On Tuesday, February 25, Dr. Nadine Strossen, the former president of the ACLU, came to speak on campus in favor of freedom of expression. The talk, titled, “Does Free Speech Help or Hurt Civil Rights Movements?” delved into questions regarding the increasingly prominent attempts at censoring freedom of speech around the world, and how contrary to what many believe, this censorship hurts civil rights movements instead of supporting them.
Strossen was joined by three University of Wyoming professors as well, Catherine Johnson, Jeremy Fowler, and Jennifer Harmon, who asked constructive questions about the extent of freedom of speech, and what Strossen’s thoughts on them were.
Before the talk, the Branding Iron was able to get a one-on-one interview with her, where several questions were asked regarding the issues being talked about. When asked why freedom of speech was so important for maintaining civil rights movements, Strossen stated, “By definition, those who are advocating for civil rights are advocating on behalf of people who lack majoritarian political power, who have often been completely excluded, disenfranchised, marginalized, and oppressed. The only… tools that they have available for seeking to rectify those situations are the First Amendment freedoms, freedom of protest, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly… the strongest tool for maintaining oppression is censorship.”
When asked to elaborate on whether or not she thought freedom of speech was currently under attack in the world, Strossen said, “Freedom of speech is always under attack for precisely the reason that it’s so important… For those who oppose (freedom of speech), it becomes very threatening and challenging. There’s a constant battle throughout history between those who are advocating various causes by exercising their right to freedom of speech and those who try to oppose those causes by opposing freedom of speech. Yet, over the course of history, there’s been a gradual increase of freedom of speech for people… now, at certain points in our history, there is a regression, you know. Sometimes it’s two steps backwards and sometimes it’s two steps forward. I think we are in a free speech recession, not only in the United States but all over the world. Yet, I am optimistic that there is a pushback.”
During the first portion of the talk, Professor Johnson questioned whether Strossen’s views on pornography, which she defended in her book, “Defending Pornography,” had changed with the advent of the internet. Strossen responded by saying that while she is always looking for new information and re-examining her thoughts, she still holds that the principles of her argument, being that all speech must be protected regardless of how profane it is, remain unchanged. She elaborated on this further, stating, “The fact that there is a new medium involved is not something that I think should change the analysis.”
Later in the talk, Professor Fowler asked what Strossen’s thoughts were regarding European countries, which often have censorship laws regarding the holocaust and other things that these nations define as “hate speech.” Strossen stated that these laws in Europe, especially in Germany and the UK, often undermine what they intend to protect, with satirical content sometimes being cracked down on by these various governments even when it is intended to make fun of the positions that are supposed to be censored. She argued that only a truly absolute definition of freedom of speech is guaranteed to protect civil rights and that European journalists she had spoken to often maligned these laws instead of supporting them, because of the damage that they do to various civil rights causes.
Johnson also questioned Strossen about the increasingly large role that misinformation and “fake news” play, with online algorithms forcing people into specific echo chambers. Strossen responded by stating that the role that disinformation plays cannot be concretely ascertained yet and that certain studies had implied that the “algorithm” had sorted people into less extreme content than they were otherwise looking for. Strossen emphasized the importance of staying vigilant against disinformation but argued that the most effective defense is comprehensive education. She pointed to countries like Finland, which, in response to their proximity to the former USSR, have successfully taught students from an early age how to recognize propaganda.
Professor Harmon rounded off the speech by asking what Strossen’s thoughts were regarding cancel culture and peer-to-peer censorship, as opposed to governmental. Strossen stated that while everyone has a right to attempt to “cancel” someone else, nobody’s minds are going to be changed by this behavior, and that while people may receive some moral self-righteousness from doing so, it doesn’t address why that person believes what they do. She argued instead that providing people with true information and attempting to change their minds with coercive and effective arguments is a far better way of dealing with extremist points of view than cancelling someone.
Strossen’s visit to the University of Wyoming provided a thought-provoking discussion on the fundamental role of free speech in civil rights movements and the challenges it faces in today’s world. Through engaging in dialogue with faculty and students, she reinforced the idea that open discourse, rather than censorship, is the key to progress. Her optimism in the face of what she calls a “free speech recession” serves as a call to action for continued vigilance in protecting this essential right, and she commended the University of Wyoming on its continuing commitment to upholding that right, something that other colleges in America have, in some people’s views, been failing to do.
