144 Chapter 4Chapter 4 || Civil LibertiesCivil LibertiesThis puts many universities in a difficult spot—they would rather not allow these
controversial speakers, especially because of the high cost of providing security.
However, the First Amendment protects political speech, and the Supreme Court has
established that it cannot be prevented unless there is a direct incitement to imminent
violence. Even association with previous acts of violence, as in the case of Richard
Spencer, is not sufficient grounds to prevent speech.
You exercise your civil liberties every day, whether speaking in public, going
to church, being searched at an airport, participating in a political demonstration,
writing or reading an article in your school newspaper, or being free from illegal
police searches in your home. Because civil liberties are defined as those things
the government cannot do to you, defining civil liberties is a political process.
Often this process is confined to the courts, but for many issues—including
free speech, freedom of the press, pornography, criminal rights, abortion, and
gun control—it takes place in the broader political world, where defining civil
liberties involves balancing competing ideals and interests and drawing lines
by interpreting and applying the law. For example, debates over how to balance
national security and civil liberties—whether newspapers should publish stories
about classified government programs that may threaten civil liberties, or
whether government surveillance powers should be strengthened to fight
terrorism—will rage for years.
Other cases, such as the protests at military funerals or the protection of the
due process rights of suspected criminals and terrorists, illustrate how difficult and
politically unpopular it can be to protect our freedoms and liberty. Nearly everyone
would agree that the behavior of the members of Westboro Baptist Church is
completely outrageous. But protecting the freedom of speech is easy if you agree with
what is being spoken. It becomes much more difficult if the freedom protects the rights
of Nazis to march in Skokie, defends a person accused of a heinous crime, or gives a
white supremacist like Richard Spencer a platform.What’s
Your
Take?
Should speakers with
controversial, sometimes
hateful opinions be
allowed to speak on
college campuses?Or do universities’
and students’ interests
outweigh their right to free
speech?Full_05_APT_64431_ch04_102-147.indd 144 16/11/18 1:33 PM