Pierce College is no stranger to having controversial figures demonstrate on campus. From infamous internet celebrities to random people with signs and a megaphone, Pierce’s ‘free speech zones’ can attract attention, whether it be positive or negative.
Despite the mayhem these figures often bring, guaranteeing their right to speak is important, as the college should not run the risk of censoring speech selectively.
The Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees has legislated that any speech is allowed within designated areas as long as it is not obscene, libelous, slanderous, threatening or disrupting the regular operations of the campus.
Within the parameters set by the Board of Trustees, demonstrators may also hand out materials such as pamphlets and petitions. They may also carry signs, as long as they follow the same rules.
This debate of allowing controversial speakers became a legal issue for LACCD in May of 2017, when a Pierce student filed a lawsuit against the district alleging that a school administrator had told him to stop distributing political material outside of the designated free speech zones, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.
Since then, there have been multiple incidents of speakers coming to campus to make political statements. It’s not just Pierce either, as California State University, Northridge recently had a well-known online figure, Charlie Kirk, set up a booth on their campus to debate and discuss politics with students. A large number of students were not happy with his appearance at the college and protested.
While the Anti-Defamation League has referred to Kirk’s organization as a “vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists,” their ability to demonstrate on public college campuses must be protected to ensure equality of speech.
The First Amendment has been an anchor of American political discourse since its ratification in 1791. With it, people are free to speak their minds without fear of repercussions. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in many countries around the world, criticism of the government can land a person in prison. Without non-selective protections on free speech, it is never certain what speech is protected and what is not. An opinion could be safe to speak one day, and could be punished the next.
What must not be forgotten in this discourse is that students still maintain the right to protest controversial figures. The balance of freedom of speech and freedom to protest is what allows our system of political discussion to function freely.
Frederick Douglass once said, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”
Douglass’s quote shows that even the most ardent political activists for social justice know that freedom of speech goes two ways, and even the speech someone could hate the most must be protected.
