RSS
Even Westboro Deserves Free Speech
By Editorial Board — February 5, 2010 — Opinion — Volume XLIV, Issue 3In the days before Westboro Baptist Church came to picket outside of Hillel, all kinds of students offered their perspectives on what the appropriate response ought to be. One was particularly striking: allowing Westboro’s awful message on campus demonstrates the problem of free speech, that it isn’t necessarily a good thing.
Indeed, Westboro travels the country, encouraging suicide and agitating for awareness that earthquakes like in Haiti are a result of gay marriage, and that gay marriage will cause divine judgment on all of California. They try to spread hate for Jews, gays, and our men and women in uniform. Their message is clear. But that clarity makes it even more obvious what their message really is: hateful and wrong.
Yet the perversity of their words doesn’t automatically mean they should be banned from saying them. Rather, one could argue they were even beneficial to hear. By adding Westboro to the university discussion, it created an opportunity for different communities to come together over our common values.
When discussing censorship in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
In other words, thanks to Westboro’s presence, Stanford recognized their errors and rallied around respect and dignity for all people. Having come into clearer focus, more people were reminded of these principles by coming out to support their friends in the face of Westboro’s hate.
One student estimated that there were hundreds of students on the lawns of Hillel and Sigma Nu, thanks to the leadership of the Jewish Students Association. The range of JSA’s diverse cosponsors, including nearly every major ethnic and religious student group as well as other organizations from the ASSU Executive to the band to Izzy’s Bagels on California Avenue, was inspiring.
Stanford students rose the occasion and elevated campus discussion to what unites us, not what divides us. Had Westboro Baptist Church been silenced or prevented from standing on the corner of Mayfield and Campus, it is very unlikely that students would have come together the way they did and participated in a discussion on human dignity. That’s a great message to keep in mind.
We recognize that the right to free speech is not absolute. In some cases, words can be merely offensive without any productive gain. However, in Westboro’s case, their free speech should not have been denied, because the strength of the university community allowed for a constructive discussion and response.
As a result, any challenge to free speech must be subjected to strict scrutiny. While it would be easy to think an offensive organization like Westboro should be banned from demonstrated on campus, consider the opportunities we would have missed.
At The Stanford Review, we try to offer well thought perspectives to add to the campus discussion. Regardless of whether we see eye to eye, we hope you will allow us to engage you. After all, if you still disagree, as Mill says, your position and conviction will be strengthened having been exposed to an alternate viewpoint just as our campus resolve was strengthened in the face of Westboro. Alternatively, you may come to share our opinion, having not been adequately exposed to it in the past.
We hope that the rally at Hillel marks the beginning of a new receptiveness to ideas on campus, leading to even more constructive discussions.
Unsigned editorials represent the views of The Stanford Review’s Editorial Board and do not necessarily reflect opinions of The Stanford Review or its staff. The Editorial Board consists of the Opinion Editor, the Executive Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. To submit a letter to the editor or guest op-ed, please e-mail our Opinion Editor, Matt Sprague, at mattfs@stanford.edu.
Clarification: In Issue 2, the article “Initiative to Increase Understanding of U.S. Military” inaccurately stated that the Truman Service Initiative was sponsoring a student-initiated course on the military during spring quarter. Rather, the three students who run the Truman Service Initiative, Kelly Gleischman, Courtney Khademi, and Kate Powell, just happen to be offering the student-initiated course, completely independently of Truman Service Initiative.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS Feed
8 Comments
I agree in spirit, but one wonders: Is there such a thing as a “trespasser” on Stanford’s private campus? And if so, why would these people not count as such?
Actually, Brian, the reason they were stuck on the corner of Campus and Mayfield and we couldn’t see them beyond the trees next to Hillel is because while the property belongs to Stanford’s private campus, the sidewalk is public property that belongs to Santa Clara County. You can keep them off of Hillel, but you can’t keep them off of Santa Clara County.
Interesting. So anyone can come onto the Stanford campus as long as he or she stays on the sidewalks? Even then, what about the parking lot Westboro must have used, or maybe they were teleported in?
From what I’ve heard about this group, it makes a living off of exploiting legal loopholes, so it wouldn’t surprise me if by some technicality the demonstrators were never trespassing. Although, it also wouldn’t surprise me if the Stanford Police were just afraid of dealing with them.
Ok, here is a reading from the California Penal Code Sections 602(n) and 602(o):
“(n) Driving any vehicle, as defined in Section 670 of the Vehicle
Code, upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by,
another and known not to be open to the general public, without the
consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful
possession. This subdivision shall not apply to any person described
in Section 22350 of the Business and Professions Code who is making a
lawful service of process, provided that upon exiting the vehicle,
the person proceeds immediately to attempt the service of process,
and leaves immediately upon completing the service of process or upon
the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful
possession.
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or
structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open
to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace
officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person
in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer
that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s
agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the
owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the
owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a
separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace
officer’s assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested.
However, a single request for a peace officer’s assistance may be
made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days and
identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or
the owner, owner’s agent or person in lawful possession is absent
from the premises or property. In addition, a single request for a
peace officer’s assistance may be made for a period not to exceed six
months when the premises or property is closed to the public and
posted as being closed. However, this subdivision shall not be
applicable to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities which
are permitted to be carried out on the property by the California
Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Part 3.5 (commencing with Section
1140) of Division 2 of the Labor Code, or by the National Labor
Relations Act. For purposes of this section, land, real property, or
structures owned or operated by any housing authority for tenants as
defined under Section 34213.5 of the Health and Safety Code
constitutes property not open to the general public; however, this
subdivision shall not apply to persons on the premises who are
engaging in activities protected by the California or United States
Constitution, or to persons who are on the premises at the request of
a resident or management and who are not loitering or otherwise
suspected of violating or actually violating any law or ordinance.”
Stanford University is a private institution that has contracted the services of Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department and, in some cases, Santa Clara road maintenance. However, it is still a marked private institution on privately owned property- there are signs located at several entrances into the institution that notify those entering that it is a privately owned institution and property they are entering. The county is allowed to perform, under contract and funded by the university, road work. That is all.
Stanford has the option to remove any person or persons from its property that they do not wish to have on campus. In essence, the above section of CA Penal Code 602 states that an owner has the right to ask a peace officer to remove a person from private property or a private residence. While Santa Clara is responsible for maintenance of the university’s streets and sidewalks, the streets and sidewalks are NOT PUBLIC.
This is not a questions of Constitutional rights. This is a questions of PROPERTY RIGHTS. Stanford had the option to remove the individuals from their property. They did not. In effect, Stanford University and the student body wouldn’t let George W. Bush on campus, but we sure as heck will see to it that Fred Phelps can trespass to spew his hate speech!
And another part of Section 602:
(t) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land,
real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner,
whether or not generally open to the public, after having been
informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s
agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by
the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the
owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, that
the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or
failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property
in the manner provided in this subdivision.
No one’s suggesting that the Westboro Church doesn’t have the right to say what they want to say. Why does the Stanford Review think that every time someone criticizes someone else’s speech it warrants a discussion about freedom of speech? Please respond to actual problems, not potential ones that have been discussed to death. Please, if anything, be original.
A belief that you can’t defend, when challenged, is a belief you shouldn’t hold. If your first impulse is to use force to silence someone you disagree with, you should re-examine your own beliefs.
As Woodrow Wilson once said, “I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.”
Here’s a good website: http://www.campusreform.org/