The Assault on Free Speech: Cedar Rapids

In early December, an assistant professor at University of Iowa, Serhat Tanyolacar, installed a KKK robed sculpture to begin a debate on racism. Whatever his intention, the message did not get through and caused a firestorm, forcing Tanyolacar to apologize to the black community. After the initial brush up, Tanya Cohen wrote in Thought Catalog that it was a time to “get tough with Hate Speech.”

Ms. Cohen classifies herself as a human right activists, but her essay, “Here is Why It’s Time to Get Tough On Hate Speech In America,” is a tirade against freedom of speech. She writes, “The recent controversy at the University of Iowa – in which an 'artist' (supposedly an 'anti-racist' one) put up an 'art exhibit' which resembles a KKK member covered in newspaper clippings about racial violence – is a perfect example of why we need to implement real legislation against hate speech in the United States. The year is 2015 and all other countries have laws against hate speech along with laws against other forms of speech which violate basic human rights. As a matter of fact, international human rights law MANDATES laws against hate speech… But the United States refuses to protect even the most basic of human rights, firmly establishing itself as a pariah state that falls far behind the rest of the world in terms of protecting fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms.”

As PJ Media commentator Michael Walsh noted, “Basically, her argument is that in order to stamp out 'hate speech' — otherwise known as 'free speech' — we have to start hating in a big way. In other words, typical Leftist fascism. It’s almost too insane and poorly argued (lots of appeals to authority, in this case 'international law') and, while wrapping itself in the usual cloak of 'tolerance,' it is fundamentally and unequivocally un-American down to its toes.” Make no mistake, Ms. Cohen is calling for the restriction of freedom of speech and to stamp out "Hate Speech" but the question that remains is who gets to identify what is “Hate Speech?” Ms. Cohen assume she and her friends will determine what hate speech is, but let's do a thought exercise.

In New York, two police officers were executed as part of the protest against the failure to indict the police for the death of Michael Gartner. There are tapes of individuals calling for the death of these police officers so should the protesters involved in civic disobedience be declared guilty of inciting murder through hate speech? Is it hate speech to call for the death of police officers, and considering that the two officers murdered were minorities, is this a hate crime? Would Ms. Cohen ne willing to pass laws to forbid the protestors from demonstrating against the Garner decision?

Or a couple of years ago, an individual attempted to murder as many individuals associated with the American Family Research Council because the Southern Poverty law Center declared them a “hate group.” Shouldn’t Southern Poverty be declared guilty of hate speech? Since a violent act was committed based on their recommendation,should they be held responsible?

My point is that the individual who executed those police officers was guilty of the crime and the individual who decided he wanted to kill members of the American Family Research Council should be held responsible for his action. Freedom of speech can be messy and sometimes offensive but as I have gotten older, I have become even more absolutist on free speech.

In the 2014 election, a United State Senator attempted to get one of my own ads off the air because he claimed that the “ads were not true” and threatened radio stations with FCC sanctions. One newspaper, when reporting on this story noted that one of the radio stations viewed the ads as accurate due to references provided. So in my case, my ad was accurate but it didn’t stop a politician from threatening to use the power of government to come after my group and the radio stations playing those ads. So if you want to see the future that Ms. Cohen envisions, there it is. The government will determine what truth is and what is not. As Mr. Walsh concluded, “The Soviet Union may be gone, but Communist ideology continues apace. There’s more — pay particular attention to her twenty-point anti-freedom manifesto later in the piece — but let me sum up Ms. Cohen’s argument: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” Cohen makes it clear human rights means censorship. And the irony is that the artist who put the original sculpture up did so “to protest” racism. Only his art was misunderstood and his efforts obviously poorly designed, but Cohen would demand his head under the guillotine. And the left's assault on free speech continues.