果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

Facing the Consequences of One鈥檚 Actions

A recent front-page story in the Herald News (another paper) on FIRE鈥檚 case at William Paterson University contains some highly interesting tidbits. After a fairly straightforward exposition of the facts of the case, the piece turns to the professor whose complaint sparked the controversy:

鈥淚t creates a hostile environment,鈥 she said of [Jihad Daniel鈥檚] e-mail. 鈥淚 teach about violence, and I know that violence is oftentimes preceded by verbal attacks.鈥

Verbal attacks? Have you read Daniel鈥檚 email? There was nothing 鈥渁ttacking鈥 about it. He just stated his opinion.

Moreover, Scala鈥檚 comments on violence suggest that while she may teach about it, her knowledge certainly doesn鈥檛 include legal precedent. As FIRE鈥檚 Guide to Free Speech on Campus points out, violence has to be 鈥渋mminent鈥 in order for the speech causing it to be punished. For example, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a protester to say, 鈥淲e鈥檒l take the f鈥攌ing street later,鈥 since the 鈥渓ater鈥 implied the violence was not imminent. Daniel鈥檚 email doesn鈥檛 come close to that permitted speech, let alone what would really be unprotected. And his comment to the paper strikes precisely the right tone:

Daniel, who lives in Hackensack, said that it was his right as a student of the university to express his opinion about an unsolicited e-mail. His religion teaches that the gay lifestyle is wrong, he said.

You can鈥檛 invite me to reply to something and then become offended when I respond in a way you don't want me to,鈥 he said.

But the piece closes by pointing out that 鈥淪teven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay and lesbian rights political association, condemned Daniel鈥檚 remark and applauded the university鈥檚 reprimand.鈥 Quoth Goldstein, 鈥淲hen someone speaks hatred in America, that person has to face the consequences of his actions.鈥

Which is of course true鈥攂ut Goldstein is mistaken about what the 鈥渃onsequences鈥 of offending others should be. As FIREpoints out endlessly, the correct response to speech one abhors is not repression, but rather more speech. If what Daniel said is really so hateful, he will certainly hear about it from the public鈥攐utraged citizens will exercise their free speech rights just as he did his. He should not hear about it via official punishment.

And just imagine if the same standard used against Daniel were used against, say, gay pride parades: were someone 鈥渙ffended鈥 by them, say on the basis of religion, the organizers could be convicted of 鈥渉arassment.鈥 Is that really what Garden State Equality wants? Because based on the New Jersey attorney general鈥檚 amazing application of the state鈥檚 nondiscrimination policy, of which Goldstein seems to approve, no controversial opinion is safe.

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share