John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

John Denver

Popular singer, songwriter, and actor John Denver spoke against censorship to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. He began by thanking the committee, and he thanked them with a key point, the exact human right that censorship threatens:

“It’s a great honor and a privilege to - to appear before you this morning and to take advantage of the opportunity given me in our free society to speak my mind.”

Censorship’s machination is to snatch that opportunity away. How did Denver make his case? The recipe for a good debate speech is to state your case, prove it, and turn to the big picture. Good debaters set the agenda! That is exactly what Denver did. Denver presented a model of the perfect debate speech. He testified on September 19, 1995, the same day on which Frank Zappa also spoke against music censorship.
Denver began his argument by opposing the Parents Music Resource Center’s (PMRC) proposal to involve the government in labeling sexual or occult content on record albums:

“Mr. Chairman, this would approach censorship. May I be very clear that I am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind in our society, or anywhere else in the world?”

Having stated his point, Denver then proved it with not one but two examples from his own artistic experience. The first was to note that one of his own songs was often mistakenly censored:

“I've had in my experience two encounters with th[is] sort of censorship. My song ‘Rocky Mountain High’ was banned from many radio stations as a drug-related song.”

Denver then, courteously but clearly, and in detail, showed that ignorance, not moral fortitude, motivated that censorship:

“This was obviously done by people who had never seen or been to the Rocky Mountains and also had never experienced the elation, the celebration of life, or the joy in living that one feels when he observes something as wondrous as the Perseides meteor shower, on a moonless and cloudless night, when there are so many stars that you have a shadow from the starlight, and you're out camping with your friends, your best friends, and introducing them to one of nature's most spectacular light shows for the very first time.”

How vivid! “Wondrous as the Perseids meteor shower;” “moonless and cloudless night;” “one of nature’s most spectacular light shows.” The fact that the song mentioned the word “high” – while referring to the Rocky Mountains, which are, after all, high – was enough to trigger ignorance – and censorship.

This was, Denver insisted:

Rocky Mountains

“Obviously a clear case of misinterpretation.”

Denver immediately challenged the committee to deny that future censorship would often entail the same ignorance and false reading:

“Mr. Chairman, what assurance have I that any national panel to review my music would make any better judgment?” 

 Denver then turned to his charming (but somewhat controversial) movie, “Oh, God.” In that film, John Denver played a grocery store produce manager who inadvertently became a messenger from God (brilliantly played by George Burns). Denver noted how people who misunderstood the film, who resisted its uplifting message, sometimes tried to suppress it:

“To my knowledge, my movie ”Oh, God!" was not banned in any theaters. However, some newspapers refused to print our advertisements, and some theaters refused to put the name of the film on the marquee. I don't believe that we were using the name of our Lord in vain. Quite the opposite, we were making a small effort to spread his message that we are here for each other and not against each other.”

Good debaters know, however, that it is never enough merely to refute the opposition. Yes, the censorship attempt was un-American and needed to be refuted. Following up, however, on “Oh, God’s” uplifting themes, Denver reminded the committee that there were more important problems. He reminded them that the world faced greater threats than R-rated songs. He reminded the committee that human beings can solve those big problems instead of fretting about what recordings children might or might not purchase:

“We can end hunger. We can rid the world of nuclear weapons. We can learn to live together as human beings on a planet that travels through the universe, living the example of peace and harmony among all people.”

In my own view, the PMRC’s attempt at censorship was unwise, and I think that the Senate committee showed poor judgment to entertain the idea. I gather that they were motivated by the prestige of the tiny group of powerful persons who sought the power to overrule the American people’s musical taste. Is it not a basic principle of conservatives that we, the people, not the government, decide what we think, say, or purchase? Why should that change just because some busybody doesn’t like a record? If they don’t like a record, don’t buy it. If they don’t want their children to hear it, don’t take them to the record store. Nowadays, watch over their Internet usage. Problem solved.

So, Denver stated his case precisely, right at the outset. He gave two examples to prove his point (after all, one example is never enough). He explained why the censorship that he experienced was so very wrong. He concluded by offering the committee a chance to abandon censorship and instead pursue a positive moral course.

Another speech at the same hearing!

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

In my younger days, I coached many superb college debaters, who often went on to fame and fortune. Still, it is a shame that I never had John Denver on my college debate team. We could have won many debate trophies! 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of John Denver: US Government photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of the Rocky Mountains, by William D. Harpine, Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

Nazi Book Burning

Shock rocker Frank Zappa, who often appeared in concert without the benefit of a shirt, spoke to a Senate Committee wearing a traditional blue business suit, short hair, and a neatly trimmed mustache. In a dignified voice, he railed against music censorship:

“The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal’s design.”

Now, often to their detriment, liberals often prefer to state their outrage with big words, weaselly expressions, and pompous philosophical insights. That just wastes time. Zappa’s blunt, plain, and sometimes-insulting language was more likely to make the enemies of liberty squirm.

This September 19, 1985 testimony to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s hearing on Rock Lyrics and Record Labeling delivered some shock rock to a committee that needed to hear it. Zappa’s forceful, harsh, and condescending language exposed the PMRC’s (Parents Music Resource Center) plainly unconstitutional anti-liberty stance. His harsh language was exactly what the enemies of freedom needed to hear. This was no time to say that “both sides have a point,” nor did Zappa see a need to ramble around his point. He saw this as a time for controlled outrage.

The PMRC was a now-defunct group of prominent political wives who wanted to censor sexual and occult music. They sought to protect children. The combination of Susan Baker, wife of Republican Treasury Secretary James Baker, and Tipper Gore, future Democratic Vice-President Al Gore’s wife, made the PMRC’s attack truly bipartisan. Indeed, as Zappa noted, the proposal was a manifest assault against the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

“Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of 'toilet training program' to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few.

“Ladies, how dare you.”

A threat to the Constitution deserves rebuke. Zappa avoided the typical liberal techno-language. For example, he did not say, “The PMRC threatens our precious liberties.” Who would care? No, he gave the attack on our Constitution the contempt it deserves: “sinister kind of ‘toilet training program,’” “house-break,” and the condescending “Ladies, how dare you.”

Although I mostly oppose ad hominem arguments, Zappa’s attack on the PMRC itself made an important point. Zappa’s point was that the PMRC was not a real organization, but rather a small group of powerful busybodies who wanted to dictate artistic expression to the entire country. Zappa recognized that this was no time to respect his opponents. No, it was a time to mock:

“I can't say she’s a member because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn’t give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.”

Was this tiny group of important dignitaries a “cult”? Zappa’s hyperbole, dripping with sarcasm and hyperbole, gave the Senate committee a chance to notice the group’s tiny size and excessive influence. Turnabout is linguistic fair play! A name like “Parents Music Resource Center” sounds like a major, ever-so-proper charitable organization. By snapping out the word “cult,” Zappa reduced them to a tiny clique of busybodies – which is what they were.

Like many communication professors, I am close to a free speech absolutist, and I agree with Zappa’s point. Yes, Zappa’s lyrics often repulsed me (I never cared for his music), but he could express social commentary like no rock and roller before or since. He brought compassion for the poor into the ears of middle-class teenagers. A healthy republic can afford to let people listen to his message:

“They won't go
For no more
Great mid-western hardware store
Philosophy that turns away
From those who aren't afraid to say
What's on their minds
(The left-behinds of the Great Society)”

Was that politically correct? No. Did America want its children to hear Zappa’s message? Probably not. Did Zappa have a right to say it? Yes, I think he did. Should censors stop him just because he was obnoxious? No. If you don’t like his music, don’t buy his records. I never did. Problem solved.

When we drive toward censorship, we steer over a dangerous precipice. Who is to say what is right, and what is wrong, for people to hear? Do we gain anything if we protect our children from provocative ideas? Do busybodies really think that teenagers will never think about sex until they hear a song about it? Should we hide racial conflict from our children? Do uncomfortable topics make people feel uncomfortable? Well, the world is not a comfortable place.

Harrison Ford's Climate Speech Used Language and Voice Skillfully

Zappa would have none of it. He defended the United States Constitution with vivid, forceful, and uncompromising language. He laid bare the censors’ hypocrisy and self-importance. Articulate and uncompromising, he refused to talk about censorship on Tipper Gore’s own ground. That is, he did not frame the talk as an opportunity to protect or defend children. Instead, he stated the issue in libertarian terms, using language that no one could misunderstand.

Furthermore, we still need to defend the United States against censorship, and we still need to give freedom a firm, precise, and affirmative defense. Sadly, censorship once again rears its ugly, un-American head in 2025. School libraries are banning books by Toni Morrison and Anne Frank. Any book, no matter how tasteful, featuring an LGBT character is instantly branded as pornography. The Trump administration is using the full force of the federal government to stop schools from teaching about racial history and theory. The National Parks may need to strip mention of slavery from the Liberty Bell museum, as if not mentioning slavery could solve our problems. Today’s self-appointed guardians of religion and good taste are eager to block the teaching of the basic science of evolution, and even to deny fundamental astronomy and geology. Like Tipper Gore and Susan Baker, today’s busybodies know how to sound dignified and righteous. Yet, busybodies always have evil effects, and, when we confront them, we need to speak more like Frank Zappa. At least once in a while. 

by William D, Harpine

Follow-up from the same hearing: John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

J. D. Talked about Freedom of Speech. But Did He Mean What He Said?

J. D. Vance

Maybe he should have lectured himself. Without a trace of irony, newly minted United States Vice President J. D. Vance instructed European leaders about freedom. Downplaying Vladimir Putin’s saber-rattling in Eastern Europe, and ignoring his own administration’s attacks on free expression, Vance castigated European governments for alleged free-speech violations:

“We shouldn’t be afraid of our people, even when they express views that disagree with their leadership.”

Yes, in his forceful February 14, 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance boldly defended the right of populists and conservatives to express unpopular opinions. He also blithely ignored the Trump-Vance administration’s own malicious attacks against liberals’ free speech rights.

Clue: in a free society, if your side has rights, the other side shares those rights. Sadly, Vance evinced no awareness of that great principle – the exact doctrine that his speech purported to support. Let’s look at that speech.


Vance Defends Free Speech

Vance berated the stunned European leaders for allegedly violating freedom of speech:

“I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest, the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content.’”

And...

“I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago, the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend’s murder.”

Also... 

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.”

Furthermore, amplifying on Scotland:

“This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called Safe Access Zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.”

The Scottish government promptly refuted Vance’s last claim, emphatically denying that anyone restricted private prayer: “The Vice President’s claim is incorrect. Private prayer at home is not prohibited within Safe Access Zones and no letter has ever suggested it was.” Vance has yet to document his accusation. Indeed, that Vance needed to fabricate an accusation suggests that he offered a weak case.

Anyway, continuing, Scotland pointed out that rights must balance:

“People continue to have the right to protest and to free speech, however, no one has the right to harass women, or to try to influence without consent their decision to access healthcare, or to impede their access to it in any way.”

So, overlooking the obvious truth that every right carries responsibilities, Vance may have missed the point. By way of analogy, I have a right to pray for peace, but I do not have a right to pray for peace while standing on Interstate 95 during rush hour. The Scottish man clearly could have prayed outside the designated safe zone. The only reason for him to pray inside the safe zone was to intimidate women as they entered. One right balancing against another?


Practice What You Preach

More telling against Vance’s credibility, however, is the political context. While Vance arrogantly preached for absolute freedom of speech, the Trump-Vance administration and their Republican Party continue to stomp on free speech in Vance's own country. Trump’s executive orders forbid public schools from teaching about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Should schools and teachers in the United States not have freedom to teach whatever they think students need to learn? The Trump administration banned Associated Press reporters from the White House briefing room because they refused to join Trump in renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Additionally, Trump’s strict rules against federal DEI programs quickly resulted in the government concealing a museum exhibit that celebrated the work of minority group members and women in our national defense. Do they not have free-speech rights?

And across the United States’ more conservative regions, school libraries too often find that conservative censors are driving Toni Morrison books and literature about civil rights off their shelves. If populists have rights, so does everyone else. 

Trump's Speech at the Social Media Summit: Free Speech Isn't Free Speech?

The Problem

Public speaking teachers have known since ancient times that the speaker’s credibility is the most powerful mode of persuasion. That is where Vance failed. Yes, we all eagerly defend our own free speech rights. That is not the point. The point is to respect everyone’s free speech rights. As long as Vance’s own political movement callously suppresses freedom of speech in the United States, he has discarded his credibility to condemn censorship elsewhere.

Thomas Jefferson

My blog’s faithful readers have long known that I am a free-speech libertarian. Yet, every freedom does come with responsibility – a principle that conservatives once supported. Still, governments themselves also have a responsibility - to prevent freedom from being abused. That line is hard to draw, and people reasonably disagree about it. My readers surely also know that the purpose of liberty is not to defend the powerful, but to protect the weak. Not to promulgate what is popular, but to give voice to people on the margins. As Thomas Jefferson said, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Free Speech on Campus Needs to Apply to Everyone

So, yes, let us have freedom of speech. Still, until the Trump administration and the Republican Party exhibit more respect for liberals’ free speech rights, Vance needs to stop pontificating. And he needs to stop now.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of J. D. Vance, official White House photo, public domain

Image of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress

 

University Presidents Needed Better Communication Skills during the Congressional Hearing. Here Are Some Tips.

Harvard University

“What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus?”

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked that seemingly simple question of Harvard President Claudine Gay.

At the December 7, 2023 congressional hearings to investigate antisemitism on campus, three top university presidents were called on the carpet and lambasted by Stefanik because they upheld the right of certain students to express deeply unpopular opinions. In particular, some anti-Israel students were speaking and demonstrating for a holy war and the destruction of Israel. Many Jewish students were feeling threatened, to say the least.

In accordance with the law, the university presidents were right, and the Republicans were just plain wrong. Free speech in America is almost absolute, and hate speech, pretty much no matter how awful, is legal. There is no hate speech exception to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the university presidents allowed themselves to be bullied. They made factual but ineffectual responses to the Republicans’ questions. The public is in an uproar and almost everyone, from left to right, sides with Stefanik against the university presidents. What could the presidents have done better?

Let’s look at a few examples. I’ll focus on the well-publicized, much-maligned performance of Harvard President Claudine Gay. Dr. Gay needed to be more precise on the facts, while she also needed to reset the abusive process while projecting more confidence.

When someone asks a question, phrase the responses precisely. 

Stefanik asked Gay:

“Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?”

That sounds like a fair question, doesn’t it? Gay droned her rote response:

“We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that it violates our policies against bullying ….”

At that point, Stefanik interrupted and shouted that anti-Jewish hate did cross that boundary. Now, under the First Amendment law, which applies to colleges and universities under various court rulings, Stefanik was wrong. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment protects hate speech.

Previous Post: Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Allowed on Campus

Calling for genocide is horrible, but it is not an immediate, specific threat, and therefore it’s constitutionally protected speech. Gay’s response was right out of the legal handbook and was, I imagine, briefed for her by Harvard’s legal department.

Unfortunately, Gay’s response sounded vague and impassive. She droned legal platitudes in a slow, distracted voice. Could she have done better? Well, yes, she could have done much better. Try this, for example:

Hypothetical response: “As an institution of higher education, Harvard is absolutely required to obey the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts have emphatically ruled that even extremely horrible speech is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, we cannot make a rule that prohibits vile and offensive speech, because the courts have ruled over and over that hate speech must be allowed.”

That would be a better response because it states the reasoning behind the rules that Harvard follows. 

Challenge the abusive questioning process.

However, as the reader will recall, Stefanik had interrupted Gay, blocking her attempt to respond. That abused the communication process. So, here is another hypothetical response. After being interrupted, Gay could have said:

Hypothetical Response: smile and ask, “I would very much like to answer your question. May I do so?”

If that doesn’t work, it would be time to get a bit more vigorous, but still sounding self-disciplined:

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, you are asking important questions and short, glib answers are not going to be adequate; may I please answer your question?”

More forceful hypothetical response: 

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, with due respect to your high office, why are you asking important questions if you won’t let me explain my answer?”

Or, if that doesn’t work:

Emphatic Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the First Amendment is part of the Constitution. Since you studied government at Harvard, I expect you to understand the First Amendment. May I explain how the courts have ruled on these questions?”

If the speaker gets badly irked:

Hypothetical response: “Congresswoman, you are asking questions that I’d like to answer thoughtfully. But every time I try, you interrupt and shout at me. May I please answer your question?”

 
If you are being vague, explain why you cannot be specific. 

Speakers, like Dr. Gay, need to be careful when they use technical terms. Otherwise, their arguments get lost. Gay confused her listeners with a technical term about education law. Stefanik asked: “What actions have been taken against those students?” Gay’s response:

“Given students’ rights to privacy and our obligations under FERPA, I will not say more about any specific cases other than to reiterate that processes are ongoing.”

The overall public neither knows nor cares about FERPA. However, everybody in higher education has been drilled about FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974). When I worked at universities, we were all required to pass periodic FERPA training. This federal law strictly protects student privacy. Among many other things, FERPA covers student disciplinary procedures, even in extreme cases, and university personnel may not violate student privacy by sharing the results or processes of student discipline.

I had plenty of experience with this. Even parents are often ineligible to see their children’s records (Congress passed a bunch of arcane rules about parents’ rights.) I sometimes had to tell parents that I could not answer questions about their children. Remarkably, when the FBI and Navy recruiters came to ask us about various students over the years, they needed to show the university’s records office that they had the student’s written permission or a lawful subpoena. Seriously. Worse, I served on university disciplinary boards for years. FERPA makes the disciplinary procedures confidential. FERPA is one tough law. 

Anyway, after hearing about FERPA, Stefanik soon gave this angry response: “This is why I’ve called for your resignation, and your testimony today, not being able to answer with more clarity, speaks volumes.” That was nonsense. There was no reason for Dr. Gay to put up with that. Try this:

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, I am not responsible for the laws Congress passed to protect student privacy. These disciplinary procedures are totally confidential under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. I didn’t pass the law; Congress did. I regret that it is illegal for me to answer your question. If you don’t like the law, you, and not I, are in a position to change it. That’s because you’re in Congress, and I am not. I don’t see why you want to fire me just because you don’t like a law that Congress passed.”

That specific answer would, I would hope, at least calm Stefanik’s bullying. 


Change the ground of the debate

The winner of a debate is the side that sets the ground. That is, the winner is not necessarily the side that has the best issues, but, more often, the side that decides what questions to ask. Stefanic laid her groundwork by making wild accusations and refusing to let Dr. Gay explain her answers. On that ground, she will win every time. Gay sounded awkward and intimidated, and her answers were just too safe.

You can’t stop a congressional bully by uttering vague platitudes that your lawyer fed you. You need to be specific. You need to reset the debate on your own ground. Put the burden back on Congress, where it belongs. How about:

Hypothetical Response: “The things that are going on are often awful, but we at Harvard must follow the law. If you don’t like the law, if you are against a high level of free speech and assembly, if you don’t think students should have a legal right to privacy, which of us is in a position to change the law? Because it isn’t the President of Harvard.”

I’m sure that Stefanik would continue to yell, but the debate would now be on more even ground.


Delivery

Also, delivery matters. Cicero said so thousands of years ago. It’s still true. Dr. Gay was quiet and hesitant, and she seemed flustered. Of course that doesn’t work. You can’t be obsequious in front of a bully any more than you can lie down in front of an angry German shepherd. Dr. Gay needed to speak up. She didn’t need to shout like Stefanik, but she needed to sound confident and self-assured. Stop leaning into the microphone. Sit up straight. Take your glasses off and wave them around. (That worked for President Dwight Eisenhower, who was also soft-spoken.) Have a copy of the Constitution in your hand (preferably on yellowed fake parchment) and rattle it in front of the microphone. Get off the defense. Defensive speakers lose. Take charge. Sound like you are in charge. Help the audience see that Stefanic was behaving poorly. Presentation counts.

Stefanic was trying to use Gay for a stage puppet, so don’t sound like a puppet.


Counterplay

Anyone who has followed Republican politics, even at the most superficial level, could have predicted everything that Stefanik said during this hearing. Gay did not sound as if she cared about the Jewish students. Her responses were vague and sounded guarded. She needed to say more to show she cared. Dr. Gay needed counterplay. 

Gay also needed to show that she cared about Jewish students who felt intimidated by campus demonstrations. Harvard had already established on-campus programs to deal with antisemitism and these were well publicized on campus. Gay should have talked more about programs for students who felt victimized by campus events.

Indeed, she should have set up even more such programs, however hastily, before she traveled to the Capitol. Have these universities done enough to protect students and to guarantee a safe learning situation? I think not. Jewish and other students have every reason to be distressed, even though this ridiculous congressional hearing didn’t get to any authentic issues. I’ll try to write soon about communication solutions that are legal and might help the situation.

Gay could, and probably should have, given a pre-Congress, on-campus, open-to-all speech in which she criticized demonstrators who had become hostile, while, at the same time, making sure that the campus understood that the demonstrators had strong First Amendment rights. (She had already given written statements to the Harvard community, although they were probably too vague to punch through the controversies.)

Hypothetical campus speech: “I deplore these awful demonstrations and I condemn their message, but I will defend to my last breath the protestors' constitutional right to assemble  and speak as long as they are peaceful. I will defend any of your rights the same way.”

Too late for all of that. Propaganda won, I guess.


Conclusion

But did propaganda need to win? On the one hand, academic people tend to be diffident. Even aggressive academics, like university presidents, tend to be more controlled than the general public. On the other hand, many politicians are confrontational. That does not mean that the university presidents needed to disintegrate as they did. There are many ways to confront bullies, and they don’t require a person to act like a bully in return. Maybe my ideas will help a congressional witness in the future.

I will end with a personal story. 

After retiring from his career as an attorney with the Department of the Interior, my father did volunteer legal work with the American Association of Retired People. His role was to represent indigent Americans who had been unjustly deprived of their Social Security benefits. It was a hard job, with wins and losses. President George H. W. Bush gave him a Points of Light Award for his service. In the course of his work with the AARP, my father testified before a congressional committee. A conservative southern congressman went off on a rant about useless government bureaucrats and wasteful government spending. (You’ve heard all that many times, I’m sure.) This irked my father, who responded like this:

I am proud of my government service. I am proud of my service in the Army during World War II and Korea. I am proud of my two battle stars. I am proud of my 25 years with the Department of the Interior.

The congressman apologized.

So, bullies don’t need to win. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Image of Harvard University: David Adam Kress, Creative Commons License

Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Legally Allowed on Campus. Universities Can't Stop Them Even if They Want to.

Bill of Rights, National Archives

Anti-Israel protestors on university campuses are sometimes saying terrible, evil, awful things. As we learned in yesterday’s congressional hearings, some members of Congress want universities to stop that.  Sorry, nope, universities have no legal power to stop peaceful speech or demonstrations, no matter how offensive they might be. The Constitution protects even the vilest protests. Can Harvard President Claudine Gay, who was vigorously questioned in yesterday’s hearing, actually stop, restrict, or punish anti-Israel or anti-Semitic protests? No. That would actually be illegal.

As the Massachusetts court system explained in 2017:

“The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and the press. There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”

At yesterday’s hearing, several Republicans, notably including skilled conspiracy theorist Elise Stefanik, lambasted three university presidents because they had failed to stop angry anti-Israel, anti-Jewish demonstrations. She accused the presidents of a “lack of moral clarity.” Don’t those demonstrations violate the code of conduct, she asked? Are the protestors being punished? Why are universities allowing hate speech? In turn, the university presidents responded by mumbling, explaining complexities, citing the privacy laws that Congress itself had passed, and evading the questions. After my many years of experience in higher education, I can assure you that the presidents carefully parroted everything the university’s legal team told them to say. Stefanik stomped on them as if they were bugs and she was the exterminator. Members of the public and press, from left to right, have almost universally sided with Stefanik and against the universities. 

There’s only one problem: under American law, the university presidents were absolutely correct. Stefanik was embarrassingly wrong. Hate speech is awful—that’s why we call it hate speech—but the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment erect an almost impenetrable shield that protects people who express their views, even when those views amount to hate speech. In our system of government, the only cure for evil speech is to respond with truthful, noble speech. Since almost all universities accept federal financial aid, they are, in general, just as obligated to protect free speech, including wicked speech, as any government agency. Exceptions are few, few, few.

So, let’s look at the law. The First Amendment says:

“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.”

It says, “no law.” It does not say, “no law unless we are offended.” The Fourteenth Amendment carries the same protection to the state level. Free speech specialist Crag R. Smith points out that speech, including hate speech, falls under the First Amendment’s protection. If hate speech represents a viewpoint, the Constitution protects it. Smith mentions the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that an Ohio law against violent speech was unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who threatened to commit violence against certain groups of people. 

In the Brandenburg case, a group of armed Klansman said things like this: they threatened to bury Black people, they said “Send the Jews back to Israel,” and they stated that a Black man would need “to fight for every inch he gets from now on.” These were obviously awful things to say, but they did not embody any direct threat to a particular person and, therefore, ruled the Court, the Constitution protected them. Indeed, the court stated that “A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” [italics added] 

“Imminent lawless action” is an extremely rigorous standard; otherwise, free expression of offensive speech must be upheld. The Court’s ruling was unanimous.

In a more recent case, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protects such hateful symbols as cross burning and displaying Nazi symbols. The court firmly ruled that the city could not outlaw cross-burning under the stated reasons, although cross-burning could be prosecuted as trespassing, arson, or whatever, according to the circumstances. 

Earlier Post: Conservatives Think Controversial or Offensive Speakers Should Appear on Campus


Overall, as The Law Dictionary summarizes, no law in the United States restricts hate speech:

“In the United States, there are no laws against hate speech. Due to rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, a person can say just about anything he or she wants to another person or group. By itself, such speech is allowed to take place without penalty under the law.

“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”

Similarly, attorney Lee Rowland shows that students and faculty on campus have free speech rights, and these rights do not bend when speech becomes hateful, disgusting, or offensive:

“As a general matter, when people use the term hate speech, they’re often referring to identifiably hateful, often racist or sexist speech that demeans people based on characteristics they can’t change. Under the First Amendment, that language, no matter how disgusting or offensive we find it, and I certainly do, is still protected. That doesn’t change on a public campus.”

Since no right is absolute, there are a few exceptions. In terms of college campuses, Smith points out that hostile environments create a different situation. If you are subjected to harassment in the workplace or in class, where you have no recourse to leave, you are protected. In those cases, the victim is trapped in what is called a “captive audience,” where protection against harassment is available. Harassment is one of the very few exceptions to absolute freedom of speech. We’ve already talked about “imminent lawless action.”

Earlier Post: Conservatives Object to a School Song about Rainbows

Under the United States of America’s Constitution and laws, as repeatedly emphasized and supported by federal courts, we have almost unlimited rights to express political opinions and other opinions. It makes no difference how awful or offensive other people might find them. The fact that anti-Semitic speakers appear on campus and speak, wave signs, and shout that Israel should be destroyed makes the students wrong, but it does not mean that the university itself is anti-Semitic. It only means that people have a Constitutional right to speak. And universities have no legal right to stop them.

__________

P.S. I will soon post more about this topic, including suggestions as to how the university presidents could have responded to Stefanik more effectively. 

__________

Important note: I am not an attorney, and this essay is not legal advice. My only purpose is to comment on the rhetoric of this dispute, and not to tell you what you should or should not do if you face a free speech situation. Free speech law is complicated; no right is absolute, and there are exceptions to all our rights. I am not qualified to guide you on those issues. If you have a free speech decision or need accurate information about your rights, see an attorney. As my late father (who was an attorney) liked to say, “Don’t do something and then ask me if it was legal. Ask me before you do it!” 

It could be noted that Harvard, like many schools, promises free expression to its students and this, as I understand it, is a legal obligation. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©, William D. Harpine

Free Speech on Campus? It Is Still Threatened!

Robert George, a conservative speaker who opposes several transgender policies, spoke recently at Washington College. His topic was civility and free speech on campus. Ironically, two audience members heckled him to the point that he ended his speech.

This is wrong. College is about the free exchange of ideas.

I utterly disagree with George’s opinions about transgender issues. Nevertheless, the hecklers should have allowed him to speak.

Free Speech on Campus: The Other Side

It’s quite simple.

First, people came to the presentation because they wanted to hear George speak. Two students out of the crowd wrongly overpowered the rights of other students.

Second, the way to overcome speakers like George is to respond with a better speech, not to shout them down. Certainly, colleges and universities need to encourage diverse expressions of opinion.

Washington College's events calendar does show some diversity of thought in various exhibitions and speakers. At the same time, maybe they could do a better job of balancing conservative speakers like Robert George with liberal speakers, possibly on grouped programs. More balance might make potential hecklers amendable to discourse. Then, again, it might not. 

When I attended the conservative College of William and Mary from 1969-1973, the college routinely invited controversial speakers across the political spectrum. Among other opportunities, the administration gave me a chance to listen to firebrand lawyer William Kunstler and civil rights activist Julian Bond. These programs were well-attended, and students listened respectfully. (Yes, students asked hard questions, but that’s fine.) Student leaders invited a conservative alumnus to speak at an anti-Vietnam war demonstration. Again, the students heard him out. Sadly, in our angry, polarized era, we have now lost so much.

Free Speech Attacked on Campus: It Happened Again, at William and Mary!

Third, when people shout a speaker down, they implicitly admit that they lack counterarguments. They focus attention on their own rudeness instead of the speaker’s errors or possible bad faith. Good heckling is witty and tasteful. Good hecklers have a chance to display their moral or intellectual position when they shout out quick barbs that amuse without disrupting, In contrast, rude hecklers display only their crudeness.

Fourth, if there will be a question and answer session, it might be better to wait until then as opposed to heckling.

Fifth, conservatives have no moral authority when it comes to free speech on campus, as they have an equally ugly habit of blocking or protesting speeches by liberal speakers, sometimes violently.

The two Washington University hecklers are facing university discipline. Good.

Heckling is an art, not a bludgeon. Let people speak. Let them be heard. 

by William D. Harpine

_____________

Previous posts about heckling:

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot

A Tale of Two Heckles: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Jabs Kevin McCarthy - And Resets the National Debate

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

                                                                                                                                                                          

Free Speech on Campus: It Happened Yet Again!

Bill of Rights, National Archives

In June 2023, a school valedictorian in New Jersey was denied the right to give her heartbreaking but  inspiring speech.

High school students do not leave their constitutional rights at the door. Nor do school administrators teach good citizenship when they suppress ideas that make them squirm. Instead of dreading controversy, school administrators (and parents and their communities) need to encourage students to express themselves.

Teresa Kinney, the 2023 valedictorian of the Poseidon Early College High School, a joint program of Brookdale Community College and the Neptune (New Jersey) Township School District, wanted to talk about bullying and sexual abuse during her school years. The program’s valedictorian customarily speaks at the graduation ceremony. Kinney proposed to say in her speech that:

“What I went through was awful and nothing I wish upon another person. However, because of it, I found my love for advocacy.”

She also intended to say that her personal experiences gave her “fuel to persevere.” 

What better message could graduates want to hear? 

Kinney explained that she intended to use her experiences in her future career to help other people. Unfortunately, after previewing a copy of the speech, school administrators called an urgent meeting with the student and her mother and decided not to let her speak.

Even worse, it is reported that they did not even call her out as the program’s valedictorian. (She was recognized in the printed program.)

Now, certainly, many people would rather not hear a controversial speech during a graduation ceremony. Indeed, readers’ comments on the article mostly endorsed the school’s censorship, although some thought the issue could have been handled better.

Nevertheless, by suppressing the student’s speech, the school administrators decided that tranquility should triumph over truth while unpleasant truths are best ignored.

In my long experience in education, most people intend to sleep through graduation speeches, cheer for their graduates, collect their diplomas, and go home. In general, many people want ceremonial speeches to be tame and uninteresting. I entirely disagree. Throughout history, ceremonial speakers have made important points about public values and policy. Instead of celebrating Kinney’s citizenship, the school administrators chose to walk on the road of cowardice.

Earlier Post: Should ceremonial speeches cause controversy?

School, above all other places, should provide a safe place for people to exchange their ideas. If a speech makes people feel uncomfortable, so much the better.

Sadly, the schools’ personnel learned the exact wrong lesson from this incident. Superintendent Tammi Crader said that, “This unfortunate experience has taught us a great deal as it relates to process.” But what did it teach her? “Going forward,” she said, “all speeches — students and adults — will be due at least one week prior to graduation. This will allow ample time for discussion should the speech contain sensitive information that may require vetting or reworking.” In other words, the administration plans to get better at censorship. 

Afterwards, Kinney commented that “I still think that it was mishandled.” She continued, “I'm trying to move past it.” She intends to study this fall at Middlebury College.

I predict that Teresa Kinney will have a long, wise, and productive future. She will no doubt soon leave narrow-minded people in the dust as she zooms past them. She did learn some painful things about human nature from her experience. I hope, but do not expect, that the school administrators will, some time before they retire, begin to understand their duty to encourage young people to express important but controversial ideas. I hope, but do not expect, that communities will learn the same lesson. Schools often fear controversy. Yes, school communities often reject controversy and painful ideas. But isn’t that the problem?

Like most communication professors, I am enthusiastic about free speech rights. After all, speech is what we do for a living. When people fear ideas, maybe it is the people, not the ideas, who are causing the problem. 

_____________

Earlier Posts about School Censorship:

Once Again, a School Denies a Student Her First Amendment Free Speech Rights: The Case of Emily Hernandez Medina

Student Lulabel Seitz Exercised Her First Amendment Rights--and Was Cut Off!

Another Student Is Censored! Cait Christenson Not Allowed to Talk about Equity and Reasoned Discourse

Conservatives and the Fear of Rainbows

This has to stop.

Recently, the Waukesha, Wisconsin school board voted 9-0 to fire a teacher named Melissa Tempel. Waukesha is a conservative community and votes strongly Republican. An elementary school teacher, Tempel asked for permission for her students to sing “Rainbowland,” a charming song written by Miley Cyrus, Oren Yoel, and Dolly Parton. The school board declared the song to be “controversial.” However, Kermit the Frog’s “Rainbow Connection,” which I guess seems more traditional, was approved. Tempel stated publicly that the children were excited about singing “Rainbowland” at a school performance and were disappointed when permission was refused.

The song strikes me as positive and joyful. Dolly Parton herself said that, “How about we make this song about wanting to live in a free & safe world, you know, we all want to live in a Rainbowland.” Judging from the school board’s vote, maybe some people prefer to be grumps. I guess. 

Here are some of the song’s lyrics:

“Living in a rainbowland
Where you and I go hand in hand”

Or, how about this?

“We are rainbows, me and you
Every color, every hue
Let’s shine through
Together we can start living in a rainbowland”

That all seems harmless enough. Still, gay clubs often display a rainbow flag, and the rainbow has long symbolized diversity and connection. I guess diversity scares people. Maybe letting people live together in peace offends the school board to their core. Maybe a safe, loving, make-believe place scares them. Or maybe they’re just insecure and don’t like to be called out in public. Who knows?

Rainbows have long symbolized linkages and relationships. Rainbows do not merely show the entire spectrum of colors, but they also link the sky to the earth. Furthermore, as a symbol of unity, the rainbow does not belong to any one group. In ancient Greece, the rainbow created a link from the gods to humanity. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, in the Bible’s first book, God says that the rainbow represents “a token of a covenant between me and the earth” (Gen. 6:13), while, in the Bible’s last book, an angel with a rainbow announces the fulfillment of justice (Rev. 10). I would think that everyone loves rainbows.

The teacher wasn’t fired, however, just because she wanted her students to sing a rainbow song. She was fired after she complained on social media that her students weren’t allowed to sing this rainbow song. In other words, she was fired for exercising her First Amendment right to complain about a governmental decision. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect that kind of speech. A successful lawsuit will no doubt ensue. I hope the school board has good insurance. 

Still, there is a larger point. How can we solve our problems if we won’t even listen to one another? How can we resolve our differences if people use the power of government to crush dissent? How can a political party that markets itself as the guardian of liberty, freedom, and constitutional rights expect to retain any credibility if it uses its power to punish harmless disagreements? How can we, as a nation, solve our problems if we won’t even listen to one another? The answer, of course, is that we can’t.

Yesterday, I blogged about a speech in which Abraham Lincoln appealed to “the better angels of our nature.” Speaking only for myself, I would like to hear from the better angels more often.

__________________

P.S.: I hope no one ever tells the Waukesha school board about “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows.” Or that song in the Wizard of Oz. Or… Or… Or…

__________________

P.P.S. Like most communication professors, I’m a big advocate of free expression and the First Amendment. After all, speech is what we teach. Here are some previous posts in which I complained about the suppression of free speech on colleges and school campuses:

Free Speech on Campus? It Happened Again!

Free Speech on College Campuses - Time for Some Humor?

Student Lulabel Seitz Exercised Her First Amendment Rights - and Was Cut Off!

__________________

Image: ©Elaine Clanton Harpine