On Tuesday, Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, came to the University of Wisconsin to deliver a speech about the erosion of freedom of speech on college campuses across America. According to Lukianoff, one of the main tools used by universities to limit students’ freedom of speech is “speech codes,” such as those found in sexual harassment policies and the like.

One of FIRE’s objectives is to educate American students about this alleged threat to their liberty. I don’t believe students at UW are a particularly oppressed group when it comes to freedom of speech, but in order to examine this, we’ll have to distinguish between different types of limits on freedom of speech.

It isn’t necessarily the most important type, but the legal right to freedom of speech is in fact a constitutional right. Many Americans seem to have fallen in love all over again with the Constitution, so it’s not surprising that this is how many Americans think of freedom of speech.

Sadly, some of our civil liberties have slowly been disappearing since Sept. 11, 2001, and I’m often at the front of the complaint line on these issues. However, we are indeed fortunate to live in a country where, for instance, Stephen Colbert can blatantly mock the president of the United States to his face without any repercussions whatsoever. In many countries around the world, something like this is still unimaginable, yet we simply laugh at it.

While there is not really, for practical purposes, a legal way to limit freedom of speech, the right is limited in other important ways. Often overlooked, but perhaps the most important limitation on an individual’s speech is the limit placed on their speech by society. It’s ubiquitous. It affects everyone. Sure, society can’t put you in jail for saying something unpopular, but it can ostracize you. It places a limit on what individuals can and cannot say in public if they want to be held in high regard by their peers.

Here’s a fun example: I think polygamy should be legalized in the United States, but I don’t discuss it often, because it seems to make people uncomfortable. I can say it. In fact, I just did, but it’s one of the many issues about which I don’t share my opinions unless I have a specific reason for doing so. Even at UW, this type of limit on freedom of speech exists. Society’s restrictions on what individuals can and cannot say are inescapable.

Finally, restrictions to freedom exist based on what essentially amounts to property rights. For example, if you come to my house and tell me that Bella is a wonderful girl’s name because you love Twilight, I’ll tell you to get the hell out and learn some Italian. Why? Because it’s my house. Of course, this is silly, but by extension UW has the right to implement policies with respect to issues like sexual harassment that unfortunately need to be addressed.

Now, there is a lengthy discussion to be had in order to sort out exactly what policies can and cannot be rightly implemented, especially at a public university like UW. This is not the place for that discussion, although I’d be happy to have that discussion over a pack of Yuengling with anyone who would like to have it.

FIRE would probably take the opportunity here to say that UW is indeed limiting the legal rights of students by implementing “speech codes” that protect certain groups from harassment. In reality though, I don’t know anyone at UW who is interested in harassing minorities or any other groups that may need special protection. Therefore, this is not a violation of freedom of speech, and if anyone perceives it to be so, there are various outlets they can use to voice their dissent, including but not limited to appealing directly to the administrators who make these policies.

More specifically, in FIRE’s message, there is a subliminal message that universities are suppressing the right to freedom of speech in the classroom by mandating they refer to persons or groups in one particular way. I can say first-hand that my right to free speech is not suppressed at UW; however, there is an important distinction to be made between the right to freedom of speech and the promotion of intelligent discussion.

As a personal anecdote, I was once in a philosophy class in which the TA asked whether we find seatbelt laws objectionable. I was the only student to raise my hand. I did not receive a bad grade in the class, because I was able to provide an argument in my assignment for why I hold such beliefs. I was not ostracized by my peers or my TA, because we’re all reasonable people, and reasonable people can hold different political beliefs and still be amicable.

There is a quote attributed to Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Happily, people no longer have to die in the United States of America in order for people to have freedom of speech. What exactly Lukianoff and FIRE are fighting for, I’m not sure, but they’re certainly not being exiled for their efforts.

Ryan Plesh ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and physics.