On Thursday, December 7, 2017, students attending Fordham University in New York City were ordered to leave the campus’s student-run coffee shop, Rodrigue’s Coffee House, where they were sitting quietly at a table. A video of the encounter catches an employee approaching the students, all of whom sported “Make America Great Again” hats, and informing them that they were “wearing hats that completely violate[d] safe space policy.” She went on to say that the men had to take the accessories off or leave the premises.
This video was first shown by the website Campus Reform, which reported that the group of students were given a handout called “Rodrigue’s Coffee Shop has a safer space policy,” describing the store’s prohibition of racism, sexism, and homophobia. However, Bob Howe, a Fordham spokesman, later stated that the policy in question does not exist on campus.
Although this situation is unquestionably tied to politics, it is not necessary to be part of a certain political group to condemn or support the action taken. Recently, a similar instance involving NFL players kneeling for the national anthem was highly contested. Although this issue arose from the opposite end of the political spectrum, it raised similar questions about the legality and morality of controversial speech.
To analyze these two situations, it is first necessary to define free speech. According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, American citizens are permitted by law to publicly express any opinions that they hold without government interference. This right extends to every form of speech, including hate speech. It is only restricted when it incites violence. In other words, one is not allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Therefore, freedom of speech, as defined by law, includes the right of football players to kneel during the national anthem and the right of university students to wear “Make America Great Again” hats, no matter how controversial or offensive their messages may be to some people. The legal perspective is extremely complicated because there is some debate as to whether private institutions like the NFL and Fordham University are allowed to make decisions regarding people speaking on their property. Less complicated is the question of whether punishing people for advocating their beliefs peacefully is morally right.
What distinguishes America from many countries around the world is that it protects offensive speech. America is a melting pot, not only of different races and ethnicities, but of opinions. Freedom of speech was not designed to protect compliments. It was intended to defend the most awful people saying the most offensive things imaginable. For a free society to remain free, it is essential that peaceful speech not be restricted in any way. Prepare to be offended, whether it be by a “Make America Great Again” hat or a team of football players refusing to stand for the national anthem. Instead of outlawing controversial speech, we should welcome it, and welcome the interesting conversations generated as a result. In America, speech is lawful until it is violent, not until it is offensive.