"Freedom of Speech," the famous Norman Rockwell painting that depicts a young man addressing a local gathering, was inspired by a real event. One evening in 1942, Rockwell attended the town meeting in Arlington, Vt., where he lived for many years. On the agenda was the construction of a new school. It was a popular proposal, supported by everyone in attendance — except for one resident, who got up to express his dissenting view. He was evidently a blue-collar worker, whose battered jacket and stained fingernails set him apart from the other men in the audience, all dressed in white shirts and ties. In Rockwell's scene, the man speaks his mind, unafraid to express a minority opinion and not intimidated by the status of those he's challenging. He has no reason not to speak plainly: His words are being attended to with respectful attention. His neighbors may disagree with him, but they're willing to hear what he has to say.
What brings Rockwell's painting to mind is a new national poll by the Cato Institute. The survey found that self-censorship has become extremely widespread in American society, with 62 percent of adults saying that, given the current political climate, they are afraid to honestly express their views.
"These fears cross partisan lines," writes Emily Ekins, Cato's director of polling. "Majorities of Democrats (52 percent), independents (59 percent), and Republicans (77 percent) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share." The survey's 2,000 respondents sorted themselves ideologically as "very liberal," "liberal," "moderate," "conservative," or "very conservative." In every category except "very liberal," a majority of respondents feel pressured to keep their views to themselves. Roughly one-third of American adults — 32 percent — fear they could be fired or otherwise penalized at work if their political beliefs became known.
Freedom of speech has often been threatened in America, but the suppression of "wrong" opinions in the past has tended to come from the top down. It was the government that arrested editors for criticizing Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy, made it a crime to burn the flag, turned the dogs on civil rights marchers, and jailed communists under the Smith Act. Today, by contrast, dissent is rarely prosecuted. Thanks to the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, freedom of expression has never been more strongly protected — legally.
But culturally, the freedom to express unpopular views has never been more endangered.
On college campuses, in workplaces, in the media, there are ever-widening no-go zones of viewpoints and arguments that cannot be safely expressed. Voice an opinion that self-anointed social-justice warriors regard as heretical, and the consequences can be career-destroying. The dean of the nursing school at UMass-Lowell lost her job after writing in an email that "everyone's life matters." An art curator was accused of being a racist and forced to quit for saying that his museum would "continue to collect white artists." The director of communications for Boeing apologized and resigned after an employee complained that 33 years ago he was opposed to women serving in combat.
Virtually everyone would agree that some views are indisputably beyond the pale. If there are supporters of slavery or advocates of genocide who feel inhibited from sharing their beliefs, no one much cares. But the range of opinions deemed unsayable by today's progressive thought police extends well into the mainstream. And in many cases, the most enthusiastic suppressors of debate are students, journalists, artists, intellectuals — those who in former times were the greatest champions of uninhibited speech and the greatest foes of ideological conformity.
It isn't only on the left that this totalitarian impulse to silence dissent exists. President Trump, always infuriated by criticism, has called for columnists who disparage him to be fired, hecklers at his rallies to be beaten up, and TV stations to lose their licenses if they run ads vilifying his handling of the pandemic — calls routinely amplified on social media by tens of thousands of his followers. When a Babson College professor joked that Iran ought to bomb "sites of beloved American cultural heritage" like the Mall of America and the Kardashian residence, a right-wing website launched a campaign that got him fired.
The new Cato survey found that more than one in five Americans (22 percent) would support firing a business executive who donated money to Democrat Joe Biden's presidential campaign, while 31 percent would be OK with firing someone who gave money to Trump's re-election campaign. The urge to ostracize or penalize unwelcome views isn't restricted to just one end of the spectrum.
Americans' right to free speech is shielded by the Constitution to a degree unmatched anywhere else. But our First Amendment guarantees will prove impotent if the habit of free speech is lost. For generations, Americans were raised to see debate as legitimate, desirable, and essential to democratic health. They quoted Voltaire's (apocryphal) aphorism: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Editors, publishers, satirists, and civil libertarians took to heart the dictum of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who wrote that "the principle of free thought" is meant to enshrine "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
But that principle has been turned on its head. The "thought that we hate" is not tolerated but stifled. It is reviled as taboo, forbidden to be uttered. Anyone expressing it may be accused not just of giving offense, but of literally endangering those who disagree. And even if only some people lose their careers or reputations for saying something "wrong," countless others get the chilling message.
"And so dread settles in," writes journalist Emily Yoffe. "Challenging books go untaught. Deep conversations are not had. Friendships are not formed. Classmates and colleagues eye each other with suspicion."
And 62 percent of Americans fear to express what they think.
The speaker in Norman Rockwell's painting may have had something unpopular to say, but neither he nor his neighbors had any doubt that it was appropriate for him to say it. Now, such doubt is everywhere, and freedom of speech has never been more threatened.
This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.
(16) Liane Amper, August 8, 2020 10:25 PM
It really is sad what goes on in the world. I am an old lady today, but I remember that in the XX century you were allowed to speak your opinion on any subject and the discussion that followed was always wellcome and any gathering with friends or strangers was always interesting and entertaining. We had so much to discuss and argue about, that we generally forgot about time and nobody got angry or offended.
(15) Joseph Harris, August 7, 2020 5:51 PM
There is such a thing as fighting lies, dishonesty, racism and propaganda.
Ironically, on the same page as this article, Aish is (correctly!) calling for Facebook to censor Holocaust denial. Hmmm... let that doublethink sink in.
That said, our sages instruct us to distance ouselves from evil people and the Shema we recite daily tells us that Hashem literally is truth. Now let's adress a few things about the odious Cato Intitute. They are happy to tell you that Slavery in America wasn't that bad. They are happy to tell you that exploiting child labor in 3rd world countries somehow helps those children. They are souless and to the right of Moussilini. They deny science routinely and re-write history to serve their often exploitive and racist agenda. They also want you to believe that poor white people in America are being muzzled and are somehow the "real" victims of racism in this nation.
So let's cut to the chase. This article is backwards and appallingly presented through either ignorance or Hashem forbid, the latent racism of the author. It does not represent Jewish values of truth, compassion or speaking truth to power. As to those poor klansmen, neo-nazis and Trump cultists.... They deserve the corn they are given. No less than Torah tells us they are rashas.
(14) Anonymous, August 5, 2020 2:40 AM
this article is so true
if you agree all lives matter as G_d says, you are considered racist by people who are racist and dont want to hear other peoples beliefs. When will the politicians wake up and stop embracing anarchy and stop political positioning for election day. we have seen it before where freedom of speech was prohibited. Have we already forgotten Stalin and Hiter?
(13) Anonymous, August 4, 2020 11:59 AM
An orchestrated campaign launched by the extreme left.
it seems to use WHO and UN intransparent NGOs as their launching pad to sow dissent around the globe. It is the old communist cronies some very well versed in AGITPROP and manipulation who are in search of a new heaven after the fall of the Iron Curtain and communists bancrupt economy.
t study the personal at the UN, particularly those with dual nationalities, their agenda and their patrons and you will know....Do they have friends and good connections to Capitol Hill? You bet....
See thise links or google under BBC and Steinhoefel /free speech
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-41279785
or
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41042266
(12) Nancy, August 3, 2020 11:44 AM
Rockwell paintings say so much!
Thank you for showing that painting. I am a huge Rockwell fan. I am beyond tired of people not listening to one another. I am also disgusted by the name calling. My wonderful rabbi mad a suggestion about how to respond with a viewpoint with which we disagree. He suggested that we tell the other person we are curious about what makes them feel as they do. I believe if we can ask questions in a respectful tone, this will go a long way toward positive communication and peaceful coexistence. Incidentally, Norman Rockwell was heavily criticized by Joe McCarthy.
(11) H.E.Brown, August 3, 2020 11:34 AM
Free speech?
Sooooo, right. One does have to be very very careful these days about what you say around almost anyone today. A lot of times I don't even say what I thinking around my own family let alone strangers. With out a lot of explaining with this, just say I don't say what I think about tattoos around my own family.
Anonymous, August 4, 2020 10:16 AM
To commenter #11 H.E. Brown
I certainly understand your point regarding one's own family. IMO dealing with family members can be even MORE challenging than dealing with friends/acquaintances!
(10) Jill Timoney, August 3, 2020 9:01 AM
Yet the "thought that we hate", namely hate-speech is tolerated. That is not free speech, that is evil, and should not be tolerated.
(9) Fredric M London, August 3, 2020 2:57 AM
A former card carrying member of the ACLU
A number of years ago, when the ACLU WAS the ACLU, and not the usual left-wing fascist organization, I had a disagreement with a local chapter member. I brought up freedom of expression, and she said there are other rights which are important. I said that if you eliminate freedom of expression, all the other rights will atrophy on their own. It is more true than ever. The further we get from people 'saying their own thing,' the further we get from other liberties which will be destroyed forever. It took 74 years for the USSR to collapse. China is still going strong at 71. Once people lose their right of free speech, it is only a question of time before the rest of our rights are gone, maybe forever.
(8) Veronica W, August 3, 2020 2:14 AM
Thank you.
Thank you, Jeff Jacoby for expressing the feelings and realities of so many!
(7) Alan, August 3, 2020 2:09 AM
Thought Police?
Who, exactly, are the thought police? The first amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing on the right to speak. It doesn’t prohibit consequences or prohibit counter-speech. Self censorship is perhaps what is lacking today. All to much today it seems that everyone feels that everyone is entitled to their opinions. Congress has long lost the ability to engage in honest debate. We shouldn’t be surprised that the wider society has also lost this ability. Respectfully, Alan
(6) Anonymous, August 2, 2020 5:13 PM
If we as Jews want to champion "freedom of speech" we must at the same time practice shemiros halashon
We Jews do not believe in "freedom of speech" (in the extemely broad sense, which in the widely accepted Holmesian legal standard is: permissible unless presenting a 'clear and present danger'), and rightly so; we believe in a stricter standard of "shemiros halashon", which may be summarized as "rigorously avoiding even an unclear and rather remote danger." In the Parsha we just leyned, we learn of "cities of refuge" mistakenly assumed to be refuges for accidental killers, which they are not. They are cities of refuge for accidental killers who harbored no hatred toward their accidental victims, and the difference is enormous. One who harbors hatred, however subtle and seemingly unconnected to the "accident", forfeits that refuge's protection. In a word, there is no refuge without a bodeka confirming one's "tahoras haleiv," purity of heart. How many, given what we know about the darknesses in that heart and sinas hinam (which not coincidentally, is the theme of Tisha B'av and loss ov Yershalyim and the Temples? Many of us may casually assume entitlement to our "City of Refuge," Yerushalyim, but overlook the standard that it is CONDITIONAL on. Ona-as Devarim, Aitza She-on Hagenes, Chait Hameraglim, even the passive sin of omission, Lo ta'amod al dam re'echa, rechilus, motzei shem ra, all the species of lashon hara, including finding a phony toeles that isn't really there.... If we believe in "freedom of speech" do we accept on ourselves that standard of shemis halashon (far more rigorous than Holmes')? I suspect that just like most of us more readily claim Yerushalayim to ourselves than honestly invite a bodeka on our (individual and collective "shemiros halashon"), we may be championing "freedom of speech" more readily than opposing that freedom's abuses which would entail proactively defending/chamioning those slandered and downtrodden in any way by historic and current abuse, before championing robust partisan discourse that might unfairly offend others.
Anonymous, August 5, 2020 12:34 AM
this is absolutely true
here lies the difference between out torah and the right to say whatever you want. YOU CANNOT, BY ANY MEANS, OFFEND SOMEONE because you feel you have the right to say what you want. THINK BEFORE YOU TALK. THINK OF THE CONSEQUENCES. If anyone will feel bad, be offended, be shocked, DON`T SAY IT. LEARN TO KEEP QUIET.
(5) Anonymous, August 2, 2020 4:26 PM
Accuracy?
Where’s the evidence for a right wing site’s campaign to get the guy fired? The link to the blog reveals that it opposed his firing. And not one word about any campaign to have that happen
(4) Anonymous, August 2, 2020 3:57 PM
Yes, but...
Although the basic premise is correct, the slant is a bit off. First of all, freedom of speech never guaranteed that there would not be repercussions for our speech. What it guarantees is that the government will not be able to take action against anyone for their political speech. That remains more intact today than it was under the previous administration which in fact used the IRS to punish political opponents and the FBI to go after an incoming administration. Second of all, although there might be repercussions on the right and the left, the vast majority of the 'cancel culture' is operating on the left going against people with more conservative opinions. Thirdly, Pres, Obama was also known to go after his 'opponents' in the media - the fact is that there was only one real news outlet that did not fawn all over him. Pres. Trump has not been accorded that same respect or luxury. Finally, Pres. Trump has never asked that anyone be physically attacked for their opinions. That is just a canard and exhibits the author's own biases.
Anonymous, August 2, 2020 5:47 PM
Agree
You are correct.
(3) melanie muller, August 2, 2020 2:50 PM
well said
Thank you for saying what many of us know in our hearts--saying it so eloquently and intelligently that people might actually listen. Thank you for being that voice of reason in insane times.
(2) Emmanuel Idoko, August 2, 2020 2:48 PM
I believe in liberty and your piece here shows how we are slowly eroding.
This article is true to our present day divided society.
The golden rule of do to others as you would have them do to you no longer works. Selfishness have become the mantra.
Rabbi lets continue to work to be different. Where there is HATE lets sow LOVE and water it. Where there is love freedom will reign.
(1) Michael Perks, August 2, 2020 2:30 PM
We are reliving history!
This is how Fascists and or Communists gain control!