The “right to offend” goes both ways

If you’ve flipped open a copy of this paper to the Opinion section sometime in the past month, you’ve probably seen somebody discussing (and, in most cases, ardently defending) the so-called “right to offend.” It’s been invoked most frequently in the aftermath of the Black Justice League’s recent sit-in in Nassau Hall, and in response to protests at Columbia and Yale. It’s also been examined multiple times with respect to a more general framework of what it means to be in college in 2015.

Though ideas vary from column to column, a general consensus from those in opposition to the protests sweeping college campuses is this: Free speech is valuable; we have a right to say whatever we want, even if it is offensive; and curtailing purportedly offensive speech is unethical and unconstitutional.

Funnily enough, I’m not sure many people — on all sides of the discourse — disagree with that statement. It’s especially telling that the BJL itself, in an open letter published on Medium, supports this notion, too. The members of BJL argue that “freedom of speech is a mark of civil life and should be vigorously defended,” that they “are extremely conscious of the fact that freedom of expression and association made possible the actions of Nov. 18 and are significant vehicles through which [they] will propel meaningful change on this campus.” In short, they argue that free speech is to be supported, wielded as a tool for an effective democracy on campus as well as a means by which historically marginalized students can speak their minds honestly.

Here’s the thing: students are allowed to say whatever they want with no legal repercussions, no matter how offensive, as long as it falls within the reasonable standards of what constitutes free speech — if it’s not libelous and doesn’t threaten violence, it’s protected under the First Amendment. If somebody posts an arguably racist status on Facebook, they aren’t hauled off to jail or banned from campus. Arguing that free speech is in danger, in this respect, is silly. The whole point of having a robust campus dialogue is that if somebody treads on the toes of others, whether intentionally or otherwise, they can maintain their place and status.

However, this “right to offend” goes both ways. By the exact same token, if somebody says something offensive, others can respond in any way that they legally see fit. Though I disagree with the admittedly seldom-used tactic of stopping discussion in its tracks by dropping the word “racist,” those few people who would do such a thing are perfectly within their rights to do so. Just as students on one side of campus are allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive, students on the other can react by saying whatever they want, no matter how purportedly hurtful or vicious.

If we are to vociferously champion free speech as a necessary institution in America, we must accept that this concept of “free speech” must apply to everyone. Students and faculty have the “right to offend,” but if they are to employ that right, they must be willing to endure whatever backlash they experience as a result of their remarks or actions.

To put things into countrywide context: Erika Christakis at Yale was perfectly within her right to send an email supporting the notion of offensive Halloween costumes, but the students were also perfectly within their rights to protest the hurt they felt she caused. Duke students opposed to reading the “pornographic” graphic novel “Fun Home” should voice their concerns, but they also must be willing to allow those who disagree with their views speak up. And, yes, those in opposition to the BJL’s protests at the University are allowed to voice their dissatisfaction with any facet of the organization’s work — but those students must also allow those who disagree with them to respond through the very same means protected by the very same First Amendment.

When students claim that supporters of the BJL have savagely brutalized their viewpoints and that these students feel that they are unable to speak their minds about the events on this campus, they are quite frankly wrong — nobody is arguing for the total shuttering of any viewpoint on this campus. Those who are arguing that free speech on campuses nationwide is under attack are conflating protected speech with repercussion-free speech. To talk loudly and publicly without being willing to receive any backlash is something that cannot, will not, and should not ever be protected under any form of government. Students at the University should have the “right to offend” — but they must also recognize that any response to that offensive speech, no matter how hurtful or offensive to them, is also a fundamental right.

Will Rivitz is asophomore from Brookline, Mass. He can be reached at wrivitz@princeton.edu.