Are There Limits to Free Speech?

Sunday, January 18, 2004

Rev. Gretchen Woods

SERMON

Are There Limits to Free Speech?

Rabbi Stephen S. Wise was once scheduled to address an anti-Nazi meeting in Brooklyn. He received several letters warning that unless he stayed away he would most certainly be shot. But he was not one to be intimidated and the threat did not daunt him. Soon after the meeting was bought to order, he spread his outstretched arms and opened by saying, “I have been warned to stay away from this meeting under pain of being killed. If anyone is going to shoot me let him do it now. I hate to be interrupted.” (Jacob M. Braude, Complete Speakers and Toastmasters Library: Speech Openers and Closers. #160.)

Thus was free speech wisely used and wittily effective. I was asked by the Board of this congregation to address the question of how Unitarian Universalists might relate to free speech and, specifically, how this should affect our rental policies: Do we ren to anyone who has the money, or do we put limits to the goals of the group renting; hence the questionnaire in your order of service. I do hope you will give us your feedback.

The Rev. Dr. Forrest Church, who serves All Souls UU Church in New York City, has a new book, The American Charter, in which he notes that the Bill of Rights is directly related to our Unitarian and Universalist forebears, and thus, to our current Purposes and Principles. He sounds the alarm regarding the erosion of these basic rights as outlined in this great document of our country. What are we to make of this, especially as we face an election year (horrors!) and serious votes on human services with Measure 30. (Please, Please, vote your conscience on this measure!) So now, we are asked to consider the value of free speech, possible limits to free speech, and what limits, if any, we should embrace.

I am an avid supporter of free speech. I stand in the Unitarian and Universalist traditions of free pulpit/ free pew, which asserts that the minister must be free to express her or his values without restriction by congregants. In like manner, congregants must be free to make their assertions about what is important as well, and to act accordingly. This is at the very heart of Unitarian Universalist values.

I also believe free speech is essential to the free exchange of ideas and, thus, it is even more essential to creativity and co-creativity among human beings. Without free speech, we have the horror of Galileo’s recantation, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the crucifixion of Jesus for sedition. We have masses of people still coming to the United States of America because they are tortured and murdered in countries without free speech. We are still, blessedly, something of a haven because we have this basic right.

With free speech, we have exchange of ideas that allowed us to go to the moon. We could not have done it without the support of some Soviet scientists who were quietly given permission to work with us. With free speech, we were able to challenge limitations our government put on the possibilities for quality of life of people whom it had labeled “less than human” in the past, like women, African Americans, and gays.

I agree with Louise Ferrell that each idea should be given its place in the sun and allowed to stand or fall on its own merit. I vividly remember Judy‘s son, Ryan in great consternation that a Neo-Nazi was not allowed to speak at his high school after the students had worked hard to arrange his talk. Ryan felt it was a discounting refusal to accept that students have the good sense to see the flaws of logic in this potential talk.

Justice Robert Jackson once asserted, “The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Peter’s Quotations. P. 320.) He also wrote, “...if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” (West Virginia v. Barnette. 1943) There is merit in this argument. We Unitarian Universalists depend upon it for our continued ability to speak out from our Principles.

Justice William O. Douglas also asserted, “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.” It is my great fear that the present administration in the United States of America is rapidly taking us down that path, and I don’t like it. I am working to see a “regime change” in this country because of this.

One important piece that often gets lost in the quest for free speech is the recognition that others must also have the same right. This is why I have such admiration for the debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters. There is a consistent effort to give all ideas free expression. Therefore, I am in agreement with Michael Kinsley when he writes:

If you accept the necessity for freedom of expression, it follows that in an intellectual controversy any attempt to coerce rather than to persuade...is not merely an offense against the person so coerced, but an erosion of the mechanics which make free expression work, and therefore make it possible. (Peter. p. 320)

So why would I even bring up the possibility of limits to free speech? While doing research for this sermon, I learned that there are specific legal categories of exceptions to the First Amendment: advocacy of violence, captive audience, child pornography, copyrighted expression, false statements of fact, fighting words, fraud, interference with another fundamental right, obscenity, private property, trade secrets, and true threats (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). I think Rabbi Wise had a real case for “true threats.”

The First Amendment Center notes:

Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, pornography, nude dancing, solicitation and various forms of symbolic speech. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression...(First Amendment website)

Clearly, I am not alone in my concerns over what I would call “license,” rather than freedom. I genuinely believe that our Unitarian Universalist values would exclude Satanists from renting our space, because their rituals frequently include mutilation and/or full sacrifice of living things who have no choice in the matter. And I continually struggle with the notion of renting to groups who propagate hatred toward other groups. I think they would fall under “advocacy of violence” and “fighting words.”

More important to me, whether we like it or not, simply having such a group in our building conveys a sense of acceptance, if not approval. I squirmed when we co-presented with the Philosophy Department of Oregon State University the program by Katherine Powers, though I supported it on the grounds of free speech. I still have second thoughts about that, and probably always will.

For me the bottom line is that the programs that appear in our building should be resonant with our Unitarian Universlist Purposes and Principles. That would still lead to a lot of discussion as, many times, those values can be put into conflict with each other. This is not a policy we can set in policy and assume it will cover all circumstances.

I do not believe that free speech is a good excuse for acceptance of lies, for being destructive of community, nor for inciting violence against others. I believe we are held accountable by our principled demand for “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning” to eschew those who propagate falsehood. I believe we are held accountable by our commitment to “world community with peace, liberty and justice for all” to refuse those who threaten others or break the fabric of this religious community or the larger community.

I agree that there must be forums for free exchange of ideas and that ideas should stand or fall on their own merits. I simply question whether anything goes. I think our Unitarian Universalist values provide guidelines that show us when we need to hold our space and our pulpit sacred from hatred, threats, and lies. We are meant to do more with our free pulpit and free pew than allow those to become our signatures in the larger community. As I said in my last sermon, our efforts must call each other to become the best we can be, not pander to the least common denominator.

I close with words from James Luther Adams, one of the greatest Unitarian theologians of the twentieth century:

I call that church free which enters into covenant with the ultimate of existence,

that sustaining and transforming power not made with human hands.

It binds together families and generations against the idolatry of any human claim to absolute truth or authority.

This covenant is the charter and responsibility and joy of worship in the face of death as well as life.

I call that church free which brings individuals into a caring, trusting fellowship,

that protects and nourishes their integrity and spiritual freedom;

that yearns to belong to the church universal;

it is open to insight and conscience from every source;

It bursts through rigid tradition, giving rise to new and

living language, to new and broader fellowship.

It is a pilgrim church, a servant church, on an adventure of the spirit.

The goal is the prophethood and priesthood of all believers, the one for the liberty of prophesying, the other for the ministry of healing.

It aims to find unity in diversity under the promptings

of the spirit “that bloweth where it listeth...and

maketh all things new.”

May this congregation be such a church, with respect, responsibility, and relish for the process!

So Be it! Blessed Be!