Exercising one’s right to free speech and engaging in acts of harassment are not the same thing.
This seems like a fairly obvious statement—on the surface. In a world where no one has prejudices, no one harbors irrational fears and no one feels that their beliefs are more valid than anyone else’s, such a statement seems almost…well, stupid. This is not the world we live in.
Under the First Amendment we have the right to express our opinions publicly. However, at what point does expressing one’s opinions become harassment?
In September, Andrew Shirvell, Michigan’s assistant attorney general, began posting a blog called Chris Armstrong Watch. The purpose of the blog is to speak out against the actions of the first openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan. Shirvell has posted images of Mr. Armstrong with a rainbow flag and swastika added and another with the words “racist elitist liar” superimposed over his face, and has referred to him as “Satan’s Representative.” Mr. Shirvell has also admitted to protesting outside of Armstrong’s house during an interview on CNN. Shirvell contends that all of this is just exercising his right to speak—but is it closer to harassment?
Take a look at a variety of definitions of “harassment.” You will find the difference between free speech and harassment is this: An individual is free to state their opinion on any subject as long as that statement does not purposefully or knowingly cause another person to feel personally “frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated.” In other words, it can’t be confrontational.
Basically this means that Shirvell can state, under his First Amendment rights, that he disagrees with Armstrong’s lifestyle and the fact that he advocates “a radical gay agenda.” However, he cannot protest outside of Mr. Armstrong’s house and cannot refer to him as “Satan’s Representative” or as a Nazi—which I’d like to point out is highly unlikely for obvious reasons.
This is a fairly clear example of harassment, and Shirvell was eventually fired as Assistant Attorney General of Michigan. However, how do we differentiate between free speech and harassment when the situation in question is literally a matter of opinion?
In an NPR report, “Teacher Suspended After Stopping Anti-Gay Talk,” a less clear example is described. On Oct. 20, Graeme Taylor was kicked out of class for asking how wearing a Confederate Flag symbol differed from wearing a rainbow flag symbol, and stating that he doesn’t “accept gays. It’s against my religion.” The teacher responsible for the expulsion, Jay McDowell, was accused of infringing upon Taylor’s right to free speech and instigating controversy by wearing an anti gay-bullying t-shirt.
This is where things get tricky. If we say that wearing symbols of one group is harassment, then wearing symbols of any group should be considered harassment. It is one’s right to state their beliefs as long as it’s done in a non-confrontational way. For the most part it was. However, considering that McDowell was wearing an anti gay-bullying t-shirt, one can assume that he might find the statement offensive. So what, right? Many things are offensive to someone, but the First Amendment doesn’t protect against that.
Yet, something doesn’t feel quite right about granting everyone the right to say whatever they want in any situation, as long as its not confrontational. Here’s why. It sometimes is confrontational.
In the real world, opinions can turn into something more physical. Often they turn into stressful situations, or worse, hate crimes. According to the study “The Stress Process and Minority/Majority Groups: The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Personal Mastery/Constraints,” done by The American Sociological Association, individuals who are part of a targeted group frequently experience even merely offensive statements as a form of personal harassment.
That’s right, cultural and group affiliation of another person can determine whether something is harassment or not. Taylor probably knew his statement would be personally offensive to his teacher and said it anyway; therefore it was a form of harassment.
There are those who defend free speech under any circumstances, and to them I say this: The right to free speech is intended to guarantee people the ability to share their opinions with anyone who chooses to pay attention, not to allow them to harass people into submission. Use some common sense.