Marie Yovanovitch with Donald Trump, Mike Pence and others.
BY AARON BARLOW
“You know what? I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just as other people do, but they’ve taken away the Republicans rights,” That, in a nutshell, is what is often presented as the modern conception of the right of discussion in the public sphere and who it applies to.
Though they may also seem like adolescent whining, these are the words of Donald Trump, President of the United States, speaking on November 15 about both a Tweet of his own earlier that day and Republican participation in the public questioning of Marie Yovanovitch by the House Intelligence Committee.
Trump’s conception shows no understanding of “rights,” the First Amendment, the hearing process or, quite frankly, who “they” are.
Back in the early 1980s, there was a radio ad for one of the ‘save the whales’ groups that included the line “Your children have a right to have whales in their world.” Though I agreed with the intent of the ad (just as I support freedom of speech), this line, I felt, was absurd—as are Trump’s comments from yesterday. Sometimes, and I feel this is the situation with Trump, people begin to use “rights” as a cudgel, swinging it about to strike opponents while pretending to be unaware that they are knocking down the rights of others in ‘defense’ of their own.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This isn’t a blanket guarantee that anyone can say anything they want—only that Congress can’t stop anyone from talking. That’s a significant distinction and one ignored by both free-speech absolutists and those who abuse the concept for their own ends.
During the current impeachment hearings, according to Reuters:
House-approved rules allow [Chairman and Democrat Adam] Schiff and [senior Republican Devin] Nunes to conduct multiple 90-minute rounds of questioning, alternating sides every 45 minutes.
Schiff and Nunes are considered likely to give at least part of their time to committee lawyers who have conducted much of the questioning to date in hearings held behind closed doors.
Once these rounds of questioning are finished, the committee will return to the usual House committee hearing format, with each lawmaker getting five minutes of questioning, alternating between parties.
As Chair, Schiff keeps firm control of the hearings, cutting off Republican attempts at disruption—the probable spark of the last part of Trump’s comment. Republican outrage at what Nunes calls a “show trial” (though the hearing is not a trial and has nothing in common with the Soviet travesties that first generated that name) takes advantage of the absurd (but widespread) absolutist belief that anyone should be able to say anything they want, wherever they want, and for as long as they want.
That, of course, is impossible—as we are learning through the painful spasms of social media entities regarding speech over the past few years—for neither anarchy nor libertarianism suffice when people must live so closely that enforcement of the rights of the one necessarily abridges the rights of the other.
The “they” of Trump’s comment is the necessity of structure, something he clearly does not understand though he manipulates it. What he calls the “deep state” is simply this structure, the one that tries to limit the behavior of the individual regarding (and sometimes in opposition to) the needs of the group and the rights of others. Government bureaucrats and elected officials, for all of their faults, have a laudable commitment (for the most part—Trump and those others deliberately subverting the system excepted) to keeping at least a modicum of order to the life of the group.
Like many have over the past half century (at least), Trump uses “rights” as a weapon, as he did when attacking Yovanovitch even while she was testifying before the Intelligence Committee—and as his later comment, quoted above, confirms. The very idea of the President of the United States, who has the most visible platform for speech of anyone in the world, complaining like a child about his “rights” is not only absurd but is insulting.
It shows, though, the care we need to be taking when we discuss First Amendment rights. What we say can be manipulated into statements of intimidation (which, of course, is what Trump was doing in his Tweet about Yovanovitch) or even into attacks on the rights of others to speak. The limitations the House placed on questioning during the impeachment hearings, remember, are not restrictions on speech but are attempts to keep order.
When we argue about the meaning of the concept ‘freedom of speech,’ we might keep Trump’s words in mind, making sure we think and speak in light of abuses (like Trump’s) that impinge on just what we are speaking about.
Once again, I’m going to disagree with Aaron. It’s good for us to talk about a broader conception of “rights” and “freedom of speech” than merely the original intent of the First Amendment restricting only Congress. While Trump is whining (criticism of his idiotic tweets isn’t a restriction of his free speech), I do disagree with those who think Trump’s critique of a witness is a form of witness intimidation. By contrast, too little attention is being paid to Trump’s actual witness intimidation and obstruction of justice in his ban on allowing top government employees to testify.
You are correct that rules to limit disruption within a hearing are quite appropriate and not a repression of Republican rights. But it’s dangerous to suggest that this sharply defined limit should be taken as a broader guide for how to understand free speech. That would be like saying that because colleges should prevent speakers from being shouted down by protesters, therefore colleges have a right to ban speakers whom they think will not provide productive ideas.
Yes, in a way, restricting members of the administration from testifying before Congress is a limit on freedom of speech and it should be fought.
In the classroom, I restrict disruptive speech that “will not provide productive ideas.” That’s part of my job. Sometimes (though I’ve never had to do this), students even have to be removed from the classroom. That’s not banning them and is in the best interest of the classroom community when progress toward educational goals is made impossible. The mission of a college does not include providing a platform for everyone.
Good points- and your statement shows that, in the classroom, the teacher has the authority to decide which ideas count as “productive” and, of course, therein lies the tension because there is no purely objective, apolitical way to determine which ideas or utterances are “productive” ones. Hence all the disagreement about whose rights are being squashed on college campuses.