Your Cart is Empty
Marisa Warman Hirschfield ‘27
I worry that many progressives are abandoning free speech as a core value of our movement, endorsing it only when politically advantageous. “We believe in a diverse set of thoughts,” a University of Wisconsin student told the Associated Press earlier this year. “But when your thought is predicated on the subjugation of me or my people, or to a generalized people, then we have problems.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff told the New York Times that in the current era, libertarians and conservatives are more often the champions of free speech.
There is undoubtedly tension between free speech and progressive causes. Consider, for instance, how permitting racist speech might hinder our fight for racial justice, or how reposting sexist jokes about Kamala Harris might empower opponents of gender equality. There are real costs to protecting all speech, but, importantly, there are numerous benefits too. Free speech is a double-edged sword – it hurts as well as helps us – and progressives must fully embrace it if we are to reap its rewards.
Legal protections that span political causes, no matter the cause, make us all safer and more free. Take one of the ACLU’s most controversial and consequential cases: Brandenburg v. Ohio.In 1969, Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg told a rally in Ohio that he desired “revengeance” against Jews, Black people, and the federal government. After he was convicted of violating the state’s Criminal Syndicalism statute, the ACLU represented him before the Supreme Court and successfully reversed his conviction. The per curiammajority opinion articulated new legal language that is now essential for discerning what speech is constitutionally protected: seditious speech can be censored or punished only if it is likely and intended to incite “imminent lawless action.”
Decades later, the Brandenburgprecedent protects a wide range of beliefs. In 2021, the ACLU invoked Brandenburgto advocate on behalf of a Black Lives Matter protester. How remarkable that case law used to protect the repugnant speech of a white supremacist was later adopted to defend an activist protesting police violence.
For precisely the Brandenburgreason, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero ‘87 insists that it’s critical to protect free speech regardless of the speaker. “When we defend clients with positions with which we disagree, or even abhor, it’s because we are defending values crucial to the work of civil rights advocates in the past and present.”
Indeed, most major milestones in the progressive movement were only possible because dissidents could express unpopular viewpoints without fear of retribution. Free speech was the engine that made abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights advocacy feasible. The First Amendment allowed for radicalism, for reimaginings of our country, and for movers and shakers to realize their visions.
Frederick Douglass was a major proponent of free speech. In 1860, he delivered a lecture in Boston and declared: “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble.”
Alice Paul, the founder of the National Woman’s Party, echoed similar sentiments in her fight for the franchise. Along with thousands of other suffragists, she picketed outside the White House. When she was arrested, she pleaded to be granted political prisoner status.
Many of the Supreme Court decisions born of the Civil Rights era, Brandenburgincluded, are the basis of free speech protections today.
Given this history, progressives should be stronger advocates for First Amendment rights than anyone; they made progress possible. We should speak up not only when our own expression is threatened, but when conservative speech is silenced.
Let us reclaim free speech as a progressive principle. Let us partner with our partisan opponents to uphold the value that, for centuries, has propelled our causes. Take it from Frederick Douglass: principalities and powers are sure to tremble.
Marisa Hirschfield ’27, a PFS Writing Fellow, is the Education and Social Action Chair for the Center for Jewish Life, an editor for the Nassau Weekly and a writer for the Triangle Club.
Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In March, the Princeton University Board of Trustees voted to approve the University operating budget for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. For the first time in three years, the total operating budget was not shared in this announcement. Now, a letter from Provost Jennifer Rexford to the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) has revealed the total operating budget to be $3.5 billion — nearly a half billion increase from last year’s budget.
Accompanying this letter is the CPUC Report of the Priorities Committee to the President, with an introductory letter from Rexford to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, containing a set of recommendations for budget spending. However, these numbers are still subject to change, Rexford noted in the letter.
Tal Fortgang
Law & Liberty
Excerpt: It’s back to the future on campus free speech. But this time, so much more hinges on what Princeton does next. Universities failed to investigate and punish these dime-a-dozen instances before their supposed conversion to free-speech principles. Yet we have been told that something has changed for the better. This is the perfect test case.
Princeton has announced that it will investigate this serious breach of basic free-expression rules. Videos from the event make it clear enough who had to be escorted out after trying to shout Bennett down. And since the main campus anti-Israel group took to social media to claim credit for the disruption, its leadership should also be in the administration’s crosshairs. The question now is not whether Princeton is capable of identifying a violation of its rules—it is whether it is prepared to enforce them.
by Princetonians for Free Speech
On April 4, we published a Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) editorial entitled “Princeton in the Crosshairs,” in which we discussed the multiple attacks on universities being launched by the Trump Administration and listed reasons why Princeton was now likely to become a major target, much like Columbia and Harvard have been. In the few weeks since we published that editorial, there have been very important developments, involving universities in general and Princeton specifically. The bottom line is that Princeton is noweven more in the crosshairs, with investigations and lawsuits coming from several directions. Yet Princeton still does not admit it has problems and will not take the most basic steps to address them, steps that other universities are increasingly taking.
