A few weeks ago, NPR offered a program on "free speech" in which none of the participants took a strong stand in favor of free speech.

In this video, Matt Taibbi (Journalist/Commentator), Nadine Strossen (former President of the ACLU), Amna Khalid (Carlton College History Professor) and Nico Perrino (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) respond to the lopsided NPR presentation. Each of these participants recoiled at the idea that there is such a thing as a "free speech absolutist," an idea repeatedly promoted by the NPR panel. Matt Taibbi explains:

This idea that we're free speech absolutist is something that's been invented by people who are against the who want to regulate speech in a way that i think is new and very repressive. They're mischaracterizing the positions of people like all of us.

Nadine Strossen further explains:

Government may restrict speech if but only if it can satisfy an appropriately heavy burden of proof if it can show that the particular restriction is necessary and the least speech restrictive alternative in order to promote some countervailing goal of compelling importance whether that goal be public safety for example or individual safety and when you think about it that just makes common sense of course most of us would be willing to trade off free speech for you know public safety or even national security but it's a fool's choice to give up free speech if we're not gaining safety in return or worse yet as is often the case if the censorship no matter how well intended does more harm than good which is typically the case.

Taibbi points out that the NPR panel has no solutions to the "problem" that speech is often unruly and offensive:

It's so important to our conception of what our society is all about this idea of of being able to express ourselves that is preferable to the alternative. The alternative is that somebody would have to regulate the speech and that's the problem is once once we get into who's doing that regulating that that's where we get to the scary part and they don't address any of that. All they want to do is, in a very narrow way, say "Oh this libertarian hands off approach to to speech regulation doesn't work." But it's so much more complicated than that.

Amna Khalid accuses the NPR panelists of being myopic, over-focusing on the relatively functional state of American culture compared to the many vast oppressed populations in other parts of the world, where free speech is desperately needed:

In our current moment if you cast your eyes beyond the pond and look at the rest of the world you will see so many examples of how limitations on free speech are a way of shutting down the rights of minorities.

I've listened to the NPR presentation and repeatedly heard the NPR panel members attack the straw man they labeled "Free Speech Absolutist." It is as if those panel members never heard of widely recognized restrictions on free speech, including libel laws, incitement laws, laws prohibiting speech constituting hostile work environments and laws prohibiting fraud. I highly recommend this discussion: