OPINION: Unpopular speech is still free

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week isn’t just a reminder of the inhuman acts humans are capable of; it’s a reminder that democracy is just as fragile as the people.

Whether one’s opinion is political or personal, a disagreement should never lead to violence. A public figure may be under more scrutiny for their opinions, but their influence does not make them more or less human.

I’m sure in the time since last Thursday this is well understood. Doubly so if you keep up with the news, exponentially so if you’re a social media user. Most likely, you’ve been exposed to every possible variation of opinion of Kirk’s life in the past five days.

And, as the Associated Press has reported and what I’ve encountered, you may have even seen grisly videos or photos of Kirk’s assassination from the multiple angles of Utah Valley University’s student body who accidentally live-streamed or recorded a man’s murder.

I’m not sure the human race was ever built to withstand the communication empire social media has cursed us. When every possible voice has the ability to amplify those willing to share their most extreme views, how could we stand a chance?

Social media should have always been the place to bring rabid sports fans together for verbal grappling over their stupid and wrong opinions. It shouldn’t be for the nihilists we will never meet who actively seek for ways to spread some sort of collective trauma.

The tough part of free speech is the fact that unpopular speech is still free. For anyone gleeful towards Kirk’s death, they have that right no matter how unpopular. It may be extreme, and I find that particular view wrong, but that’s the nature of opinion.

I would certainly not want someone to lose their job over such an opinion, even if that opinion is expressed publicly. Outside of the context of a workplace, speech should be protected. Punishment for unpopular speech is not what this country should stand for.

Unless speech proposes imminent danger, there should be no life-changing actions to punish it. The ability to disagree is the strongest and most annoying part of our American rights.

In 1969, the Supreme Court heard the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The case in question covered whether one Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan member in Ohio, could share his white supremacist opinions and potentially violent promises.

“If our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken,” Brandenburg said during one rally.

This is beside other opinions such as advocating returning Black people to Africa and Jewish people to Israel, although said much harsher in typical racist fashion.

The state of Ohio prosecuted him for advocating racial strife, but Brandenburg appealed for his right to free speech all the way to the Supreme Court.

The issue was less focused on whether Brandenburg’s opinions were wrong but rather the violence which it could incite. The use of the word “revengeance,” perhaps one of the silliest words in our language, could be seen as inciting violence.

Yet, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg. Although all on the court most likely opposed Brandenburg views, including the Supreme Court’s first Black Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, his speech was protected during the heart of the civil rights movement.

The case also produced the “direct incitement” test, saying speech should only be punished if it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because Brandenburg wasn’t directly advocating any violent action, he was protected.

Of course, any decision on speech critically doesn’t protect speech on social media. Social platforms are controlled by private companies who can decide how their users, who accept the terms of services of the platform’s uses, should be moderated.

Yet, the nature of expanding the social web has created new issues with social media where previously private thoughts are now being shared at an unimaginably large scale. Anyone can know what I ate for breakfast on a particular morning as long as I post an image of my famous English muffin breakfast sandwiches.

Should we be more careful with how much we share online? Absolutely. But, what we share online shouldn’t mean losing a livelihood.

Employers have a right to distance themselves from the speech of an employee. A code of conduct can be a welcome guidance for how an employee should act as a representative. Yet, seeing a potential scenario where speech outside of the workplace is receiving calls for punishment is disappointing.

Social media’s amplification of views also leads to raging harassment from individuals who seem to have nothing better to do than find a new battle. When we don’t notice the loudest voices come from those outside our community, it can be hard to dig through the noise.

Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression put it best.

“The only time you’re really supporting free speech is when it’s unpopular,” Goldstein said. “There’s no one out there trying to stop people from loving puppies and bunnies.”