Posted by Jay Livingston
After the Navy Yard massacre, David Guth, a professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, posted an intemperate tweet.
The university put him on leave, and Guth consented. The debate – in the comments section at InsiderHigherEd for example, and on various blogs rehashes issues of gun control, the NRA, free speech, and academic freedom. But it was this response from an administrator, as reported by IHE (here), that struck me.
Ann Brill, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said in a separate statement that while the First Amendment allows free expression, “that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse. Professor Guth’s views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence directed against any group or individuals.”I guess Deans at KU are not hired to offer clear and incisive thinking, because even these few sentences have some standout mistakes.
First, Dean Brill converts free speech from a right into a privilege. Perhaps she does not recall that the First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges. Then she claims that this right must be “balanced with the rights of others.” But she does not specify who these others might be, what these rights might be, or how Prof. Guths’s tweet violated those rights. Obviously, some people were outraged and offended. But whose legal or Constitutional rights did the tweet violate? There is no Constitutional right not to be offended.
Dean Brill also implies that the tweet advocated violence directed at some group or at individuals. That too is quite a stretch. Guth was not issuing a fatwa calling for the slaughter of innocent children. He was saying that the next time a mass shooting happens, he hopes that the victims will be the children of the NRA, presumably so that the gun lovers might suffer the negative consequences of the policies they support.
I can only assume that the Dean’s objective in this statement was not to offer a cogent analysis but to assuage the anger of state legislators and other people that the university has to make nice with.
It was a crass vile statement and he deserves everything coming to him.
ReplyDeleteHe absolutely has a right (not a privilege ) to say what he wants; however that doesn't mean he doesn't have to face the consequences of his actions or words.
I think Dean Brill is talking about balancing the rights of others -- their right to free speech; in this case calling for the university to fire the heartless malicious professor.
Can't tell me that if he had tweeted something about gun controllers causing the blood shed; hope the next victims in Chicago are your children that there wouldn't be calls for him to be fired.
1. If you have to “face the consequences,” of your speech, then how free is it? Suppose your boss says to you, “You are free to make your pro-gun comments all over the Internet, but if you do, the consequence is that you’ll be fired.” In what sense is that freedom of speech?
ReplyDelete2. “ their right to free speech; in this case calling for the university to fire the heartless malicious professor.” What was it that Guth said that threatened the right of people to call for him to be fired?
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI have a right to eat, does that many I shouldn't have to suffer from the consequences of a high fat diet?
Nope. Just like I have a right to walk around town with 100 dollar bills taped to me. No one has a right (they have the ability though) to assault me to get those bills -- if they do is a consequence of my poor choice.
The professor doesn't have 1st Amendment protection from the University - just the government. Are you sure you are a professor?
Many people in the pro-rights community face just such consequences -- that is why so many of us write under pseudonyms.
#2 -- are you kidding me? Are you seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying?
I'm not saying what Guth said threatened anyone rights. I'm saying they used their right to free speech to call for him to be fired.
He Speaks -- Free speech.
Others Speak -- Free Speech
University Responds -- Still Free speech but Guth (and apparently you) don't like the fact that words have consequences.
You have a right to talk about what you want in class, right?
Someone in taking your class has the right to respond, correct?
If they are on subject, they get points (usually participation grades) for doing so, right?
If they are off topic, rant, rave, disrupt class -- you ask them to stop. Are you interrupting their free speech? Absolutely and deservedly so.
You also probably count off from their participation grade. Words have consequences.
Or another example -- you give a test, they answer wrong. Is every answer they give correct?
Your original “face the consequences” remark was about Guth’s being susended. Now you are conflating two kinds of consequences. The right of free speech is not compromised if the consequence is people speaking out in disagreement. It is compromised if the consequence is that your boss fires you.
ReplyDeleteWhether the First Amendment protects Guth’s free speech right from action by a state university is a legal issue. That’s about whether KU can legally suspend, fire, or in some other way punish him for his speech on Twitter. The question I’m raising is whether under general principles of freedom of speech – not Constitutional/legal interpretations – the university should be allowed to fire him.
To return to the hypothetical I mentioned before, your employer probably can fire you if they don’t like your pro-gun speech off the job. (That’s because American workers have few protections against private employers.) But under general principles of freedom of speech, should they be allowed to impose that consequence? And if they do fire you, would you agree with them that despite these consequences, you are “free” to speak your mind?
No, I didn’t misunderstand you. You and the Dean both refer to “balancing”: “balancing the rights of others -- their right to free speech; in this case calling for the university to fire the heartless malicious professor.” Since Guth’s utterances did not reduce that right, there’s nothing to balance. Their right to rail against him is unchanged whether or not Guth is punished. So the concept of balancing is irrelevant.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteWhen you refer to "right being converted into a privilege" you are referring not to "general principles of freedom of speech" but the particular Constitutional Protection.
So I'm not the one conflating things here.
The right of free speech is not compromised if the consequence is people speaking out in disagreement.
So a boss saying "i don't think you should have said that. It brings negative attention to the company, university, etc? isn't free speech?
Can't have it both ways. Most states are "At Will" employment so companies can fire you for any reason. Universities shouldn't be privileged places where people can be insulting and not have to worry about their employment. That doesn't comport with equal protection does it? (another Constitutional Right)
But under general principles of freedom of speech, should they be allowed to impose that consequence? And if they do fire you, would you agree with them that despite these consequences, you are “free” to speak your mind?
Yes I think they should be able to fire me and yes I am still free to speak my mind.
I think in the future we will see a shift in types of employment as a result of loss of privacy, etc.
We will see many more contractors; with very limited termination clauses as a result.
No one is claiming -- but you in your straw man argument -- that Guth's utterances 'reduced that right'. Stop trying to play that card, it isn't working. My right to call for his dismissal doesn't reduce his right to speak does it?
No, it doesn't.
As far as the balancing -- how about this view; his desire to see others murdered chills the freedom of expression of the NRA members.
If I can't speak out without knowing someone wishes harm on my children, I am less free to speak.
“Most states are "At Will" employment so companies can fire you for any reason.” Here’s where we clearly differ. You apparently think that’s a good thing and want this power to fire-at-whim extended to universities. I do not. I think that employers should be more like universities, not that universities should be more like them.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you have free speech even though you can be punished for that expression. That’s not my definition of freedom. I would consider that to be much less free than if no such punishment could be imposed.
The argument against “balancing” is not attacking a straw man. You and the dean claim that his right to tweet has to be balanced against someone else’s right to complain. But since his tweet does not affect their right, there’s nothing to balance.
“his desire to see others murdered chills the freedom of expression of the NRA members.” Oh really? I hadn’t noticed. As a regular commenter on this blog might say, “Any evidence for this?”
Jay,
ReplyDeleteIf I said something that wasn't true or something that hurt your career; then according to your logic you shouldn't be able to sue me, right?
Because I can be punished for that expression, it isn't free speech.
As for your last sentence....read mine again -- and see the part where I say "how about this view"?
I'm not saying it has but it certainly could, right?
It makes more sense to look at freedom of speech as a continuum, not a Yes/No. Laws on libel and slander do indeed restrict freedom of speech and press. So do kiddie-porn laws. But there's no inconsistency in supporting those laws while opposing other restrictions on free speech.
ReplyDeleteAs for that chilling effect, yes it could happen. Lots of things could happen. But it didn't happen. Nor was it reasonable to assume that one professor's tweet would silence the NRA or any individual gunslingers even if it had been retweeted a thousand times.