OP-ED : Alka Narayana

A position paper arguing that "Three aspects of the First Amendment's existence highlights its promotion of white male supremacy: the marketplace of ideas, the silence of minorities, and the 'fragility' of free expression."

The First Amendment is highly valued in the United States of America as a cornerstone of social identity. By preserving an individual's autonomy, expression, and independence, the First Amendment is a non-negotiable requirement for living and expressing oneself freely (Manne 2017). The right ensures that people do not share identical beliefs and express themselves free of government control. However, the power and privilege to employ the First Amendment was guaranteed for white males as the creators. Despite expanding free expression to marginalized citizens, there is a lack of concern for how uncontrolled speech encourages the racist and misogynistic social hierarchy. Specifically, the First Amendment is defended even when the speech or speaker is hateful since it is believed to protect the vulnerable and the powerful to prevent a chilling effect (Franks 2019). The objective nature of the First Amendment is not inherently evil. However, the application of freedom in a white supremacist society fosters racial, gender, and homophobic terrorism that silences the speech of marginalized groups. Also, the resurgence of white supremacy in public debate has enhanced accessibility and the lack of conduct check of speech across various platforms (Devich-Cyril 2021). Ultimately, the failure to equitably uphold the First Amendment for minorities is overlooked with the guise of protecting all forms of free speech like hate speech that emphasizes white male supremacy. Three aspects of the First Amendment's existence highlights its promotion of white male supremacy: the marketplace of ideas, the silence of minorities, and the 'fragility' of free expression.

One of the core values of free speech is attaining the truth, which is exercised via the marketplace of ideas. It is believed that free speech should be protected so all ideas can enter the public domain, where the most accurate and just ideas will become public knowledge. In theory, the marketplace is good since nothing should be hidden from the public. However, people's gender, race, class, education, and access to technology can affect their access and participation in the marketplace. The marketplace then does promote the truth or objectively optimal information since it will merely reflect the privileged participants' perspective. It is not a neutral zone to facilitate free expression. The free market has made topics of race, gender, and sexuality debatable rather than seen as a human right even in the "post-civil rights" era. It is a stage to weaponize free speech for racist, misogynistic, and homophobic sentiments. Thus, free speech as influenced by the privileged has converted free speech rights to ensure the right to participate in the racist dialogue. First Amendment fundamentalists defend the weaponization of free speech in the pursuit of the truth. Racist, misogynistic, and homophobic sentiments are false and should be disqualified as something that needs to be debated to find the truth. Hate speech at the core exists to uplift white supremacy in the guise of protecting free speech. It is an excuse to verbally abuse someone and demand individuals to accept it as a condition of living in America.

Unfortunately, the marketplace of ideas limits and silences the speech of minorities by allowing hate speech to prosper. Women, LGBTQ+ members, and people of color are signaled out for violent, abusive attacks and expected to endure them (Goldberg 2019). The former ACLU executive director, Aryeh Neier, said, "it is best to take hate speech in stride … overwhelm it with the peaceful expression of contrary views" (Franks 2019). The validation of hate speech as conduct fosters actions and ideals of white male supremacy and informs minorities they must act civilly against violent speech. When minorities utilize their free speech to stand up against bigotry, they are not heard on the same scale or are de-platformed. The censorship minorities face ultimately slows down implementing conduct regulation of free speech to protect the dignity of minorities who face violence from the First Amendment promoting white male supremacy.

The perception of the First Amendment as fragile derives from the growth in minorities in accessing and employing their rights and denouncing hate speech as a valid form of free expression. Free expression allows people to exist as individuals, while hate speech persecutes people for their existence. Hate speech and free expression are treated as extensions of one another. First Amendment fundamentalists believe that restriction on speech results in the "chilling effect" (Franks 2019). The chilling effect refers to when restrictions to unprotected speech are dangerous because it will discourage even protected speech (Franks 2019). The theory enables the notion that free speech is incredibly fragile and under constant attack (Franks 2019). The fragility mindset completely overlooks the target of hate speech. It instills confidence in people who perceive their opinion as morally correct to preserve the social hierarchy that silences minorities and elevates white male supremacy.

The ACLU, seemingly an organization that should be enhancing the application of free expression for minorities, tends to defend groups run by white, often wealthy men who stand for white supremacy (Franks 2019). The ACLU plays into the white male persecution narrative, which is wildly false and dangerous (Franks 2019). There is then a lack of safeguarding of the rights of minorities who face censorship because their expression is seen as an attack on white male privilege. The harms of hate speech do not adhere to equality or justice rules, even though free expression laws as applied are seemingly race-neutral (Duttab & Vats 2021). Thus, free expression, when unregulated, fosters hate speech in a manner that violates the fourteenth Amendment because it violates the language and spirit of the Reconstruction Amendment to consider equality and justice of minorities who historically endure bigotry (Duttab & Vats 2021).

Often people perceive regulation of free expression as censorship. However, regulating the conduct of speech via minimizing the opportunities of hate speech is not about silencing people's expression but instead fostering equality. Therefore, it establishes an equal platform where everyone can exercise free expression. Banning hate speech is also viewed as an action that will diminish the free expression of minorities. However, that perception enables the idea that boundless free expression promotes individuals' rights better than promoting conduct that supports equality across the social hierarchy.

Ultimately, the creation of the First Amendment by the white male population has enabled their existence and promoted white male supremacy over securing the right of expression for all individuals. The establishment of the First Amendment plays into white supremacy because minorities are expected to tolerate speech that diminishes their place in society and face censorship when they stand up and utilize their rights. How can there be equality if the application of the First Amendment does not even promote equality is supposedly guaranteed?

---

Devich-Cyril, M. (2021, January 31). Banning White Supremacy Isn’t Censorship, It’s

Accountability. Wired. Retrieved January 28, 2022, from https://www.wired.com/story/banning-white-supremacy-censorship-accountability/

Duttab, M. & Vats, A., (2021, March 1). Locating Freedom of Speech in an Era of Global White Nationalism. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838843

Franks, M. A. (2019). The Cult of the Constitution (1st ed.). Stanford University Press.

Goldberg, C., & Amber, J. (2019). Nobody’s Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and

Trolls. Plume.

Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl (Reprint ed.). Oxford University Press.