I am skeptical when, given the current political climate and recent history, anything calling itself a safe space where both sides can find common ground pops up from the trenches. Political operatives like to craft them to persuade otherwise well-meaning moderates to the left and to give progressives who join cover.
Oh, look, so-and-so is a member of No Labels, or the Coffee Party; they must not be one of those radical progressives.
Republicans are attracted to the idea, thinking they can get Democrats to vote for them, but they tend to be the kind of Republicans more likely to vote with Democrats on issues they shouldn’t, in an attempt to get Democrats to like them more.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t try. Even Liberal justices, excepting Ketanji Brown Jackson, almost universally defend the First Amendment, but then, a rising number of Democrats don’t agree that these Constitutional enumerations are good or safe and permit too much misinformation and disinformation.
If words are weapons that can do real harm, maybe that’s a good place for the New Hampshire Forum to start.
On Tuesday, leaders from both political parties, and Andrew Shue, a Dartmouth College grad who has founded several civic organizations, and is probably best known for playing soccer and the role of heartthrob Billy on “Melrose Place,” introduced The New Hampshire Forum to the public. Collectively, the organization, which is being led by Republican Kevin Smith, the former town manager of Londonderry and former candidate for U.S. Senate and Governor, and former State Senate President Donna Soucy, a Democrat from Manchester, hopes to bring Granite Staters together around issues with commonsense, easy, and implementing solutions, while also, later, delving into the more complicated public policy that divides everyone.
Free speech being too free is the perfect opening “olive branch” for anything purporting to bring Granite Staters together around commonsense solutions to shared problems. And I don’t mean agreeing to be polite or to use language appropriate to a professional environment. You don’t get dirty at the job interview and toss F-bombs. That’s a given. Stick to the sorts of social conversation used in polite society, and establish that, before anyone can build this bridge, we need to agree on the foundation.
You can’t begin to discuss anything until everyone understands what speech and freedom mean.
- The government cannot and should not regulate any speech beyond premeditated libel or slander, or actual incitement to violence.
- Incitement doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean.
- Experts use their credentials to spread misinformation and disinformation all the time from every ideological point of view.
- Viewpoint discrimination is real and should be opposed, no matter what your viewpoint.
- No group or individual (including the government or anyone in it) should use threats, intimidation, or promises of violence (or unconstitutional legal action) to silence speech to which they object.
- People or groups who try to disrupt or shut down speakers are not counterprotesters; counter-protests should not disrupt speakers but instead attract opposing opinions elsewhere (nearby) based on content, not interference.
- Disrupting any branch of government or agency (agent, officer) tasked with enforcing laws you don’t like, because you cannot, in a democracy, elect enough representatives to change it, is not a legal protest or protected expression.
- It is more important to understand why someone is afraid to speak than to encourage fear to silence speakers.
- There is no such thing as hate speech. (See true threats exception for help) There is speech we don’t like, and speech we do, and the solution is more speech, not laws limiting or punishing people (beyond premeditated libel or slander, or actual incitement to violence).
- We will not use claims of antisemitism to silence speech that is legitimate criticism or opinion about Jews or Israel. A protest, for example, against Israeli policy is not antisemitic.
- If some level of government creates a “citizen” forum, it must assume a content-neutral stance and neither disrupt, prevent, or otherwise interfere with it (flagpole, public spaces, etc.).
- Government should not interfere with or regulate professional speech, including any conversation between a doctor/Therapist and a patient. We have laws in place, like malpractice, to address issues resulting from those private, protected conversations.
- Public sidewalks are to remain unobstructed, including from the viewpoint discrimination gorilla.
- Money can help amplify speech, but it is not speech.
- Quietly attending a sports event wearing pink wristbands or other potential items of publicly appropriate protest is protected speech.
There’s (a lot) more, but that will cause more than enough trouble for now and, I’m thinking, give the New Hampshire Forum a bit of a turbulent beginning.
Honestly, that is not my goal, but if we cannot agree on what speech and free speech are, proceeding further down the path is unlikely to bring us together when we are so increasingly divided.
How, for example, do we find topics with the potential for commonality when the list of 80-20 issues where Most of America (80) disagrees with what the Democratic Party leadership (20) is doing? The SAVE America Act is a good example, but probably not the best place to start, assuming you even get past the free speech challenge.
Disrupting any branch of government or agency (agent, or officer) tasked with enforcing laws you don’t like, because you cannot, in a democracy, elect enough representatives to change it, is not a legal protest or protected expression.
I think we could agree that social media is not good for children or teenagers, but can we agree on what the correction is, and how do we keep the government from stomping on free speech in the process? Specific civil action by persons whose children were affected might work, but how do you argue for parental rights and then not hold the parent to account, and I’m not convinced we want government making that call either.
Nothing is easy, so while I like the idea of the New Hampshire Forum, and I think any mediation demands a neutral space, I find it unlikely they will resolve much past when to break for lunch and where to eat.
