The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Journal of Free Speech Law: "The Lost Cause of Free Speech," by Prof. Mary Anne Franks (Miami)
Just published as part of the "Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech" symposium; here's the start of the Introduction (the article is here):
Contemporary free speech law and policy in the United States teems with contradictions that cannot be explained by any principled doctrine. The key to understanding the current legal and cultural landscape of free speech is not some enduring constitutional value or method of interpretation, but rather the ascendance of a very specific political ideology that is best described as neo-Confederate. Neo-Confederate ideology is a constellation of values that includes investment in racial hierarchy, attachment to traditional gender roles and gender conformity, idealization of the pre-Civil War South, belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation, and hostility to democracy. The neo-Confederate agenda renders coherent what otherwise appear to be chaotic free speech positions: the condemnation of "cancel culture" by promoters of censorship; the conflation of speech reactions with speech restrictions; the equation of the right to speak with the right to an audience; alternating invocations and dismissals of the state action doctrine. While these positions are malleable enough to occasionally serve progressive interests, they are most consistently and powerfully deployed to protect the interests of white male supremacy.
The neo-Confederate agenda is, as its name suggests, a partisan project. Though not all Republicans are neo-Confederates, virtually all neo-Confederates are Republican. While the attachment to Lost Cause mythology may be strongest in the South, its core tendencies—whitewashing the role of slavery in American history; selectively championing states' rights; and promoting racial, gender, and religious supremacy—have spilled over geographic borders.
The conservative reactionaries waging war against racial, gender, and religious equality have increasingly zeroed in on educational institutions as targets, often in the guise of fighting "critical race theory." In the first six weeks of 2022 alone, 103 bills were introduced in state legislatures across the nation that were aimed at restricting speech in schools and universities. These bills range from censoring what can be said about the role of racism and misogyny in shaping American institutions to forbidding "inappropriate" discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity. These provisions are vaguely and broadly worded in order to create maximum confusion and uncertainty about what speech is permitted. Many of these bills allow parents or other parties not only to demand removal of but also to sue over educational material they find personally objectionable, creating financial and social incentives for censorship. Republican officials and organizations have also issued executive orders, statements, book bans, and administrative guidelines attacking discussions of social justice and diversity. This anti-education movement vilifies teachers, administrators, librarians, and school-board members as "indoctrinators," "groomers," and "pedophiles," leading to harassment, doxing, threats, physical assaults, and firings….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
An obvious nutter.
Even if you believe this nonsense why would you argue it in a hysterical shriek ? It makes you look, er, nutty.
Obvious nutter? This woman is well respected in the progressive feminist legal community.
Perhaps you didn’t realize how far down the rabbit hole your side has gone?
Then that's a comment on the nuttiness of the entire progressive feminist legal community. She says in her article that she thinks rightwing free speech advocates also promote the Lost Cause. Cited source is, of course, the SPLC. Her entire thesis is just a list of leftwing social media memes about rightwingers.
I think TIP has his tongue in his cheek.
Is this real? It reads like a parody.
At least she tied it to evil American villains instead of the usual evil German villains. That’s sort of progress
I’m sure that since she has had the privilege of having her opinion broadcast on a well-known legal blog she will now lead by example and waive her free speech rights going forward. Certainly she doesn’t intent to retain her rights when the rest of us forfeit ours.
BWA HA HA HA
Damn that new weed just might be stronger ... don't bogart that stuff!!!
Wow. The entire thing is even more of an unhinged rant that the chosen sample suggests.
Until neo-Confederate propaganda is named and shamed for what it is, free speech, education, and democracy in America will be a lost cause.
Special call-outs to those dupes of the right-wing reactionary fanatical fascists – the ACLU and FIRE, for perpetuating the evil:
Unintentionally or not, every participant in the cancel-culture shell game contributes to the delegitimization of protest, the rewriting of history, and the vilification of educators.
As far as I can tell, this historically illiterate bigot simply wanted to write 20 pages of repetitive blather declaring that Republicans were Confederates, and force that into every analogy they could think of.
Seriously, this is one of the worst OP-EDs I’ve ever seen in my life.
Curiously enough, though, in all the complaints about “Republican extremists” who want to “censor words or ideas”, there is not a single mention of ‘hate speech’.
EDIT: Whoa! She’s also the author of the book The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech, in case you want more of her insightful ideas about the First Amendment and Free Speech.
I got lost at: attachment to traditional gender roles and gender conformity (literally, I just rolled my eyes and started giggling).
The public square is big enough to accommodate this voice. Besides, we could all use the comedic relief.
A fundamental problem with attempting to associate contemporary opposition to cancel culture with the Confederacy is that the historical Confederacy was all about cancel culture. Confederate apologists successfully got Congress to prohibit sending abolitionist literature through the mails, among many other wins for their campaign against hate speech and efforts to promote tolerance and mutual respect.
And the reasons historical Confederates derided abolitionists were pretty much the reasons Professor Franks derides what she calls neo-Confederates. Like Frank’s neo-Confederacy, historical abolitionism was based (according to the actual historical Confederates) fundamentally on hate. Like neo-Confederacy as Professor Franks describes it, historical abolitionism (as described by historical Confederates) represented an archaic vision of religiously-based, my-way-or-the-highway moral superstition fundamentally opposed to the culture of diversity and inclusion that the progressive historical Confederates were attempting to advance. After all, historical Confederates emphasized the importance of tolerance for others’ queer ways and peculiar institutions as essential to a diverse and mutually respectful American society, whereas historical abolitionists were fundamentally opposed to tolerance, diversity, inclusion, and respect for others’ peculiar ways of life.
After all, historical abolitionists were Republicans. ‘Nuff said.
What utter drivel. How does this person even manage to feed herself in the morning, much less get a job at a university?
Nope. We just disagree with you. We value Western Civilization, the people who ENDED slavery. It is you, and your fellow Jefferson/Jackson Day Democrats who continue to hold the racist believe that black people need your "help".
Preventing hindrances may indeed look like providing help.
Active racialism against Asians in upper education is “preventing hindrances”? I so love the malleability of language!
Assuming facts not in evidence. What do you racists think you are preventing by assuming black people can't provide for themselves, individually and in their larger cultural community? Why do they need your "special" help???? Or is it just vote buying??????
That is some astonishing historical ignorance. In the Civil War era, the North was the God-struck region of the country. (Which I realize doesn't commend them to the Conspirators.) It was Union soldiers who sang, "He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat." It was a Northern poet who wrote "Truth forever on the scaffold/ . . . /Yet that scaffold sways the future and beyond the great unknown/Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own." Francis Asbury, like most other revivalists of the 19th century, opposed slavery. But this kind of historically accurate analysis doesn't matter to contemporary academics, who prefer hatred and moral preening to thinking.
John Calhoun became a Unitarian in no small part because Unitarianism, as a modern progressive religion, wasn’t hide-bound by superstitious bible-thumping blue-nosed morality regarding alternative lifestyles, supported diversity and inclusion, and took a modern, liberal, progressive, tolerant approach to freedom of choice, especially with regard to queer lifestyles and peculiar institutions.
ReaderY — Are you sure that describes the Unitarianism of Calhoun's day? Do you think the entire Unitarian phenomenon was alike from congregation to congregation?
There was some regional variation. You had different angles on slavery in Massachusetts and South Carolina.
Does the Rothschild Weather Machine figure in this nefarious conspiracy?
That "the arrogant are done in by their conviction that they possess unique powers of perception or skills that allow them to see what others cannot" is a surprising admission by the author, whose arrogance leads her to see the unique perspective of the War Against Self-Determination [the "droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes"] (which Lincoln began financially in the January preceding the aggravation at Fort Sumter) and to mull that unique vision beneath a hollowness which readers are asked to follow closely.
This tree is not, as we are told, a tree
Of danger tasted, nor to evil unknown
Opening the way, but of divine effect
To open eyes, and make them Gods who taste;
And hath been tasted such.
[...]
Thou therefore also taste, that equal lot
May join us, equal joy, as equal love;
Lest, thou not tasting, different degree
Disjoin us, and I then too late renounce
Deity for thee, when Fate will not permit.
Thus Eve with countenance blithe her story told;
But in her cheek distemper flushing glowed.
Lincoln did what, exactly?
Awww, is Franks upset that someone is using her 'no such thing as free speech' interpretation of the 1st to silence ideas she doesn't like being silenced? Maybe she ought to have spent her career fighting *for* free speech instead of whining about how important it is to pass laws that shit all over it to go after the speech she thinks is bad. We've sure got a nice horseshoe on raging hypocrisy on free speech though between the Republicans and progressives of Franks' stripe.
I try to avoid calling people crazy in political arguments, but the most charitable way to describe that essay is that it's the same kind of lazy thinking that lies behind calling American lefties communists because they espouse "a constellation of beliefs" that very, very roughly resembles what Mao Zedong seemed to believe in.
If I dismiss that part--as I do--then I have to admit there's a point lurking within it regarding the raft of anti-CRT bills that have been introduced in red states. Most if not all of those are indeed inconsistent with the First Amendment, and even though I sympathize with their goals, I can't support their approach.
But they do respond to a very real phenomenon of placing political propaganda within grade school curriculums where the captive audience of young children isn't equipped to place it into proper perspective. That is to say, the leftists in public education have brought these bills on themselves. So maybe we should look at that ideological movement, which in the spirit of the OP I'll label "neo-Maoist," or a constellation of beliefs that are largely, though perhaps not only, liberal Democrat-centric and support the culture of forced ideological conformity that is systemic in western higher education and increasingly in the private sector that's staffed by its graduates.
This essay gives you an idea where Professor Franks is coming from: Redo the first two amendments.
Wow, trying to turn the 2nd Amendment into a right of abortion was not what I was expecting, even from the other insane writings of this person.
I
Can't
Even.
Just wow.