MANY VOICES, ONE CALL
Many Voices, One Call is SUNY Schenectady's student-centered podcast for courageous, honest, open, and unscripted conversations about all those things that move us, make us curious, and concern us -- as students, faculty, staff, or simple, as people!
MANY VOICES, ONE CALL
Many Voices - One Call: Season Five/Episode Three: How Free is Our Speech? Well. It Depends!
Freedom of expression is generally upheld as a core American value and a key ingredient for a functioning democracy! At the same time, we are constantly debating the limits to speech. Especially when speech is abrasive, hateful, deceiving, or simply careless, it becomes difficult to stand by our free speech principles. And on many college campuses, recent studies have found, students would rather not be exposed to views they oppose.
Have we lost our way? Have we maybe unlearned the skills needed to live in a society where speech is supposed to be free? For this episode, cohosts Ashley Lumbala, Sion Hardy, and Dr. Babette Faehmel reached out to five guests who think a lot about "speech" as part of their academic and professional role.
Joining us are Lonny Davenport, Communication Concentration student at SUNY Schenectady; Professor Richard Hamm, Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of History at SUNY Albany; Nikita Bowen-Hardy, the President of the Schenectady Chapter of the NAACP; Rae Doyle, Professor of Communication at SUNY Schenectady; and, by Zoom from his office at Monroe Community College in Rochester, Professor Joseph Scanlon, Associate Professor of Political Science.
To learn more about the fascinating topic of "how free is free speech," feel free to consult the following sources:
Samantha Barbas, "The Enduring Significance of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (March 18, 2024).
Zach Goldberg, Ryan Owens, & Lynn Woodworth, "Americans’ Troubling Views on Speech, Harm, and Violence" (November 2025).
American Civil Liberties Union, "Freedom of Expression" (March 1, 2002).
The views voiced on this episode reflect the lived experiences and uncensored opinions of the guests; they do not necessarily capture the full diversity of attitudes within a larger community, nor do they express an official view of SUNY Schenectady.
Welcome to season five, episode three of Many Voices One Call, SUNY Schenectady's Civic Engagement Podcast. My name is Sion Hardy. I am a teacher education major and artist and one of the student co-hosts of the podcast.
Ashleylucie Lumbala:My name is Ashley lucie Lumbala. I am a computer science student and SUNY Empire Service Corps intern and the other student hosts.
Babette Faehmel:And I'm Babette Faehmel, History Professor, and the faculty co-host. In this episode, we want to focus on speech: On the freedom of speech, on speech on social media, on classroom speech, and on speech that comes in the form of civic discourse.
Sion Hardy:A lot of people would say that the right to free speech is one of our most important rights. But many also say that there is too much hateful speech out there, or too much biased speech. And increasingly we hear about attempts to restrict controversial or hateful speech.
Babette Faehmel:So today we want to get under the hood of these speech controversies and ask: have we lost our way when it comes to speech? Have we maybe unlearned the skills we need to live in a society where speech is supposed to be free? Or maybe has social media changed the speech environment so much that we indeed need new legislation? So to explore this, we have guests with us in the studio. We have Lonny Davenport, who is a communication major in his last semester. Hi Lonny.
Lonny Davenport:How are you doing?
Babette Faehmel:I'm good. We have Professor Richard Hamm, who is a distinguished teaching professor in the Department of History at SUNY Albany. Hi, Richard.
Richard Hamm:Hi, happy to be here.
Babette Faehmel:Happy to have you. We have Nikita Bowen -Hardy, the President of the Schenectady chapter of the NAACP. Welcome, Nikita.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Happy to be here, thank you!
Babette Faehmel:And our own Ray Doyle, Professor of Communication and Campus Governance Leader here at SUNY Schenectady.
Rae Doyle:Hi everyone.
Babette Faehmel:Hi. And joining us by Zoom from his office at Monroe Community College in Rochester, we have Joseph Scanlon, Associate Professor of Political Science. Hi Joe.
Joseph Scanlon:Hello, thank you for having me.
Babette Faehmel:Thank you, and welcome all of you. So, Ashley, let's let's start.
Ashleylucie Lumbala:Okay, so the definition that we get when we search online is that freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. And a lot of people seem to think that free speech means you can say whatever you please. And they get upset when they realize they're being criticized or that there are consequences to their speech. Professor Hamm, could you maybe start by explaining what free speech means?
Richard Hamm:Well, free speech as it is, as it's understood in the United States - and it differs from different countries around the world - the United States has a very robust free speech heritage. It's not given to us by the founders. Free speech is something that people have always wrestled with and sought out to do. So what you'll hear [is] something like where, you know, public figures um can't use libel law to stifle speech that criticizes them. And then it will point to Times v. Sullivan. Well, Times versus Sullivan arose from attempts to actually suppress the speech of civil rights advocates who had put out a newspaper ad in the New York Times.
Babette Faehmel:Where was that?
Richard Hamm:That was in 19 in the 1960s, 1964. And the officials of Alabama literally brought a libel action in Alabama against the New York Times, saying that they had said false things about them. And there were some mistakes in this ad, but they essentially wanted to punish the New York Times and the people who uh Reverend Shuttleworth, who gave the speech, who gave the text to him, for their speech, criticizing their segregation stance and their and their actions. And the Supreme Court made a standard that in interpreting the law of the First Amendment that basically said if you are a public figure, there has to be, a ... there has to be actual malice intended in the speech for it to be considered libelous and being thus be able to be sued and and you could recover damages. And actual malice is a very, very high standard. It basically you can't prove it. Um... And so essentially libel law can't be used to suppress uh political speech against public officials. So you know you can uh criticize public officials quite vigorously and uh to, you know, hurt their reputation, but they can't sue about it. A private individual could.
Babette Faehmel:So what you're saying, are you saying that up to the Supreme Court case, Sullivan v New York Times, um we did not have, like, the kind of free speech that we now, like it's always sad that we have?
Richard Hamm:It's always a complicated story because for most of the history of free speech, the popular opinion has always been advanced of the law.
Babette Faehmel:Okay.
Richard Hamm:And so it will be the attempts of people to speak or do something that will move the law and get the doctrine decided. So probably one of the most important groups in the creation of our modern free speech law was uh an evangelical Christian sect, the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were very in your face uh when it came to especially their anti-Catholicism. And there were communities all across the United States that attempted to suppress almost everything they did. And the Jehovah's Witnesses hooked up with with well, first they had their own cadre of lawyers, but they also hooked up with lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, and they would bring speech cases, uh, cases about leafing, cases about going door to door, cases about uh I mean, cases about pledging allegiance to the flag. They literally uh they're one of the fonts of our modern free speech law. And it's important to see it it doesn't just come, it's not just in the First Amendment or under state constitutions, it's actually a a living thing that activists uh on the left and right and and religious groups and others have brought to us.
Babette Faehmel:Okay. Um so what exactly um does free speech, or the first amendment, or what exactly is encompassed under free speech?
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Um sure. Uh the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship censorship as mentioned, um, but not from social, professional, or institutional accountability. Um that's kind of what we see in the landscape right now, um, where um individuals receive uh backlash and some retaliation on some of the speech that is expressed. Um which in different spaces means different things.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah. Okay, so it depends on the space where you are at.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Yes.
Babette Faehmel:Okay, okay. So um where do you have the broadest speech protection?
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Well, in public forums, um, for instance, NAACP, we utilize town halls um to discuss um various issues that are affecting our greater community um and to create space for for dialogue, um civic dialogue on on these issues. Um that is a very broad and open uh arena for those sort of conversations.
Babette Faehmel:Okay. Um what about um what about speech in the classroom? Is that governed under the First Amendment?
Richard Hamm:Less so.
Babette Faehmel:Less so?
Richard Hamm:Less so
Babette Faehmel:Less so?
Richard Hamm:It has to it has to give the First Amendment, it does go into the school, but there also the school also has uh a duty to educate, and so speech that is considered disruptive of the educational function i is um i is not protected. Um and of course it it's hard to to find that is uh where that line is. Um the you know the classic case from from the 1960s and 70s in the height of the Vietnam War era was was a student coming to school wearing a t-shirt that said F the draft, um, and that worked it all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, which said that was protected speech, believe it or not. Um for the most part though, you know, uh there are areas of speech that you know that are not protected. Obscenity is not protected, direct incitement is not protected. Within social context, if like a school, also things that uh common people commonly call hate speech, are not protected. Um and what ...
Babette Faehmel:Within the school?
Richard Hamm:Within the school.
Babette Faehmel:But that is because it ... it would endanger the educational setup.
Richard Hamm:Yes.
Babette Faehmel:Okay. And who decides in the school context what is hate speech and what's not?
Richard Hamm:[Chuckles] It's always contested, of course.
Richard Hamm:[Laughter] I mean, yeah, of course, the first stop is the administrators.
Babette Faehmel:Uhuh
Richard Hamm:Okay. The first stop is the administrators, or the or uh and and and even the teacher in the in the classroom.
Babette Faehmel:Uhum.
Richard Hamm:I, I, you know, I teach, because I teach legal history, I teach hot button issues, and and I try to set uh a level of civic discourse in the classroom. And so I I will say you can say, you can take a position, say a position on uh abortion. You can take a strong right-to-life position on abortion and say abortion is murder, but you cannot turn to your classmate who has just said a pro-life uh a pro-choice position and call her or him a murderer. That that is crossing uh uh uh uh uh a civic divide, a line, I suppose. No longer civil civil.
Babette Faehmel:Okay.
Richard Hamm:And that's an incitement. I mean, I if I was called a murderer, I would take offense.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:Yeah.
Babette Faehmel:Um but it's is it if it's an incitement, is it then also like a a crime, like a violation of a right, or...
Richard Hamm:Well it's not a protected speech.
Babette Faehmel:Okay, okay
Richard Hamm:Not protected speech in the in the larger world.
Babette Faehmel:All right. So so definitely one could say that like because sometimes you get that idea that the free like free speech and the First Amendment protects all speech, so it basically means that like our our right to speech cannot be infringed upon, or it's like anything, kind of like anything goes sort of thing. You can just say all kinds of outrageous things, and um if you are facing any consequences, then you are being cancelled, or that kind of thing. So, but that seems to be a misunderstanding.
Lonny Davenport:I would agree. Anytime I heard of uh you know, free speech, it was assumed that I had a right to say what I wanted to say, you know what I mean, express my opinion. But it seems that it's only free speech when it comes to government. So you know, we uh we have a right to criticize our government in a civic way, in a you know, uh uh responsible way. It's our you know, civilian duty. Um but uh towards individuals in uh, you know, the academic setting, it's not as free as some of us would like to think.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah. It's it also seems to have a very different purpose, right? To be like speaking in the academic setting, as a just a different whole like I mean, it seems to be very dependent on where you are and what the purpose is.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Yeah.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from accountability. Um in leadership and education spaces, words have weight. So, especially when it's tied to power. So um there has to be some responsibility in the speech and the dialogue that's had in these spaces. Um, for instance, free speech in classrooms should expand learning. It shouldn't erase anyone's identity or attack individuals or a group. Um, and so having that accountability, it builds trust. Um and censorship breeds resentment, as we see.
Babette Faehmel:Do you think, does it seem to you that there's something in the culture that is changing when it comes to the speech, that we're getting a little less tolerant when it comes to or they may be more thin-skinned?
Lonny Davenport:Um
Babette Faehmel:Oh, Joe, you raised your hand. In Rochester!
Joseph Scanlon:Um so I often wonder about that too, but I often also wonder if it's because speech is so much more visible now.
Babette Faehmel:Um
Joseph Scanlon:You know, so much of it is on social media, we have recording devices in our pockets. So so much of what we say, so much of what we do is out there in the public for criticism and reaction. Um so I wonder, you know, even to go back to what you said earlier, have we lost our way? Have we lost our way, or is it so much of what we say and so much of our expression is just out there to be viewed and consumed by others in a way that it wasn't before. Um yeah, there and I yeah, there also is that aspect as well. Absolutely, yes.
Babette Faehmel:Ray Doyle, you teach digital media and social media. What how how does that what what what what is your impression?
Rae Doyle:There have been a lot of cases where because of the backlash of what people write on social media, they've lost their jobs. Um they've had to, they've been centered in different ways. And so I think that there's a really there's a fine line between your personal account and what your company or organization that you work for thinks about what you write on that personal account. And it's it's kind of blurring the lines, I think. And so people think that they can put whatever they want on their social media accounts and then their boss or their organization sees it, and then suddenly they're they have lost their job. And so I think that social media has taken it to a new level as far as responsibility for what we say and what we do.
Babette Faehmel:Is that a historical anomaly that people um are more and more, it seems, sanctioned for their opinions as they air them in public?
Rae Doyle:No. No, I don't think so, right? Like if we go back to like McCarthyism.
Babette Faehmel:No, but uh but well, um hopefully that's not the norm, right?
Rae Doyle:Right! So yeah, no, I do, I definitely think that it's much worse now than it has been in at least the recent past, right? As far as what people are being dismissed from their jobs for and what they're being criticized for. Yeah, airing your opinion has suddenly become taboo, right?
Babette Faehmel:Yeah. So I mean, it seems like as a as a foreigner, so to speak, I mean, I um I'm from Germany, and Ashley, you're you're also not from the United States, right?
Ashleylucie Lumbala:I'm from the Republic of Congo.
Babette Faehmel:Um so we when we were talking in the like before the show um about the freedom of speech in America, it seems it seemed almost like a little bit of an outlier that there's like this very strong investment in the right to sp to free speech. Um how how why is it seen as so important? I mean, what what exactly is the speech supposed to be free for?
Richard Hamm:It's supposed to be free so the sovereign people can govern. I mean, it's a g it's a guarantee. I mean, when you look at the republic, the the the First Amendment comes from out of the revolution, comes at the end of the revolutionary era, and it it is reflecting what was I mean the the same language is used in in state constitutions as early as 1777. So it it is is a revolutionary idea, and the idea is that that the people are going to be free to express their their views, and the government cannot control their views. And you know, the the German example is a good contrast because Germany has very strong laws against um right-wing speech, uh anti-Nazi and neo-Nazi laws, and and they are used. Um when the Nazis were arising in America, America was looking to do ... various states were looking to do that. They were called group libel laws or race hate laws. Um and uh a coalition led by the ACLU opposed those laws and opposed them on uh on the grounds that that that it was trampling on uh the free speech rights uh of Nazis. And so I've spent most of this century um doing research on on one of the most consequential lawyers of the ACLU, Arthur Garfield Hayes. He was a Jew. He was he he was uh he was a very brave man. This is the kind of guy he went to Nazi Ger Germany to watch the Reichstag fire trial. And he and he communicated with the defendants. Um and he but he in 1940s America, when these laws are coming up, he is actually going to New Jersey and telling the German American Bund, which was a Nazi organization.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:That they had a right to free speech.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:And and and he was going and visiting, I said, you have that, and if they if New Jersey passes a law, we will back you and bring a case, which New Jersey did pass a law, but the case that first was brought up wasn't with the Nazis, it was a with the Jehovah's Witness.
Babette Faehmel:Uh-huh.
Richard Hamm:Um the law was struck down.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:Um But the line is speech can't go to action. So the ACLU then would say, we have plenty of ways to control the Nazis, not just controlling their hateful thought, and they're they're entitled to their to say their hateful thought, but they can't act on it. They can't, they can't, they cannot wear masks, they cannot parade around in uniform, they cannot militarily train. There are all laws against those. And they cannot dis uh directly incite to violence.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, yeah.
Richard Hamm:So this is the heritage, and it's it's a strong heritage that is renewed constantly by people raising you know saying, my free speech is being impinged.
Speaker 9:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:In many times those are it's not true because the setting is wrong, but sometimes it is.
Babette Faehmel:Uh-huh.
Richard Hamm:And over time they have won.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:It's never settled. So this guy I studied, I mean, he starts, he becomes a free speech advocate in the 20s. He dies in the middle of McCarthyism. And I've always thought, he probably thought, I'd never move the needle.
Babette Faehmel:Oh my god.
Richard Hamm:Yeah, but in fact, they did a lot. Yeah. Um, so yeah, it's it is a her... it is a heritage. It's not a heritage that's taught clearly anymore. And that may be one of our problems that we we also often despair because we don't think, oh, we've never had we've never had our free speech suppressed, and it's just like plenty of times. And there and through struggle, sometimes we have prevailed.
Babette Faehmel:Okay, so no right can be taken ever for granted. You just have to continue to debate it and discuss it and and stand up for it. Uh, Joe, you have raised... you raised your hand.
Joseph Scanlon:Yeah. Um, you know, just to kind of add on to that, and maybe I'm saying the same thing, is it really does seem to be a reflection also of our in the United States of our culture of individualism. So in other liberal democracies where we might see these more constrained free speech laws, a lot of times they're oriented around um kind of collective safeguards, protecting community, right? Um in the United States, we've been careful in our history, right, to really safeguard individual rights um and liberties. And so I think one of the places it springs from, and one of the and one of the reasons why it's so cherished and oftentimes considered to be um maybe our most fundamental liberty, right, really does relate to our strong history and culture of individualism.
Babette Faehmel:Uhum. Uhum. Nikita, you are you're nodding.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Yes. Um the US's approach as opposed to other um democracies and how they um protect speech um and how we protect speech more broadly is deeply rooted in and reflects our deep distrust of government and government control and our belief in individual uh liberty. So uh one way to frame it is like the US, and when the US we protect speech, not because it's always right or kind, but because we don't trust anyone to decide what's allowed to be said. And so it's important for us, you know, in the United States, um that when we're looking at this free speech here in America, it's always been both a shield and a mirror. So they have that protection, but it's also the reflection. How we're protecting our expressions, um, but also how it's also reflecting how um who actually feels free to speak. And so that's why um civic discourse ends up being even more important.
Babette Faehmel:Well, how how does civic discourse differ or relate to free speech?
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Yes. So um free speech means little of truth telling, yeah um, and it still costs people their livelihood and and safety as opposed to civic discourse. Um it's necessary, um .... my industry is public administration. It's necessary, um, to have that input when we're trying to take into consideration policies and laws that we have. And we have to um create these brave spaces to have respectable conversations. We don't have these um in certain spaces, but for civic discourse, this is how it's uh practice. This is how we're able to engage with each other for everyone to be heard. We want everyone to be heard. Um it's just how we're interacting with each other for this and um not going against individuals and groups.
Babette Faehmel:Okay. Joe, you are a [SUNY] Civic Discourse Fellow. Um and I, I know that you are regularly um like for instance, you are you're bringing your students to the Model United Nations, correct? Um how how do you like what do you see as the importance of civic discourse?
Joseph Scanlon:I think that civic discourse, I don't want to say intentional, um, but as often involves a set of skills or points back to skill building that free speech generally doesn't necessarily um consider or doesn't necessarily involve. Right? So when we're talking about civic discourse, I think we're talking about you know critical thinking, sharing perspectives, active listening, developing empathy, um, things of this nature, right? Really constructive ways of dealing with divergent um points of view. Um free speech isn't concerned with that, right? Free speech is just free speech, right? Um so and obviously it doesn't require active listening, it doesn't require really any other skills to engage in. And where civic discourse, I would argue, I don't want to say it's intentional, but I do believe that when we're talking about what we want civic discourse to be, or when we want to engage in civic discourse, it's something where we're bringing certain skills to the table or at least developing a set of skills that make us better communicators.
Babette Faehmel:So the skills are the important.
Joseph Scanlon:Yes, yes, yeah, yeah, that's kind of you know where what exactly what I'm thinking.
Babette Faehmel:Sion, I think you had a question about that, didn't you?
Sion Hardy:Oh yes, like how can we prepare the younger generation to be more comfortable with civic discourse or not just the younger generation, just like everyone in general to come together and share our views and be willing to agree and disagree with each other?
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, because I would I would agree it's not just it's it's actually not the younger generation. I mean, like if if our, our students are any kind of like sample or example, um, they are usually really responsible in how they how they talk to each other. And I don't know if that's just to protect themselves and their well-being, or if it's like it just seems like I mean there seems to be a lot of careless speech out there, but it's not necessarily only the young.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Yeah. Well, civic discourse starts in, I believe, the classrooms in homes and community circles. Um, for NAACP, we have um approaches. I mentioned town halls. We also have media guidelines um to counter harmful stereotypes and promote accurate dimensional representation of black people, um, marginalized um individuals. Um we have some general stat strategies for fostering civil um discourse, uh, some key points, listening to understand. Yeah. People are not listening to understand. They're waiting to get their next point in most of the time. Um, you know, setting expectations, you know, aiming to understand the different viewpoints. We don't need to agree, uh, we don't need to disagree. Um it's not a win or lose sort of thing, but kind of creating space for this these conversations and this dialogue, avoiding personal attacks, um, refraining from inflammatory languages, um name-calling, insults, finding common grounds that is usually very important. It brings the energy down, kind of brings everybody here, um, so that um we can look for areas of agreement that we can build upon um to keep that um going and navigating disagreements. And also practicing humility and vulnerability. Okay. Because with this, a lot of times when people have their um beliefs, that they're definitely sometimes they're incited with perspectives, with history. Yeah. Um we live in a society right now where social media is the new public square. We were talking about that. Everybody has a microphone. Right. Um, but you know, where's the nuance to it, right?
Babette Faehmel:Right. Right. It seems like coming back to the individualism, right? I mean, it's like, yeah, we all have our individual cherished opinions, but we also have individual responsibility on how we speak and how we listen. And that seems to be something that maybe sometimes gets lost. Ashley.
Ashleylucie Lumbala:Yeah, Nikita, you said something about um how uh people don't speak, people don't listen to understand, they just listen. I do think that that's like a very big problem. In um we talked about different generations, but it's like in all generations, even on social media, like even if you go on your social media and you're watching something and then you look at the commentary, it's like, did you really watch the video or you just or did do you just want to bring what you have like what you think is inside of you? And I I I I think it's because of the way um, like you said, it starts from homes, it starts from school. So I also feel like it's because of the way people were brought up and everything. And another thing that that does is it makes people you said our generation, you said you you feel that each students are more responsible in the way they speak to each other, but I also feel like um the reason why we are more responsible in the way we speak to each other is because we don't want to be um, let me say, caught saying the wrong thing.
Babette Faehmel:Okay, yeah. Joe, you have your hand up again.
Joseph Scanlon:Oh no, I just um to your question earlier, um, you know, and I like the way that you know you had talked about civic discourse, which obviously requires free speech, but being something a little more deliberate um and bringing skills to bear, developing skills. I also think it's really important for good civic discourse to be in person, or at least for people to be able to see each other when they talk to each other. Um I think kind of when we get into our isolated internet environments, right, where we don't have to see anyone, we don't have to interact really, um, that we emerge as individuals kind of you know roaming our words out into you know the internet. Um I think that in person really has in, or at least some. Even virtual has an important effect. Um, then it's it really does bring a better con bring out a better conversation. Yeah. Um people are a little less inclined to write um act in a way that is counter to the civic discourse skills that we were discussing.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Definitely want to consider the medium. The medium and be mindful of tone. That can get thoughts and text. Yeah.
Rae Doyle:Um, people lose empathy because they don't see a person on the other side of their comments. They just say whatever they want to, forgetting that someone's reading that, it's affecting them.
Lonny Davenport:Yes, like um Nikita was saying, social media has become the public uh square for you know everybody to just get out what it is that they feel. And I think when you when you talk about generations, I think the younger generations, because they've been raised um, you know, at least because I I I I'm not that old, but I'm not that young. I I'm only 36, but I've was taught my parents are boomers, so they know how to go out and engage, and that's what I grew up seeing, actually going out, um physically engaging, being face to face with people, whereas today, like we just say that everybody's online, yeah. And there are skills that you develop with coming with with meeting your adversary or somebody that is uh ha holds a different viewpoint of you. There's skills that you gain from being, you know, in the same room with that person. And you can convey feelings, you can, you know, better understand people. And that's just one of the things about, you know, I don't think civil dis I I don't when when we see civil discourse online, it's to me it's just a bunch of people arguing, yelling back and forth. It's just a bunch of you know what I mean, and I I get um that it has its place, uh-huh, but without that one-on-one in the room, face-to-face, eye-to-eye interaction, I don't think um I wouldn't personally consider what's going on online uh civil discourse.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, no, me neither. Because I I I think this it has it has a different, I mean it depends. It can definitely be civil discourse online. Yeah. But it just depends on how you do it.
Lonny Davenport:Right.
Babette Faehmel:And I think you I mean you've already said, like, there's it's much easier to not have empathy to your conversation partners when you are online. But I also I also think that there's like that these these skills that we develop, they also include courage, right? Courage to speak up and courage to also face somebody who you know disagrees with you. And that's kind of that just reminds me again of of what you were saying, uh Professor Ham or Richard earlier about the ACLU and and their their role in um in like bringing or developing the right under the law um and pushing it forward and making it um more um like inclusive of all kinds of speech. And the other the other organization that that we came across when we were um looking at some um cases um was the NAACP, which which was like I think instrumental and the other big case, like aside from um yes, Sullivan, but then the other one that oftentimes comes up like in, I don't know, um politics 101 would be Brandenburg v. Ohio, where also you have the NAACP essentially defending a racist uh like a like a yeah an aggressive racist uh and Klan member for and defending him for the organization for their right, standing up for their right to about hate speech. Um so do you do you mind like giving us another little history dive?
Richard Hamm:Well, uh I'll I'll give you a history dive. Brandenburg is you know if Brandenburg is a is a is a search case in some ways as well as a free speech case. Because they they go into Brandenburg's house and they find the literature there. I mean Brandenburg is not even handing the literature out at that point. Um I'm I'm sh sure they he did.
Richard Hamm:It's important to think about, you know, um, n that it should be f when it comes to free speech, it should be free speech for all. Yeah. And it should not be free speech but. So one of the things the ACLU would often say in the [19]20s, when one of their great allies was a communist, who they came to defend in America all the time, but the communists didn't believe in free speech. They would say, we have free speech for us, but not for everybody else. And they were pretty clear about this. And it's the ACLU said, we'll go this far with you, but no further. So it's free speech for all is the most important part, and even for people you didn't agree with. So, you know, Arthur Garfield Hayes was one of the attorneys in in the Scopes case. I mean, fighting the fundamentalists trying to block the teaching of evolution.
Babette Faehmel:Oh, yeah.
Richard Hamm:Yet he is also an attorney for the the Jehovah's Witnesses who have no whose theology he is no closer to. I mean, he thinks they're kooks for the most part when it comes to their religious ideas and what and and their sentiments, but he thinks that they also have the right to be able to pick it, to hand out literature, um, and to express their ideas. So the I think the the dynamic you're wanting to get to get to not just civic discourse, but still uh having vibrant free speech is not to cut off your opponents.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Richard Hamm:And as you say, try to find the common ground. And here is one common ground, we share these rights. And we should share this right because we're in a democracy. And it's it's very tough when you're dealing with people who they want to advocate their ideas to end the democracy. And those are those are the ones that are, you know, they were scary, they were scary in the 20s, they're scary, they were scary in the 30s and 40s, and they're scary now. Um and you have to pull back and say, yes, but we're going to trust the greater democracy to shut them down eventually. They'll hear their ideas and say, well, these aren't good ideas. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, you know, you have to let the bubbles out. And you know, when you let the bubbles out, they pop and there's nothing in them. Um and so sometimes the the most detested ideas, if you let them out, they prove to be empty.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, um, I hear you. And and I I I want to agree, but but then I'm also I'm thinking with with the social media environment, the bubbles, there are just so many more bubbles. And like you are being bombarded by bubbles. And and I'm I'm not so sure we are ready necessarily ready for that, but to to have that kind of like intake of so many, so many bubbles and so much careless speech, um, trolling, right? You had like you had a question Ashley earlier about or in the in the in the pre-show um about like what do we do about trolls, right? Um, so so I just I just wonder if we are as a people necessarily equipped with the skills um and the resilience that we need to deal with that. But once again, I mean, like um maybe this just because we are in the moment, and the moment everything al ways seems more dramatic, but then we have the history. Oh, uh hands are being raised. Professor Doyle, Rae, and Nikita.
Rae Doyle:Do you do you remember the anyone remember the case of Lindsey Stone? Yes. So she was that again. Um she was in front of Arlington National Cemetery, the tomb of the unknown soldier, and she flipped it off. She was on a work trip. Um she was suspended from her job, and then she was trolled so relentlessly that she actually had to hire someone to scrub all of her information from um social media because she could not get a job anywhere else. Because as soon as you searched her name, that incident came up, and she had put it on her private Facebook po Facebook um page, but she was friends with employers and or she thought it was private and it was public, and so they literally destroyed this woman. They gave her home address, um, everything, and so she lost her entire life and literally couldn't find a job because of making a what she thought was just a humorous post, right? She'd done the same thing in front of a no-smoking sign, so she had done it in front of the sign that says respect and silence, and so she pretended she was screaming. It was the she pretended she was pretending she was screaming. Sorry, that was not the flipping off one. The flipping off was the uh no-smoking sign, I believe. And so again, trolls literally destroyed this woman's life.
Babette Faehmel:Oh my god, yeah.
Rae Doyle:Yeah, and that was in early, early stages of social media, right? Not even today, where things have gotten a whole lot bigger. Yeah. Yeah.
Babette Faehmel:And they are not really any protections against that. Right. No, I mean that the social media. Yeah, well, I think that's a good idea.
Richard Hamm:Well, the people who run social media I'm talking over, excuse me. The people who run social media could put more robust protections, but they have chosen not to.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:It's entertainment. Yeah. They need the engagement, they want the engagement, they want dialogue, whether it's productive, whether it's civil or not.
Richard Hamm:Oh, yeah, and the algorithms direct you to to to a universe that you're going to like.
Babette Faehmel:Yes.
Richard Hamm:Yes. I mean, my algorithms on Facebook direct me to posts about dogs, little beagles running around. Um and all the other ones I I I have learned. I mean, and and this is a skill that you know a baby boomer had to learn. I've learned not to click on any other one.
Babette Faehmel:Yes.
Richard Hamm:And I only click on the so when the feats come up, they're I only click on the dogs. And it's always it's always it's always uplifting and cute.
Babette Faehmel:That's how you fight it. Yeah. For me, it's horses. Well, it seems that um ultimately there are no like I mean, we can either rely on external constraints or guardrails, but then do we trust the people who are putting those constraints and guardrails in place? Joe?
Joseph Scanlon:Um Yeah, so that is actually one of my concerns. Um, you know, earlier we talked about social media becoming like the new town hall, if you will. Um so sometimes I wonder if we need to be more careful then, right, about how we ask um platforms to moderate or regulate um material. Um, because A, it's the new town hall, right? It's where places go where people go to share ideas where they might go to learn new ideas or to just understand their own ideas. Um also that comes a small group of people in Chamber, and I suppose they already have this ability of filtering information we receive. Um and, you know, that that that is a concern. A small group of people have the ability then to greatly filter what we are exposed to, um, you know, and therefore what we are not exposed to. Um and I think that's something that we really do have to wrestle with.
Babette Faehmel:I mean, that also seems to be like uh there seem to have been precedents, a plenty of that, right? Like um basically, I remember um like um press media coverage of the civil rights movement essentially not making it into the South because that's just it was it was suppressed. So it's again not not necessarily new, but um you say we we need to wrestle with that, and I see some some nods in the room. Lonnie?
Lonny Davenport:Um so I I had a question actually, kind of similar to what Joe is it, Joe, Joe was saying. If I'm so if I post something on YouTube and I'm not in America, are my f does America respect my freedom of speech? Does the freedom of speech still go along with Does it carry with you? Yes. Even though let's say I'm not an American citizen, I'm in another country, I post something on YouTube, it gets to the masses. Is my free speech still protected?
Ashleylucie Lumbala:Um it, it depends on uh where it lands. Like um in America we do have we do have free speech, but like in certain countries, in most countries, free speech is also a thing. But uh their free speech is not only governed by the government, like how Professor Hamm was trying to explain, but it's also governed by ethics, culture. So if you're saying something, so if maybe you do post something on YouTube and it lands in, let's say, I don't know, I'm I don't know, in in a country where whatever you're saying is not um part of their culture and part of their ethics, you might be trolled because of that by people from that country.
Lonny Davenport:Okay. I I asked that because I was just looking at a post where there were several um people who were basically testifying what was going on from a war zone and YouTube, and this is related to what uh Joe was saying about the dangers of having a few people uh able to filter out what it is that we say. Um there were uh people that were um in a war zone and they were testifying and sh video sending uh video recordings about what was going on, and the YouTube just completely wiped all of their videos, wiped all of their you know what I mean? So I I started to think about that as we got deeper in the conversation. Is that because we are in America, like you said, and there's certain countries that um are governed by ethics, morals. I know there's other countries that are you know religious countries, so certain things can't be showed on their social media sites or or whatnot. But we are a in my opinion, we're a very liberal country. Um we don't, you know, morals ethics, since it's it's divine by it's defined by the individual. Where are do their rights lie for those individuals who are trying to get a story out, who's trying to get a message out, who's trying to use their speech.
Babette Faehmel:I think that would very much depend on where you are um trying to share your your speech or your your content. Because I mean the social media platforms they essentially can decide that by themselves because they are not bound under the First Amendment, because that only protects us from restrictions from the government. But what Facebook decides is is up to Meta. Um and I mean like and and basically considering how how many social media platforms are under Meta, that's a lot of power and a lot of restrictive power. And they also, I mean, they are a commercial business.
Rae Doyle:Well, and with YouTube, users flag videos, and then they have a team of people who check to see whether or not it violates the rights of use. And so I was wondering if those videos were h erased from American YouTube or if it was that they couldn't be viewed in other countries because if it was erased here, it must have had something to do with the violent images in the background, would be my guess.
Babette Faehmel:Oh yeah, right, right.
Lonny Davenport:Okay, okay. But it it just had me thinking, um I d also don't think it's safe to have a group of people, a small group of people telling us what we can, what we can't can't post.
Richard Hamm:That has historically been an American attitude. The American government spent much time trying to keep media concentrations from happening. When radio came in, newspapers were prohibited from owning radio stations, for instance. The number of stations you could have was limited. Yeah. Um it took a long time for even the network, radio networks to emerge. So initially radio was radio was very initially when it first comes out, it's it's really it was kind of like uh social media today. I mean, there were, you know, there were people in their backyards making radio stations. It got it got more business, more commercial, um, but it was still it was still separate from uh the the great news chains that already existed. Um that was also true for for newspapers and television uh for the longest time. Um but our willingness to use antitrust against uh media holding companies uh has disappeared.
Rae Doyle:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Richard Hamm:And that's how everything is owned by Meta. Right. Um so uh it's it's an issue.
Babette Faehmel:How did that happen? Is that because it's free and that's why we are all I don't know, I mean like it's it's it's freely available. What can be bad about that? Do we have we been snowed there? Have we been to have we have we missed the fact that this is like a massive concentration of power just because we are um it's it's nice to use it and because it's free?
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:I think so because I think everybody uses it for different reasons. So you have people who use it and...
Babette Faehmel:"LOL cats"
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Right, you know, keeping up, keeping up with their family and college friends, you know. Um and I I think that people have different relationships, I call it toxic relationships with social media. Um, and so some people want to keep it that way. And so there's no pushback in it. Right. And in our government, depending on the administration, you know, they may agree or disagree. And so there really isn't any oversight or pushback.
Babette Faehmel:And it also seems that um we are very quick, as you said earlier, Nikita, um, as Americans or as naturalized citizens, we have this kind of distrust of the big government and whatnot. But it seems almost that, well, it's not the government is not necessarily the problem. There are all these um private-owned companies um with a with a big profit motif, and I'm already entrusting all my data and so much information about myself to them, and basically they control in a way what can what comes in front of me, and maybe the control is mild, but do I know? I do not know what the algorithm is like. Um, oh sorry, Joel. I don't want to ignore the hand that is being raised.
Joseph Scanlon:No, I think um Richard said something very important um earlier, and I guess maybe what I said we had to wrestle with um is already happening um because it does seem we live in a moment of media consolidation. Um the not just the social media platforms we use, which are you know operated by a limited number of people, but even just the television news um seems to be now just under the you know, under um a handful of large companies. Even when we look at print journalism, the disappearance of local journalism, and there's been studies that have talked about how that has a negative impact on democracy, disappearing local journalism in favor of large national publishers or companies owning and operating, um, large companies owning and operating affiliate stations around the country. Um, so we live in this era of media consolidation. So I, you know, I guess this is more of a question, but how does that I mean that has to have some kind of effect or contribute to um our concerns about how information is filtered to us, how information is flows or controlled.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah. I mean you already see that in like in trust in media declining so much, um, and the nationalization of all the political discussion there's so so because I mean I remember studies showing that like people trusted their local local paper, and they that's where they kind of like felt connected to the polity and whatnot. Um, and this has all kind of disappeared.
Rae Doyle:Yeah, I mean, I'm gonna bring up a more recent example about Jimmy Kimmel.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah.
Rae Doyle:You know, like once he was approved to be back on the air, not everyone put him back on the air, right? It took a little while for them to fold to the pressure that people wanted to be able to view um his show in all areas, and so that's a problem with what's happening right now with all of the consolidation and the control being in the hands of a few.
Babette Faehmel:Right, and it's once again, it's a private actor, not the the big bad government.
Babette Faehmel:Ladies and Lonnie, as the initiator to the um episode, are you getting all your questions answered, all your topics covered?
Lonny Davenport:Yes. The initial question of is is free speech free. Um does it just protect us from the government or does it just protect does it protect us from government reaction or does it protect us from everyone? Um I think we've got our answer, and for me it's still I don't want to say scary, but it's concerning. Yeah. Um I do think we have the right to openly criticize our government. I do believe that it is uh our fundamental right to openly criticize the government, um, because the government is it's affecting us, the policies that they pass, the laws that they pass, it's affecting the people, so the people have a right to argue whether that's good or not. But my understanding initially was, and it you know, uh I as I listen to what everybody had to say, I have to, you know, tell myself, you know, morals are defined by the individual, how they're raised, how they're brought up their environment. So a situation that had me think of um that was brought to mind was I think it was in the uh last spring, uh, between last spring and the summer where um a situation in Ohio where the uh Ku Klux Klan came and passed out flyers in a neighborhood. They came and this was a uh a uh established black town since the 1920s during the from when the migration of of blacks from the south to the north. And they purposely went to this town and you know passed out flyers, telling them to get out. They um you know harass they stuff stopped at certain bus stops where kids was coming out. Um so if I understand um Richard, they have a right to pass that literature out, am I correct? Their their right to pass that literature out is protected. With with i it did it did.
Richard Hamm:Yes. The short answer, yes, but and the but the but is is is that literature is it a direct incitement, for instance? Then no. Um and so it that then then it becomes the question of the police officer on the street, whether that person will intervene to say passing out this literature to say a bunch of white people surrounding some some African American school kids is an incitement to literature uh uh to violence, perhaps, and stopping it. Um so free speech is not absolute. Um and certainly the law has upheld uh things that that are absolutely repellent. So uh the uh to to keep it in the issue of race, cross-burning. Cross-burning is not absolutely prohibited, is prohibited when it is meant to intimidate. Um and and that it that's it's a high price to pay to for freedom. I mean, we have to put up with an awful lot.
Lonny Davenport:Right. We do. And and so what I'm getting at is it's still there's still an area that's I would say undefined and unlegislated. Um because if I recall the police did show up and they said there was nothing that they can do. But in my opinion, if you go to a town that has been established by black migrants since the 1920s, it's been a thriving um, you know, part of the ecosystem in Ohio, and you're the Klan and you start passing out flyers, you know, time to get out, or you go to the white neighborhoods, say join us, I think that's r you know that's incitement to me. But what I think really it means I'm not gonna say it doesn't matter, but it's not how the government sees it.
Richard Hamm:But if enough if enough people think it's incitement and write a law and to to to recategorize it, yes. I mean, uh the classic one is when we think about our criminal law, we now we we now have uh uh an added uh penalty for if it's done for uh uh out of hate. We added that to to just your basic malice for a crime.
Lonny Davenport:Okay.
Richard Hamm:And and so i i you know there you have to trust the democracy will write it. Could they write that particular wrong right then and there? No. Right. Didn't know I mean the ACLU, uh and I'm standing in for the ACLU. Apparently, yes, I am a member too. Um but the ACLU defended the Nazis' right to go march through Skokie, Illinois, which was a community filled with death camp survivors. Uh it is, yeah, and on its face, you just go, you cringe. Um but that you know that's where when you take an absolute position, that's where you you go.
Babette Faehmel:But it might also be the protection that we have, right? The cringe. Um we we have to trust the communities that that that the cringe value will come in and that they that there will be this kind of recognition of of speech that is just um uh despicable.
Richard Hamm:And we we have the right to organize uh and and and to have a death to the clan rally and to follow them along.
Babette Faehmel:Right.
Richard Hamm:And we have the we have the right to to go pick up their literature and rip it up.
Babette Faehmel:Yes. Yeah, and which where the media once again comes in because we need a responsible media that then also gives as much attention to the counter-speech and the counter-protesters than to the, I don't know, flamboyant marchers in in a town that like that also like apply um deliberately outrageous symbolism in their marches and whatnot. So unfortunately, there's a lot of responsibility that rests on the consumer of information in this free country. Um I I do also believe that from the from the history of uh um of civil rights movements and free speech, we can also learn a few things about how the attempts to shut down speech can backfire. Because I I believe one of the first cases um where we had um hate speech law being debated was in response to the airing of the movie Um Birth of a Nation in 1915, which is a which is a very, very racist movie, and where I believe the NAACP at first tried to suppress the um uh distribution and the showing of the movie, which then gave the movie so much attention that only then did it like become like a major um I think like um box office hit because everybody wanted to see what it's all about. And that maybe is also important to keep in mind that sometimes when we get too outraged about speech, uh we just give that speech much more volume and much more much more eyeballs. So where are we now? I mean, are we are we are basically left with the idea that we have to live our freedom um responsibly and with a th... with a thicker skin when it comes to information and news and speech? Are we ready?
Lonny Davenport:I think this needs to be talked about in more academic spaces. This is something this conversation needs to hopefully this is the seed and it grows and it spreads, you know, deeper because you know, right now we need more um education as far as our laws. Our laws right now, um right now more than ever, I believe in my lifetime. I've never seen in the time where we need to actually understand our laws. We need to understand the First Amendment, Second Amendment. You know what I mean? We need to understand our our constitution, we need to break it down, and we need to understand, you know, what rights do we have, where are our rights being violated. And I think freedom of speech is is is one of those um laws right now, the amendment is being heavily violated right now. So when you see people going to jail for a post against a political figure, like you said, which is protected, you know, that's a clear violation of our first...
Babette Faehmel:Or losing their job...
Lonny Davenport:Right. So um I think this this this is like a cliffhanger conversation. It needs to be, you know, del uh, you know, delve into a little bit more.
Babette Faehmel:Well, it also needs to be continuously, I mean, I I totally agree, it needs to continuously be taught and more often, right? So like um a rigorous um well civ civic education. It has has been neglected for for a long time. Um and then also more opportunities for communication and conversations in the out in the community. Nikita, I believe you were mentioning at some point that um when we were talking before the show, um that you are very interested in opening community spaces, communal spaces for you've called it brave conversations, brave talk.
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Um yes, instead of safe spaces, because no safe is truly space, brave spaces, so that we can have these dialogues um and you know connect with each other um on the uh various uh freedom freedom free of speech. But um advocacy really depends on brave truth telling um and not convenience. So we really need to have create these spaces and have these conversations and practice. That's the only way for us to be able to um have transformational change.
Babette Faehmel:Right, right. And so so what would you recommend like to maybe the students who are frustrated with the current um discursive environment, um, how they could themselves go out and have more brave conversations in braver spaces?
Nikita Bowen-Hardy:Uh get involved, um get involved in the greater community, um, if there isn't a space on campus for it, um, if there is a way to create that space, um, team up with um faculty will be able to champion that. And if not, outside of the campus. We have um free spaces in the community. Um we have various organizations organizations such as NAACP but other civic engagement organizations, and we just need to just speak with each other. Yeah, um I think this is a great start, a seed, so to speak. Um and I really um it's a call in to students. It's not just about um your education, your collegial education right now, but your education in our society. So yeah.
Babette Faehmel:Yeah, all right. Well, that sounds sound like um the best like last words for for this episode, um, and and definitely a call for further action and further speech. So thanks once again. Ashley, Richard, Lonnie, Rae Nikita, Sion, and Joe! Thanks so much for um contributing to this episode.
Babette Faehmel:Many Voices One Call is made possible thanks to the generous contributions of the SUNY Schenectady Foundation. The recording of the podcast is supported by the School of Music, our student editors Max Munzer, Carter Maxon, Richard Andres, and of course Professor Sten Isachson. Heather Meany, Karen Tansky, and Jessica McHugh Green deserve credit for promoting the podcast. Thanks also for the Vice President of Academic Affairs Mark Meachem, College President Steady Moono, the Student Government Association and the Student Activities Advisor. Please stay tuned for more episodes like this on Spotify or wherever you get the podcast. Thank you, everybody.
Richard Hamm:Thank you.
Babette Faehmel:I had seven pages of notes....