I am repeatedly stunned by the number of people, many of them claiming to be politically progressive, who willingly and consciously refuse to recognize this distinction:
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
Without any doubt the ACLU will win this lawsuit for declaratory judgment. California passed a ridiculous law attempting to muzzle physicians who question the "contemporary scientific consensus" on how to treat COVID. Here's a quote from the lawsuit:
Rarely does a state legislature pass a bill that is so obviously unconstitutional. Even more rarely does a governor sign that bill into law. For the reasons put forth below, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare AB 2098 unconstitutional and halt its enforcement before it goes into effect.
We need to be more aggressive about the evil of censorship. Censorship is a blatant lie, disguised as an action. It is the false claim that there is no other side to the story. Or it's a false claim that any challenge to the prevailing narrative is bullshit before we even hear it. Censorship constitutes lies of omission. It is a technique for manipulating people by deceiving them. When used on social media, censorship is a tactic for fooling innocent users that a view is universally embraced when it is actually contested and, in fact, might be the minority view.
Chomsky: "I do not think that the state has the right to determine historical truth and to punish because I'm not willing to give the state that right even if they happen . . ."
Unknown man: "Even if they deny that the gas chambers existed?"
Chomsky: "I'm saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. I mean, Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech he liked, right? So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom speech, that means you're in favor of free speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There are two positions we can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want."
Chomsky: "With regard to my defense of the people who express utterly offensive views, I don't have the slightest doubt that every commissar says, "You're defending that person's views." No, I'm not. I'm defending his right to express them. The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century."
Glenn Greenwald has focused on this issue repeatedly because many people who consider themselves to be "liberal" have abandoned free speech, now embracing the opposite, censorship of things they find offensive and things they don't like. I agree with Greenwald. Many modern so-called liberals have dramatically changed positions on free speech as a stealth maneuver. They won't admit that they formerly embraced wide-open free speech (the version described by Chomsky) and they won't explain why they turned their position upside down.
Hopefully we will see a lot more universities adopting the Chicago Principles. UNC recently took this big step . . . and more:
On July 27, the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees made a strong, new commitment to safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus. Colleges and universities face immense pressure to comport with majority beliefs, but UNC’s trustees proactively resolved to maintain institutional neutrality on controversial political and social issues.
The trustees’ unanimous resolution built on the previous work of the faculty. To the credit of the UNC Faculty Assembly, it adopted in 2018 the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression, an action affirmed by the trustees in March 2021. The faculty resolution read, in part, “By reaffirming a commitment to full and open inquiry, robust debate, and civil discourse we also affirm the intellectual rigor and open-mindedness that our community may bring to any forum where difficult, challenging, and even disturbing ideas are presented.”
The trustees took a remarkable further step. In addition to confirming once more the decision of the Faculty Assembly, they put the university in the vanguard of institutions committed to a robust heterodoxy of views and opinions by also adopting what is known as the Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action. The UNC resolution notes that the Kalven Report “recognizes that the neutrality of the University on social and political issues ‘arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints’ and further acknowledges ‘a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day.’
For more on the need for universities to maintain institutional neutrality, see Mark McNeilly's article at the HxA Blog: "Universities Should Adopt Institutional Neutrality." An excerpt:
Institutional neutrality is the idea that the university, as the Kalven Report states, “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness.” It comes to this conclusion on the basis of the view that “the mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” The university follows this mission to advance society and humankind. What higher mission could there be?
The instrument of the mission, per the Report, “is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Thus, “to perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.”