February 19, 2020
By Melanie Halem, CAIRES Intern
Last week, Ethics in the Public Sphere hosted an Ethics Café focused on the topic of free speech and hate speech.
Students were able to enjoy coffee and snacks as they dove into this really difficult topic, and they found that although most people had the same positive views on free speech and negative views on hate speech, the problems associated with both had no clear-cut solution.
As a student working with Ethics in the Public Sphere, I was able to attend this café and visit different tables to facilitate student discussions. It was interesting to see what students deemed most important to talk about during the hour and a half event.
The overarching question that students set out to answer was “Should hate speech be given a public venue? And how should public universities and local communities respond?”
Free Speech and Richard Spencer
Every single conversation I listened to had mentions of Richard Spencer. There were frequent references to Spencer’s extremely controversial October 2017 visit, and students used this as the basis of much of their reasoning. The university could do little to constrain Spencer’s right to free speech, although his visit was a fairly serious cause for concern due to the fear of potential outbursts or violence. At what point could the university limit the right to individual expression to protect broader social goods and civil liberties?
While hate speech is extremely offensive, since it causes no serious harm, public universities are not allowed to limit it. Due to various Court rulings, public universities cannot ban speakers from campus because of the content of their speech, and they cannot require said speakers to pay for any extra security costs that may be necessary due to possible protests. This puts universities in a tricky situation. While the overwhelming majority of students may not want a speaker to visit their school, the university can legally do very little.
Although it has been ineffective in the past, can universities make an argument that hate speech does in fact cause harm? Many of the students at the café seemed to think so. Many argued that hate speech may not hurt anyone physically, but the emotional harm it causes should be enough to have such speech banned. Others saw this as an effort that would be too hard to justify. They asserted that mental health is still a touchy subject that is only just starting to be destigmatized; it would be close to impossible to use it as a reason to ban a First Amendment right.
Something else that students found distinctly unfair was the financial burden that controversial speakers placed on universities and the surrounding community. Many were shocked to hear that Spencer’s visit cost UF and the city of Gainesville $500,000 for security and other protective measures. Still, there was little consensus on what to do. Students felt it was only fair for speakers to share the financial burden of their visit; the students were frustrated that such obligations had been denied by the courts.
What About Dennis?
Since the attendees were only talking themselves in circles when discussing Spencer, the topic of conversation turned to another notable free speech advocate with whom many UF students are familiar: Dennis Kane.
Dennis Kane is an eccentric man in his 40s who used to frequent Turlington Plaza and other places on UF’s campus to spread his offensive and often derogatory messages. This strange staple of UF is often seen with his bike, a sign with a peculiar message, and extremely short shorts. Unlike Spencer, Dennis has been banned from campus many times, and has even faced jail time for not respecting his ban. Students pondered, “What makes Dennis different from Spencer? How was Dennis so easily banned?”
Dennis Kane on the plaza
After a quick Google search, students found the line that Spencer never crossed, but Dennis did: threats. On multiple occasions, Dennis has openly threatened students, which allowed for UF to ban him pretty easily. Once someone poses a violent threat to anyone on campus, the university has the power to limit his or her free speech. Now Dennis hangs out on the edge of campus, oftentimes outside of Chipotle or another place on the sidewalk of University Avenue. Because Richard Spencer did not threaten anyone, UF could do very little to prohibit his ability to speak, even though his visit still had violent effects. About an hour after Spencer’s event, three of his supporters were heard yelling Hitler chants and shot a gun at a group of protesters. While thankfully no one was hurt, the three men were charged with attempted homicide. Just because no open threats were made by Spencer himself did not mean that violence from his visit would not occur.
Students concluded that while the speakers who spread hate speech may not threaten violence themselves, disagreements between the supporters and protesters of such speakers are what may cause violence. How do universities justify banning speakers whose biggest danger they pose is not from themselves but rather the reactions to their message?
Effects of the Café
The ethics café introduced many questions, and no definitive answer was given. Even though a consensus was difficult to reach, students still spoke about how beneficial the conversation was. One attendee said that he entered the café feeling like his viewpoint was simple and easily applicable, and he quickly discovered just how multifaceted and complex the issue truly was. Another attendee told me how interesting it was to hear from his peers, especially a German student who spoke to him about how the country has legal restrictions on hate speech. Overall, the exposure to different perspectives on this topic caused most students to leave the Ethics Café with a better understanding of the topic at hand.
One of the most interesting things I heard during my wandering throughout the room was an observation from a student about Spencer. Students were asking what Spencer even accomplished if his speech was drowned out by the loud protesters. She expressed that – in a sense – Richard Spencer still got exactly what he wanted. Two years after his infamous visit, students are still talking about him and his message, and discussions of free speech inevitably lead to mentions of his name. His hateful message is preserved in most students’ memories, even to this day, and he is at the forefront of most subsequent free speech debates.
Although this is an unpleasant truth, these conversations must continue to be had. Students are obligated to recognize the complexity of these issues and must be willing to talk about them; that is the only way forward progress can be made.