Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of meeting Harvey Silverglate, a prolific civil rights attorney and the founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also known as FIRE. Silverglate has made a career of defending peoples’ First Amendment rights, ranging from Vietnam War protestors in the 1970s to conservatives on college campuses in the 2000s.
I met Silverglate following a talk he gave at my university, in which he presented a viewpoint that is quite simple but has still managed to provoke the ire of many in our current political environment. The basis of Silverglate’s belief system is this: freedom of expression should be an absolute, universal right, and its preservation ultimately benefits our society.
One might think, considering the constitutional support for this right, that we would be in general agreement about the importance of maintaining it in American society. Yet today, voices from all across the political spectrum parrot the notion that dangerous ideas must be suppressed and “hate speech” must not only be socially repudiated but legally restricted.
On the right, this idea has manifested itself in Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing the Trump administration would “absolutely target” what she called “hate speech” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, as well as the removal of materials mentioning race from the National Archives. On the left, we have seen repeated attempts to repress speech deemed offensive on college campuses and elsewhere.
Undoubtedly, there is no shortage of dangerous, incorrect, or simply bad ideas circulating in our current public discourse. Many of these bad ideas now come from the very politicians elected for their supposed competence.
It is also true that there has recently been a revival of extremist ideas promulgating online, such as those of alt-right figure Nick Fuentes, who has recently been in the news for his appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast. The popularity of the ideas Fuentes conveys is a large reason why Donald Trump has maintained so much political support for so long.
The solution to this problem, though, is not a repression of ideas we deem problematic, as some have suggested. Although I do not agree with the approach Tucker Carlson took to interviewing Nick Fuentes, Fuentes’ ideas would not die off simply because they were pushed out of the public view.
That approach is precisely what has gotten us to this point. When ideas are restricted, either by the power of the law or public attacks, they do not disappear. Instead, they move underground where they fester and spread in darkness.
The correct approach, I believe, is to actively engage with ideas we find problematic and in doing so prove why they should be rejected. For most of our history, we have accepted this notion: in a free “marketplace of ideas,” the better ideas win out. But giving potentially problematic ideas the time of day has an additional benefit: by having access to all viewpoints, we are able to receive a fuller picture of what our fellow Americans believe. Only once we know that hateful rhetoric exists can we truly begin to fight it.
After over a year of writing monthly columns for the Gazette, I have decided that this will be my final column in this role.
When I began, I hoped that I might be able to offer commentary on pressing issues from the perspective of a young person. I also hoped that in contributing to a public forum like the Gazette, I would be getting people talking — something that, leading up to the 2024 election, seemed vitally important. Writing these columns has been a joy, and I appreciate people taking the time to read them.
In an ideal society, we cannot rely on politicians or “experts” to determine the trajectory of public opinion. One need not be an expert, have particular credentials, or be incredibly experienced in a certain area — I certainly do not possess any of these traits — in order to offer their two cents.
I began this monthly column over a year ago by talking about the threats posed by political and social polarization. Today, we remain perilously close to civil war. So, if I can offer my two cents on how we move away from the brink, it’s this: the answer to political anger and hostility is not less speech, it’s more speech. Those in power would like us to disengage, because a lack of dissent means that their policies can bypass the democratic process.
Going forward, let us take the example of someone like Harvey Silverglate, who has spent his life defending Americans’ right to freedom of speech, including those with whom he disagrees. It’s not enough to just believe in this right, though. Because, as Silverglate told me, “if you don’t use it, you will lose it.”
Olin Rose-Bardawil of Florence is a student at Tufts University where he majors in political science.