Matt Dragonette
After embattled University of Missouri System President Tim Wolfe resigned Monday, protests continued on University of Missouri’s campus, even as some celebrated one of the key goals of student protest group Concerned Student 1950. The group was formed to protest a series of racist statements and actions made by students as well as the university’s perceived lack of response and overall diversity on Missouri’s campus. While I encourage everyone to learn more about this serious situation, I would like to focus on a particular action by certain members of Concerned Student 1950.
In a video that has gone viral, faculty and student protesters intimidate, assault and restrict the First Amendment rights of journalists. One professor, who specializes in mass media for the university’s communication program, actually called for more “muscle” to forcibly remove the videographer. In the video, a Missouri journalism student is harassed for trying to take pictures of the encamped protesters. The protesters were in a public space and he was simply exercising his free press rights to report on the protest, yet the protesters pushed and threatened him. In a refrain that has become all too common, protesters tried to deny the rights of others by claiming that they deserved a “safe space.” In short, these protesters refused to allow the media to exercise the same rights they themselves exercise, unless the protesters are able to control the narrative.
These actions are abhorrent, if unsurprising. The Constitution, the courts and common sense have upheld the rights of Americans to exercise free speech and press. If the government or an official body had acted to stop journalists, that would have been a constitutional violation; however, the actions of these protesters still constitutes assault — and more importantly, a restriction of free press rights through vigilantism. The student journalist’s actions were appropriate and respectful, but those protesters who originally exercised their First Amendment rights then tried to restrict his.
One of the greatest things about the United States is the amount of freedom a citizen has. Citizens have economic rights, privacy rights, speech rights and the like. Not rights given by the government; rather, inherent rights that all citizens possess. But with great freedom comes a great trade-off. Other people might be very vocal with their opinions. Some might have positions that we disagree with. Many might say or believe things that we find offensive.
None of the above gives us the right to restrict those aforementioned rights. Not only does physically intimidating someone constitute assault, but it also is extraordinarily hypocritical. Just imagine if hateful white students physically pushed the protesters off university grounds — it would rightfully be considered extraordinarily unacceptable. Restricting freedom of speech and press hurts societal progress. It prevents the public from receiving a full picture of a situation. It stifles different viewpoints. Issues aren’t always black and white when the options are polarizing. For example, the Missouri case can’t be divided into fully supporting the protesters or being racist.
Free press holds governments, individuals and businesses accountable. The free press allow citizens to inform themselves. Free speech allows individuals to reach their utmost potential. It allows the exchange and use of ideas, whether for business, pleasure or other purposes. It allows society to have a dialogue, a marketplace of ideas that will enable society to improve itself. It is essential for societal progress.
Perhaps most concerning, college students have continued to display shocking levels of ignorance toward notions of free speech, alternative viewpoints and constructive criticism. In a recent survey, 51 percent of students favored the institution of “speech codes” at their universities. Thirty percent of liberal students surveyed felt that the First Amendment was “outdated.” These numbers just reinforce the notion that many college students have little respect for the fundamental rights of those they disagree with — no matter their political persuasion.
Students don’t have to listen to people they disagree with. Students can and should identify, shame and respond to “hate speech.” But they should not ban speech of any kind or use force to prevent that speech. Unfortunately, Missouri is already restricting “hurtful” speech. But what is hurtful speech? And who defines it? Maybe I’m “hurt” when someone says I’m wrong about something, or when they even just publicly disagree. Where do we draw the line?
The incident at Missouri should remind us of the value of a free press and the right to speak freely. These rights are essential to an open society, one that can achieve progress, hold government accountable and allow individuals to reach their full potential. Use free press and free speech to achieve your goals, but don’t use private or government force to restrict fundamental rights.
