Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the ousting of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson from Fox News in 2023.
Conversely, she condemned ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show.
In one case, deplatforming was essential for a just society. For the other, it was a blatant attack on keystone First Amendment rights.
And although the public controversy surrounding both cases didn’t last long, they reignited a centuries-long debate on whether freedom of expression should ever be controlled and who gets to decide if it crosses the line.
In a country built on the principle of free speech, there are times when it could be argued that unrestricted free speech may be too free. Hateful. Offensive. Violent.
What counts as acceptable speech — and what crosses these lines — is often very difficult to define.
While some argue that such speech is simply a necessary cost of freedom, others believe certain limits are necessary to protect communities.
“America is a little bit of an outlier in the world in defending a pretty robust interpretation of what our freedoms are,” History & Social Sciences Department Chair David Fisher said. “Bottom line, we really do stretch the notion of what is free speech, and maybe that’s for the good, but there is a debate on this.”
Any speech that can cause immediate harm, danger or violence isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech, however, has historically been safeguarded by the United States, largely because the definition of “hate speech” is nuanced.
Because of this subjectivity, the judicial system is hesitant to make any concrete ruling on First Amendment rights. Lawmakers tiptoe between the thin line that separates regulation of harmful speech from censorship.
Still, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. With greater freedoms come greater responsibilities to defend one’s ideas and understand their potential repercussions.
And while hate speech may be legally protected, the school maintains its authority to decide what crosses the line.
“Each individual must take responsibility for the things that they decide to take in, and that’s the independence, that’s the freedom that we have,” Director of Inclusion, Diversity and Human Resources Lorre Allen said.
In addition, regulation of speech can be used as a political weapon, with both sides of the political spectrum having a history of deplatforming the other side.
So in many ways, the question of what counts as “acceptable” speech has become increasingly partisan.
“This is more of a cultural problem, not a legal problem,” Fisher said. “Both the left and the right need to be able to open the window a little bit to be able to accept speech, criticism, opinions, dialogue that they might find offensive.”
And with more and more political polarization, finding civil discourse can be tricky.
A lack of discourse fosters frustration when people feel that their opinions go unheard, and without a safe, mutual space for discussion, the power of one’s voice fades.
For students, the ideal school environment serves as one of, if not the only place where they can challenge ideas without fear of repercussions. While it may be simpler to try to completely avoid complicated discussions, the school stresses the importance of not shying away from these issues.
“I relish this as a teacher of history and politics and economics and government,” Fisher said. “If I’m not making you uncomfortable a little bit in class, then I’m not teaching you anything.”
And aside from the classroom, the school has implemented various platforms for unrestricted, student-led conversation.
The Inclusion and Diversity Leadership Council (IDLC) and Global Engagement Committee (GEC), for example, host many events throughout the school’s campus in order to promote more understanding and less polarizing speech, creating a platform where students can openly discuss their opinions and feel heard in their community.
“The goal, one, is that it always remains a student-led discussion or conversation,” Allen said. “Two, the intent is to create an environment where people feel comfortable to have engaging and sometimes challenging topics to discuss and have dialogue on.”
But even in student-led discussions, certain parameters can be necessary to guide the conversation.
“You have to have parameters for any type of dialogue,” Allen said. “Whether it’s at school or at work in a company, there has to be some form of parameters in place to have these types of conversations.”
Some rules, for example, prevent the discussion from getting out of hand, being dominated by one voice or from steering off the intended topic.
And while it’s human nature to listen in order to respond, listening for the sake of understanding first is essential for a productive flow of ideas.
“When you’re having conversations on challenging topics, you should not go into those conversations thinking, ‘I’m going to change this person’s mind and have them think like me,”’ Allen said.
For the IDLC and GEC, a discussion isn’t a battleground of opinions — it’s a place to understand other people.
And the events are not necessarily designed to change peoples’ opinions.
“We choose the kinds of people who would have the best insights and the most variety of insights, what teachers and students would have the biggest and most diverse insights so that we can come to a better conclusion and have a better conversation,” junior GEC member Paul Sumethasorn said. “Inviting people who all have the same opinion is like an echo chamber.”
Because one of the greatest benefits of free speech — access to a wide range of opinions — can only occur when students are openly learning from one another, disagreement is an essential part of the process.
Conversations covering challenging topics will naturally lend itself to conflict between viewpoints, but they can also reveal ideas that students hadn’t even considered, as long as students remain open-minded.
Without that openness, the effect is little different from censorship — except it’s the individual restricting the intake of information instead of the government.
“We learn the best when our preconceived notions and beliefs are challenged, not to the point where I’m challenging you because I want you to believe what I believe, but I’m challenging you to reconsider something that you may not have thought about,” Fisher said. “I think that needs to happen because you need to be able to come up with good arguments to defend the beliefs that you have.”
