Free Speech, Penn State and the First Amendment

Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, William O. Douglas, once said, “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

The United States Constitution was founded back in 1776, when 39 delegates signed it solidifying many of the rights Americans have today. Arguably, one of the most important parts is the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech, press, and religion.

Freedom of speech, specifically, is the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint from an outside force, like the government or private organizations.

Dr. Zach Furness, associate professor of communications at Penn State Greater Allegheny (PSUGA), mentioned the things it protects vary under the law.

“The framework of it is obviously the same, but how it gets interpreted is all the stuff court cases set precedent over.”

That idea can cause people to hear things that may be objectional. However, their speech would be protected under the law, which can cause a possible outrage in society.

Although, free speech does not give someone the right to “say whatever you want, whenever you want,” Furness said. For example, Furness mentioned yelling fire in a packed movie theatre is not protected because it can cause the endangerment of others.

Hate speech, however, is something that is generally protected under the First Amendment even though its intent is to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group.

“The main framework is explicitly directed towards people’s race, gender and sexual orientation,” Furness said.

This can cause many problems because everyone doesn’t believe that hate speech should be tolerated.

Penn State University (PSU) was involved in this controversy not too long ago. On Oct. 24, a PSU student-run organization at University Park (UP), invited the Proud Boys to perform what was touted as a comedy show. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the Proud Boys are a hate group. Amid a variety of protests for and against the Proud Boys visit, the event was shut down.

“I think the Proud Boys deserve no university space in which to express their horrendous ideas,” Furness said. “There’s absolutely no role for public universities that get tons of funding, not from the state, to provide a venue for them to preach what they want to preach.”

Through an email interview, Ethan Gally, governmental affairs liason and vice THON chair at PSUGA, has a similar view on the issue.

“I am against what transpired at University Park regarding the Proud Boys,” Galley said. “It is infuriating to know that someone like Gavin McInnes, with his history of racial animus and white supremacism, was even allowed to step foot on university grounds.

“The Proud Boys have a legacy of hatred and bigotry,” he added.

Furness goes on to mention this “criminal organization” is free to say whatever they want online, in the street, or any public space despite not agreeing with their ideas.

“Protesting those people is, I think, an ethical responsibility,” Furness said.

Galley goes on to mention, “I submit that the protest taken against these figures was the correct course of action.” He added, if the event was to coninue as scheduled, the recruitment of individuals could have added to the intended violence.

Previously, PSU at UP gave Milo Yiannopolous, a British alt-right political commentator, a venue back in 2021 and paid him $18,000 in student funds to perform his show, “Pray the Gay Away.”

“That’s a load of money… that’s more money than all of the bands I played for 20 years get paid for combined,” Furness said, adding that money could have been given to students.

A petition arose because of Yiannopolous. The petition named, “End Hate Speech at Penn State University Park,” received almost 14,000 signatures, which caused PSU leaders to denounce his visit.

Furness says he is extremely racist as well as homophobic and should not have been given the opportunity he got.

Another big issue involving free speech is the buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk.

“The big problem is the framework for arguments about free speech…that confuses what is people’s actually right to speak versus I should be able to say what I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, with no repercussions,” Furness said.

Musk is a perfect example of this. He advocates for “free speech” and does not believe in censorship. However, he can be perceived as hypocritical. There have been instances when he suspended individuals’ Twitter accounts becasue they made fun of him [Musk].

On the flip side, Furness said there have been posts that are racist and anti-Semitic, but aren’t takedown.

“I think that there are legitimate reasons, and important ones, to cherish and fight for free speech.” Furness said. “It’s also equally as important to not have the idea and practice of free speech hijacked by people whose agenda is to have no repercussions for their speech or actions.”

Furness added, “Moderating that stuff [content] is not the same as censorship. There’s an ethical end to that, not only what I think they should do, but also what their obligation should be to the public.”

Furness added that if someone is going to take over a social media company, like Musk, and run it successfully, there must be some sort of content moderation. If there is none, this can cause the spread of disinformation as well as propaganda.

To continue, Apple has considered withholding Twitter from its app store. Apple thinks many companies, like Twitter, have too much power.

So, they [Twitter] “need to get under control and be in compliance with the standards we have to put apps on our [Apple’s] website,” Furness said, then adding the number of anti-Semitic and racist tweets have dramatically increased just within the last month alone.

In fact, if Apple decided to “withhold” Twitter, Furness said it would have the chance to destroy the app because roughly 80% of its users use Twitter on a mobile device. However, the problem is not having the app on the app store, it’s the updates that will not be compatible with the operating system. After time, this can infrastructurally phase something out of existence.

Furness noted that Musk was not excited about this news and even suggested he would make his own phone to avoid the iOS and Android duopoly in the mobile operating system.

In general, Furness said, the main issue involving free speech isn’t a governmental issue at all. Most of the time it becomes an issue when dealing with private organizations.

“Most of the ways people express themselves and most of what exists as far as there being public space to do that, is in private forums,” Furness added.

Photos courtesy: Onward State

Story by: Carlin Whalen (cjw6426@psu.edu)