government. The US government allows her subjects to share (most) knowledge, opinions and art, without fear of censorship or reprisal.
Far from being "dangerous", protests, whether active or passive, are a critical component of a free (or even semi-free) market. Why do large grocery and book stores in suburban areas choose not to carry pornographic magazines, in spite of obvious demand and profitability? It isn't a risk management issue, for alcohol and cigarettes are sold in these same stores. No, it is chiefly because a sizable percentage of the community does not want those materials in view of their children. That group will either actively protest, by complaint, or passively protest, by shopping elsewhere.
Protests influence the market of personal relationships in the same way. We actively shun, or passively avoid people when we disapprove of their behavior. Whether said behavioral problem is one of ethics or aesthetics is irrelevant. Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, allows each of us the choice to approve or reject among all available options.
Just as we may choose who to listen to, we are all entitled to our own opinions. As a libertarian, I found the comments of Miss California as repugnant as a Michael Savage diatribe.
Free speech works two ways. We each bear responsibility for our own words, but that responsibility does not preclude our entitlement to freely share our opinions with those who care to listen.
©2009 Morey Straus, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Thursday, May 21, 2009
Last modified: Thursday, May 21, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Morey Straus only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Morey Straus is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Morey Straus of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Morey Straus |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Larry
Date: 2009-05-21 12:46:24
This misses the point that the protests were not about free speech, they were about the platform used to exercise that free speech. Alan Keyes and co. were protesting the fact that a staunch anti-abortion Catholic University platform was being given to a very much pro-abortion, practically vanilla atheist speaker. The content of the speech was irrelevant by that point.
The first amendment guarantees the right to speak. It does not guarantee the platform to speak from. I predict that the faculty at Notre Dame will live to regret their misguided decision to allow this less than desirable (from a Catholic point of view) speaker a platform. I suspect their patrons will vote with their checkbooks in the coming months and years, but hey, Obama will give them a bailout, right?
Posted By: Aaron Starr
Date: 2009-05-21 17:56:08
I read the same commentary by Wayne Root and walked away with a different conclusion.
No where is he stating that there has been a violation of the constitutional rights of the speakers. Root is simply presenting his opinion that different views should be allowed to stand on their own and compete in the marketplace of ideas.
A spirit of free inquiry and open debate has allowed those raised in Western Civilization to become among the most open-minded of peoples. And it is this culture of open mindedness that makes it possible for libertarian ideas to even get a hearing.
Do individuals and private institutions have property rights that allow them to restrict expression they disagree with? Of course they do.
But it is our general willingness to consider a contrary opinion, even a controversial one, makes America in particular a country worth living in and defending.
I generally find that people who protest or attempt to shout down those they disagree with do so because they either lack the courage of their convictions or cannot muster an intelligent argument supporting the merits of their own position. I find it particularly disturbing when such behavior takes place on university campuses.
Those who support the repression of open debate foster an environment that sets the stage for government to eventually pass laws that crush dissenting points of view.
Posted By: Morey
Date: 2009-05-21 20:15:26
Aaron, you spin well, but the evidence of error is too abundant. From Root's commentary:
We fought a revolution against the mighty British Empire to insure free speech and the right of all Americans to be heard.
The whole essay is peppered with the phrase "free speech", which is a phrase with a specific connotation. If he meant tolerance, then I think he would have used that word. I maintain that Root is confused on this concept.
Further evidence of confusion:
You mean a viewpoint that you disagree with makes the other person comparable to a Nazi? ... Last I checked Miss California never enslaved, tortured or murdered anyone- nor did she endorse those actions. She was simply expressing her political opinion.
Please explain to Wayne that Nazism is a political opinion. A free people feel no obligation to withhold response under any circumstance, let alone in deference to the "career" of some mindless beauty pagaent bimbo.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-05-21 20:35:33
Morey:
You also fail to see property rights infringing upon free speech and vice versa. If and only if the Univeristy is privately owned, they have the right set their own rules in their property. So if the University wants to expell, fine these groups or removed them of their property, they can do so. Same with a radio station owner or a news paper owner could edit, limit the content or viewpoints of their writers or speakers or even fire them. If someone is in your house telling you things you don't like and callin gyou names like a-hole and such, you can kick them out of your property. You are the one who sets your own rules in your house. But since freedom is supposed to go both ways, then the University contributors can willingly show their disgust by withholding contributions or disenroling their students.
On the other hand. What if the place is a public place? Aren't the people who are protesting a speaker by booing or raising their voice infringing upon the free speech rights of that particualr speaker by shutting him down, not allowing him to talk or preventing him to be heard by those who want to hear him? There is always a gray area for everything.
Posted By: Aaron Starr
Date: 2009-05-22 21:40:06
Morey, I respectfully disagree.
I've had the opportunity to interact with Wayne Root over the last couple of years. I believe I now have a pretty good understanding of his thought process and beliefs, though he may write differently than I would.
Sure, as a result of my nearly 30 years of experience with the party, I have no doubt I can write an article that would appeal more to the party faithful. And I could certainly pick apart any one else who deviates from "correct" phrasing, but I don't engage in that type of sport anymore -- which is not to say that you are engaging in that type of behavior, by the way.
The one thing I really admire about Wayne Root is his ability to write content in such a way that he can get a libertarian message in front of millions of listeners and viewers. He has extremely good instincts when it comes to crafting a message that appeals to large numbers of people. And he is literally a fountain-head of writing. In contrast, my writings would only get me published as a letter to the editor in my local newspaper, which is more like being the proverbial tree falling in the forest that few people get to hear.
I believe it would be far more productive to focus on Wayne Root's positive contributions and give him guidance in a supportive way when we might disagree with him, not pummel him, as some others have chosen to do.
Wayne Root is an asset that we should attempt to harness more fully and I believe we can learn a lot from him. My personal experience has been that he accepts and internalizes feedback whenever it is presented to him in a respectful manner. In other words, he's coachable. The most difficult problem I have with Wayne Root is keeping up with his pace.
Lastly, and this simply must be said, Wayne Root consistently treats people with respect -- even those he disagrees with -- and he is just a plain nice person. It's a rare event to see him criticize anyone else. It would be refreshing if his approach and neighborly behavior towards others were to become more prevalent in this party.
Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2009-05-23 10:07:08
We desperately need to get Wayne Allyn Root and Aaron Starr out of the Libertarian Party. Fire all of them, and people will sort out the good ones.
It's actually quite typical for Notre Dame. Their past speakers have included Harry the Incinerator, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. A university that invites the man who ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs can hardly be pro-life.
The garbage that is the so-called "leadership" of Catholicism was one of the reasons I left. With friends like Notre Dame, Catholics don't need enemies.
It's not just Catholics, though. Church "leaders" have almost always sucked up to politicians.
Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2009-05-23 10:14:40
And Wayne Allyn Root has been disrespectuful--specifically toward Mary Ruwart. That says a whole lot about him. He has been just plain dishonest.
Posted By: Starchild
Date: 2009-05-24 16:38:30
Aaron Starr writes:
I generally find that people who protest or attempt to shout down those they disagree with do so because they either lack the courage of their convictions or cannot muster an intelligent argument supporting the merits of their own position...
Those who support the repression of open debate foster an environment that sets the stage for government to eventually pass laws that crush dissenting points of view.
As is often the case, I strongly disagree with Aaron. He contends that people who protest or attempt to shout others down generally do so for one of two reasons: Either they (1) lack the courage of their convictions or (2) cannot muster an intelligent argument.
I'll address the first claimed reason first. Protesting often requires great courage. It often means going outside your personal comfort zone, especially for those who are introverted or soft-spoken by nature, and sometimes means putting yourself in physical danger or risk of arrest. Attempting to physically shout someone down means engaging in a form of direct conflict. It is generally those who *refuse* to put their physical bodies on the line who lack the courage of their convictions!
How about the charge that protesters are people who cannot muster intelligent arguments? Realize that a vocal public protest is almost never the first sign of a disagreement. In most cases, you will find that people who are protesting have already tried arguing their case. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they are right, or that their arguments are well-stated, but in many cases they are! Having an intelligent argument is no guarantee that those who hold power will listen to you!
Consider some well-known historical protests -- protests against slavery, for women's suffrage, for black civil rights, for sexual freedom, for democracy in China, Ukraine, the Philippines, South Africa, India, etc. Did the people who participated in these protests lack intelligent arguments? Clearly not -- freedom and justice were on their side in every case.
What caused them to protest -- and what usually causes people to protest -- was desire for change plus lack of power to effect it by other means.
Aaron comments that "Those who support the repression of open debate foster an environment that sets the stage for government to eventually pass laws that crush dissenting points of view." But let us remember that there is more than one way to support the repression of open debate or shut down those who disagree with you!
Those who hold power generally do not need to resort to protests or shouting people down in order to get their way; that is the nature of power. In the Libertarian Party, Aaron as a party leader has often been able to shut down or stifle dissent by influencing what rules are in place, and then invoking those rules to his political advantage.
For instance, he has been a strong defender of prohibiting ordinary party members from posting to or even viewing the email lists on which members of the Libertarian National Committee and California state Executive Committee discuss party business.
I believe this repression of open debate has contributed to party policy being conducted in a more top-down manner than it would have been otherwise, and dissenting points of view being suppressed.
Last year, for example, several hundred LP members signed a petition urging the restoration of the 2004 party platform, a more detailed and radical document than the current neutered version of the party's vision statement, after a clever campaign by Aaron's faction in 2006 resulted in most of the existing language being scrapped in a single fell swoop, based on getting a sufficient number of people to submit platform survey forms expressing "no confidence" in various planks, without any floor debate or formal vote ever being taken.
But because the party bylaws and convention rules give precedence to hearing the report of a small number of people appointed by party leaders (the platform committee), the voices of the hundreds of members who wanted to undo the damage of 2006 were never heard, and we never to debate bringing back the 2004 platform or an up-or-down vote.
In short, it is not courage, or intelligence of arguments which is the main determinant of whether or not people protest -- it is controlling the levers of power. Those who are in power tend to oppose protesting and look down on it as mob rule, whereas those who are not in power often correctly see it as their last, best avenue to secure a just outcome, when the rules have been rigged by the powerful.
Posted By: Aaron Starr
Date: 2009-05-25 20:53:13
Hello Starchild:
I believe you mean well, but you have some misconceptions here. Though your comments are not really germane to the original article I’ll address some of them none-the-less.
There is a distinction between having the courage of one’s convictions, versus having courage in one’s acts. You’re speaking of the latter, not the former, though I do not find much courageous about the act of protesting, any more than I would marching in a parade. I’ve attended both at one time or another.
Having the courage of one’s convictions is the belief that the intellectual arguments support one’s position. Protesting or shouting down others does not provide evidence that one has intellectual arguments. I often conclude just the opposite about folks who engage in such activities. I believe most see the world as I do, in this respect.
Your following comment is not simply a different world view; it seems more like the argument of an apologist for violence against otherwise peaceful individuals:
“Attempting to physically shout someone down means engaging in a form of direct conflict. It is generally those who *refuse* to put their physical bodies on the line who lack the courage of their convictions!”
I’ve come face-to-face with your brand of politics before. I remember at the 2006 Portland convention, when your girlfriend/boyfriend – I was never certain at what stage she was with her surgery, nor did I care – physically assaulted me, not just once, but on two occasions in your presence and in front of numerous appalled witnesses. And this was all because she concluded in her mind that I held a different point of view from her. Apparently, the name-calling and shouting she directed towards me did not appease her. You’ll recall that I did not reciprocate in any way.
Your failure to intervene and thwart this obviously mentally disturbed and violent person from seeking harm to me and perhaps others, I took as an endorsement on your part. She never apologized to me and it was many weeks or months later before you even broached the subject with me.
Regarding my alleged role in the 2006 campaign to delete the platform, I hate to disappoint you, but that seminal event came as a complete surprise to me. I do give credit to the organizers – I was not one of them – who actually lobbied convention attendees to use the existing process of Platform Retention ballots to vote down the planks that did not have the support of a majority of the delegates. You’ll recall that there were two rounds required to actually execute this. Indeed, but for the rule that amended planks could not be deleted in this manner, only four of the remaining 15 planks would have survived.
I believe the only reason why the long, detailed and mundane platform of the past survived as long as it did was because our rules required a two-thirds vote to amend any platform plank, an institutional barrier to wholesale language changes put in place by people who had left the party perhaps 20 years ago.
Regarding the 2008 convention, I definitely observed a public relations campaign in place to replace the then horribly amputated 2006 platform with a new one, designed to cause our candidates fewer problems on the campaign trail.
Folks who believe as you do that the platform should be internally focused, considerably longer and overly detailed engaged in their own public relations campaign and presented a comprehensive minority report to the convention delegates. But once they were placed side-by-side, your position was soundly defeated.
Every proposed plank of the replacement platform that we have today was passed with minimum two-thirds majorities – as required by our bylaws – and often by much greater majorities. I believe only three of them were amended on the floor, the remaining being accepted as proposed.
You probably won’t enjoy reading this, but your position simply lost in the marketplace of ideas on that convention floor, not because of any rules.
Folks, who share your point of view, hypothesized that the 2006 convention was an anomaly because of its relatively low attendance. And a considerable effort was mounted to get folks to the 2008 convention to “Restore ’04.” And it was impressively executed. I even recognized one old friend at the convention who came for this purpose and had not been to a national convention since 1984. I was delighted to see him again after so many years.
The other side did not mount such an effort, or at least one that I was aware of. They spent most of their resources building the new platform.
But despite the efforts by the advocates of “Restore ’04,” for them it was all for naught. It was merely a counter-cyclical high-water mark. Their crowd of supporters was boisterous, but not numerous. Their hypothesis proved to be false. Neither 2006, nor 2008, were anomalies; rather, it appears they were representative of the political reality of the LP today.
As much as you may want to convince yourself that I can somehow orchestrate Machiavellian plots behind the scenes -- I suppose I should be flattered you believe I carry so much sway -- I believe you really hold this point of view because you find it more palatable than the alternative explanation.
I’m simply an accountant who does volunteer work for the LNC. On a macro level, it doesn’t really matter what role I play on the national scene, even if I play no role at all. There will not be the two-thirds support you need, much less a majority, to ever go back. You are simply no longer in sync -- assuming you ever were -- with the party to which we both belong.
So, what remains for those who lack the intellectual ammunition and the ability to win over others to their point of view? Just protests, heckler’s vetoes and, yes, even physical violence against those they oppose.
I do not envy your position.
In spite of your approach, with which I disagree, I still consider us allies in the march toward liberty. We just march to the beat of a different drum.