Burlington Standard

Often invoked but rarely fully understood, the right to free speech is frequently a topic of heated debate throughout all facets of the social order. From articles in the New York Times, protests on college campuses, and arguments before the Supreme Court, the fundamental right to free speech is entrenched in the history and culture of the United States. But why is it so important? What value has it served throughout the nation's history? How has the Supreme Court interpreted free speech? What did they get right and, sometimes more importantly, what did they get wrong?

These are only just a few questions former UVM president and current professor of political science Tom Sullivan answers in his new book, "Free Speech: From Core Values to Current Debates."

In "Free Speech," Sullivan, and co-author Leonard Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan's law school, trace the evolution of the free speech doctrine in the United States, examining how the Supreme Court has applied that doctrinal framework to hard cases and current controversies like speech on social media, speech on campus, and campaign finance regulation.

"I wanted to write a comprehensive, scholarly, one-volume book on free speech. Why now? Because everybody thinks they know what free speech is and they think it's absolute," Sullivan said in an interview. "It turns out not quite to be the case."

The book begins with the founding fathers and their intentions, history, philosophy, theory, and underlying values behind the first amendment. After establishing those principles, Sullivan and Niehoff explore speech rights, case by case.

"We go through virtually all the major Supreme Court decisions to show how the court has actually interpreted free speech from 1791 right up to the present," Sullivan said, "so that [readers] could see the trend line and the march the court has taken toward a more absolutist viewpoint, with deviations along the way."

The book also explains a common misconception behind free speech: That the first amendment prohibits anyone from limiting speech.

"We discuss something that is not self-evident to a lot of people, even well-read people: the public and private distinction when interpreting the first amendment," Sullivan said. "The first amendment is only a restriction against federal and state governments prohibiting speech. If it's private, the first amendment has no application."

With few exceptions, public institutions like UVM cannot inhibit speech like protests. Middlebury College or Harvard University, though private colleges, apply the values and theories of free speech to instill constitutional norms. (Photo by Joshua Brown)

UVM, for example, being a public university, cannot inhibit speech, with a few exceptions. That isn't the case for private universities like Middlebury College or Harvard University. The same applies to social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

"When somebody says, 'Google or Facebook is violating my first amendment rights, they're censoring my speech, they're kicking me off the platform,' that is inaccurate," Sullivan said. "The first amendment has nothing to say about that private conduct."

And while private institutions are unconstrained by the first amendment, they apply individually the values and theories of free speech to instill constitutional norms within their own business practices.

While "Free Speech" provides chapters on current, more controversial cases involving hate speech, speech in public schools and academic freedom, digital or social media speech, and campaign finance reform, the book also explains major exceptions to free speech in the United States: defamation, obscenity, speech incident to or part of a crime, and speech inciting violence such as true threats.

"You see the court broadening the rights and freedoms of speech and, at the same time, carving out only four exceptions. And they interpret the exceptions very narrowly," Sullivan said. "It would be inaccurate to say free speech is absolute."

Sullivan said he and Niehoff wanted to ensure that "Free Speech" was written as an accessible overview of free speech.

"We really tried to make it a piece of public scholarship, accessible to public, to help readers understand why free speech is probably the most important value of the first amendment," Sullivan said. "It's for an educated electorate, to help promote and advance democracy. It's a civics opportunity to promote better education, better debate, and better public policy."

Original source can be found here