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.
By Marisa Hirschfield ‘27
On April 24th, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens spoke about free speech, journalism, and Israel to approximately one hundred attendees gathered in Guyot Hall. The event, entitled “Writing About Israel as a Columnist and as a Jew,” was co-sponsored by a variety of campus organizations, including B’Artzeinu and the Center for Jewish Life. I attended in my capacity as a Writing Fellow for Princetonians for Free Speech, a contributor to the event.
Princetonians for Free Speech editorial
In an April 29 editorial, Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) laid out how the target on Princeton’s back on free speech, academic freedom, and antisemitism issues has been growing ever larger. Yet Princeton’s leadership continues to say publicly that everything is just fine at Princeton. Now something has happened that blows the cover off Princeton for everyone to see inside, and the repercussions will be very serious. It is untenable for Princeton’s leadership to continue to live in its bubble, seemingly divorced from reality, and to continue down the path of refusing both to admit there are problems and to take basic steps to address them.
Today, an article was published in Real Clear Politics, “Princeton Fails to Enforce Its Rules on Free Speech, Antisemitism”, written by Danielle Shapiro, who just graduated from Princeton in May. We will not repeat everything in her piece, but everyone interested in Princeton should read it. It is devastating, and the issues she raises will not end there. Her brave actions as a whistleblower will lead to story after story on this matter and will severely tarnish the reputation of Princeton. (Ms. Shapiro is on the board of PFS.)
By Danielle Shapiro
Princeton’s President Christopher Eisgruber has positioned himself as perhaps the leading academic defender against the Trump administration’s crackdown on universities, citing the importance of universities and academic freedom, as well as his belief that the administration has greatly overreached in its attacks, especially against Harvard.
Yet his ability to lead credibly this defense was challenged in April by an event at Princeton featuring former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is considered one of the favorites to succeed Benjamin Netanyahu next year. Demonstrators inside McCosh Hall shouted Bennett down and a fire alarm was pulled, apparently by a protester, ending the event. Outside, Jewish attendees were called “inbred swine,” among other slurs, and told to “go back to Europe.” President Eisgruber apologized to Bennett and university officials promised a serious investigation. A number of observers noted the importance of Princeton enforcing its rules in this situation. I attended the April 7 event, and I volunteered to speak as a witness to university investigators, with whom I met twice for over two hours.
