George Leef’s latest Martin Center column explains why campus protesters have no “right” to disrupt other people’s speech.
When students (and others) disrupt events where speakers are trying to make arguments they dislike, they say that their conduct is justified.
Most commonly, the disrupters maintain that they are merely preventing “hate speech,” which allegedly doesn’t enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. Therefore, they are perfectly free to keep such speakers from being heard. In fact, they assert that they’re acting righteously by protecting against speech that leads to violence or oppression. …
… [T]he First Amendment contains no exception for “hate speech.” It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Nothing in that language suggests that government officials are entitled to make an exception for speech they regard as hateful. …
… Students and college officials have often justified their actions to silence speakers by claiming that they are simply preventing speech that could lead to violence or contains words that are inherently injurious. That justification, however, won’t hold up.
