Things looked icy and bleak in 1978. But then it didn't happen, like so many other things that have been predicted. What is the lesson we can learn from this failure? When we make predictions regarding complex adaptive systems, perhaps we need more humility. Perhaps we shouldn't act like we are sure of things when we aren't.
Contrary to the title of this post, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. So, many Americans wonder, "is hate speech legal?"
Contrary to a common misconception, most expression one might identify as “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment and cannot lawfully be censored, punished, or unduly burdened by the government — including public colleges and universities.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish “hate speech.” Instead, the Court has come to identify within the First Amendment a broad guarantee of “freedom for the thought that we hate,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described the concept in a 1929 dissent. In a 2011 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts described our national commitment to protecting “hate speech” in order to preserve a robust democratic dialogue:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
In other words, the First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate “hate speech” without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires. Instead, we as citizens possess the power to most effectively answer hateful speech—whether through debate, protest, questioning, laughter, silence, or simply walking away.
A story of hubris by the powers that be. This could also be characterized the sort of thing Jonathan Haidt would characterize as "structural stupidity":
People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain.
What follows is an Excerpt From The Free Press. "Government Power v. People Power," By Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:
From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was a vocal critic of lockdowns and school closures that I believed would cause more harm than good. In October 2020, with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed protecting vulnerable people while lifting lockdowns for the majority of the population. In other words, it advocated a return to classic principles of pandemic management that had worked to limit the harm of other respiratory virus pandemics. Tens of thousands of scientists signed on.[Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of health policy at Stanford University, where he has taught in the medical school for over two decades].Four days after we wrote it, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote to Anthony Fauci, labeling us as “fringe epidemiologists” and calling for “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the declaration. A propaganda campaign quickly ensued, with various media sources falsely accusing me of wanting to let the virus rip. It wasn’t just the press. Recently I learned in these pages that Twitter placed me on a secret blacklist to limit the reach of my tweets.
So what did I learn in 2022? I learned in a very concrete and painful way the effects of Washington and Silicon Valley working together to marginalize unpopular ideas and people to create an illusion of consensus.
This censorship and smear campaign deprived the world of a needed debate over Covid policy and might have avoided much unnecessary suffering by children, the poor, and the working class harmed by lockdowns.
Here is an excerpt from the Great Barrington Declaration:
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
I sometimes think back to 2021, when Ibram Kendi unwittingly self-destructed. The episode was described by Professor of Political Science and author Wilfred Reilly at FAIR:
On October 29, the newly minted MacArthur “genius” posted the results of a widely discussed survey project on Twitter, saying simply: “More than a third of white students lied (about their race) on their college applications.” Kendi went on to claim that about half of the students who chose dishonesty falsely identified themselves as Native American—presumably to benefit from affirmative action programs—and that “more than three-fourths” of all students who lied about their racial background were accepted to colleges they applied to. As any academic should, Kendi duly linked his source, which I also provide here.
The backlash to Kendi’s comments was immediate, and, frankly, rather predictable. As Oliver Traldi details for Quillette, and as Jerry Coyne does for the popular blog Why Evolution Is True, conservative and heterodox intellectuals pointed out that Kendi’s claim about white students seeking to benefit from affirmative action logically debunks the main thesis of his scholarly work. Founder and former editor of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald not only questioned the objective accuracy of Kendi’s data, but also noted that his argument “negates every core contention about American society on which his career is based.” Journalist Alex Griswold described Kendi as having “blown up his life’s work,” noting that Kendi would “have to delete” his tweet, which, in fact, he did.
Reilly is the author of an excellent book of topics we should be discussing regarding social justice: Taboo: 10 Facts You Can't Talk About (2020).
End of Year Message by Bion Bartning, Founder of FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism), discussing the genesis and mission of FAIR:
When I was a child growing up in Newton, Massachusetts, I was passionate about civil rights. I wanted to do my small part to help “heal the world”—and move us ever closer to the promise outlined in the Declaration of Independence: that every person was created equal, and that we are all entitled to unalienable rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero to me, and still is. I remember the day several years ago that I first shared his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech with my two young children. He spoke the truth about our shared humanity, equal protection under the law, access to equal opportunity for all, and why it was important to treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect. I thought, growing up, that everybody shared these values.
As a young teenager in 1988, I did not understand why our governor at the time was pilloried as a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”—which I viewed as an organization committed to standing up for the individual civil liberties that are promised to all Americans under the Constitution. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Equal protection under the law. I saw the ACLU as a vigilant guardian, fighting to protect our hard-won individual rights and freedoms.
Perhaps that was true at one time—but, as I discovered a few years ago, and many recognized much earlier, the ACLU is no longer the vigilant and nonpartisan civil liberties organization that we desperately need. Rather, it is a highly partisan fundraising machine that contributes to the ever-increasing polarization in our culture, while bringing in almost $400 million per year through the ACLU and ACLU Foundation, plus millions more through its state-level chapters.
And where does the ACLU spend all of the money that it raises from individuals and corporations? In 2021, Anthony Romero, CEO of the ACLU, was paid over $1 million. This is an astounding amount for a nonprofit organization to spend on one person—and, together with the significant salaries of the other key employees, shows the degree to which, perhaps, money and a careerist mindset motivates and drives the people at the top of the ACLU.
As founder and CEO of FAIR, I have never taken, and will never take, any salary or compensation. In fact, FAIR’s total payroll, for its entire team of paid staff members combined, is substantially less than the $1 million that the ACLU spends on its CEO alone. For almost two years I have donated, and will continue to donate, my time, energy, and money to support FAIR. The same is true of the other volunteers and donors involved in building FAIR since its launch last March—including Letitia Kim, head of the FAIR legal network, our chapter leaders, Board of Advisors, and hundreds of other courageous individuals.
Why do so many of us choose to be part of this? While we may not agree on every issue, we are all passionate about FAIR’s nonpartisan mission, and to advancing the values, principles—and individual freedoms—that are the foundation of a healthy, functioning, pluralistic society. I was compelled to found FAIR after seeing how the same illiberal and intolerant ideology that had infected my children’s school had caused the ACLU and other civil rights organizations to stray from their missions. I saw the urgent need for a new, truly nonpartisan, organization committed to advancing individual civil rights and liberties for all Americans—and that is exactly what we are building, with your support and involvement, at FAIR.