It is a Thursday evening in the new wellness center and slowly the auditorium begins to fill with students anticipating the heated debate centered on free speech at FSU. As the students trickle through the double doors, the moderator Professor Mark Zeigler greets almost every one that comes in. He recognizes many of his own students and seems ecstatic that they heeded his advice and decided to join the conversation.
What drew immediate attention, even before the lecture began, were the two large projection screens in the front of the room. On the right-hand side was a live twitter feed that encouraged guests to use #freespeechFSU in order to join the discussion on social media. Right off the bat the screen began ticking with comments. User DanielBlakes “speaking of free speech you should probably implement a filter of some sort for these tweets. I’ve seen these go south fast. #freespeechFSU,” which immediately elicited a response from @jaraizer: “@danielblakes filtering defeats the purpose of free speech.”
Free Speech FSU: A Multimedia Discussion was a forum created with the hopes of engaging FSU students, faculty, and any others that chose to attend on the parameters that surrounded free speech especially on FSU’s campus. The panelists were College of Law Professor Franita Tolson; Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs Brandon Bowden; and Davis Hammet, the director of operations at Planting Peace’s Equality House.
Professor Franita Tolson (left) and Assistant VP of Student Affairs Brandon Bowden (right)
As I sat in the auditorium two rows from the front, I felt as the evening wore on that this forum was a little bit more than it presented itself to be. I overheard an ironic comment on how speakers were unable to bring up a topic of discussion (though what topic was never clarified), they were only allowed to respond to it should a student bring it up. Though I was the only one that heard it, I laughed at the irony of the comment “please don’t talk about this at the free speech forum.” Wasn’t that beside the point?
There were those in the room that felt the slight façade of the forum too, so as anticipated, the discussion was hearty. As Zeigler moved through the paces, guiding the conversation one way or the other, hands began to shoot up in eager anticipation. It seemed as though everyone in attendance had something they needed to say, their voices demanding, inquisitive, and respectful.
It took about 20 minutes before some of the students began to tweet about the infamous vine that occurred fall semester last year. The student in question seemed to have been brushed under the rug, the situation barely addressed but nonetheless she disappeared from Florida State’s view; clearly we have not forgotten.
One student raised her hand attempting to force the hand of the panelists, asking about Amanda Thurston and her incredibly racist vine. Though unconfirmed, the entirety of that issue was the reason why we were there in that auditorium. Was Thurston in her right as a student and American to use “free speech” in order to slander a portion of our student body?
According to Professor Tolson “when [you] stepped onto FSU’s campus you did not lose your first amendment rights,” however the school is capable of preventing you from disrupting another student’s education and these rights are not absolute. What Thurston said could be considered as harmful speech. But does harmful speech mean we must prevent everyone from saying it?
Therein lies the struggle. The central idea as the audience further engaged themselves was that if we can generate dialogue about what we don’t like we can create progress. Are we being too sensitive and shutting down speech we don’t like before we can discuss it and change it? Tolson said “you can counter speech you don’t like with speech you do like.” If we cannot challenge ourselves how can we dig deep and discover how we really feel? Pushing ourselves to the limit of our comfort zone creates healthy progression.
The response to the Thurston vine was unsatisfactory on Bowden’s part. His answer felt obtuse and very generalized. But who can blame him? If he were to take a stance one way or the other, he would be finished. If we were to punish Thurston for her comment, there would be those that crawled out of the wood works screaming for first amendment right justice. On the opposite end of the spectrum there would be those screaming for justice against slander and racial remarks. What she did wasn’t right, let me make it clear I don’t support her at all but what she did was technically covered in her rights (cue the e-mail storm I’m about to get).
What we learned in the forum, or tried to learn, was that free speech is allowed until it creates the risk of imminent danger. Hate speech is a form of free speech, and in a way we almost need it in order to evolve our discussions and our understandings of the world around us.
Photo from Her Campus
Hammet, who lives in that brightly painted rainbow house across the street from Westboro Baptist Church, in a few lines, floored the room with his kindness. As an advocating member for the Queer community who has stood in the face of homophobia personified, he has given Westboro Baptist Church nothing but love and kindness. He has created a relationship with the Phelps and has never once turned his back on them, even extending a kindness when Fred Phelps passed away, when so many others wished to return the funeral picketing favors WBC are so well known for. Hammet, “by putting those positive messages out there, you can dismantle hate.”
The end game of the forum left us no more satisfied in how free speech is this twisting monster bound by no one concrete law. It is ever changing, fluctuating with the growth of social media, of human sensitivity, and the desire for justice. What we did come away with was this idea that perhaps we have these rights to voice our beliefs whether they are cruel or otherwise but there are consequences to our opinions.
Toni Morrison is quoted as saying “language is violence,” and it is a very real quote. It resonated with the audience Thursday night because we understood that words, contrary to the childhood rhyme, do hurt us.
It’s not just about thinking before we speak. It’s about understanding how your speech can harm others and how you can learn from those mistakes. We’re all bound to make them, it’s how you choose to move on from those mistakes that define who you are as a person: “your words indicate your understanding of your world and beliefs so clearly,” says Annie Cap.
Check out these websites for more info: