Free Speech Isn’t A Free-For-All, Hill Argues Mainstream Opinion Keeps Some Voices From Being Heard

Anita Hill believes in Americans’ right to free speech. But she also believes Americans have a right to be protected from racial and sexual epithets and other verbal harassment.

The former University of Oklahoma law professor, who testified five years ago at Senate confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said Friday night in Spokane that voices not reflecting mainstream opinion often are not heard and that people who express unpopular beliefs can become a target for scorn.

“I grew up during the civil rights movement,” Hill said. “I know the suppression of voices is dangerous. But I also know the frustrations, anger and fear of those when the dominant voice is the only voice.”

Hill delivered the 26th annual William O. Douglas Lecture on the First Amendment to a capacity crowd at The Met on Friday. The Douglas series is sponsored by the Gonzaga University School of Law, Gonzaga’s Student Bar Association and the William O. Douglas Committee.

Hill said she was reluctant to accept the invitation to speak in Spokane because of the reception she sometimes receives when she talks about her life experiences and what free speech means to her.

Hill cited two instances of racial and sexual epithets hurled at her when she was teaching at the University of Oklahoma.

In one incident, she said a white male in a pickup truck yelled at her as she backed out of her own driveway and told her “to leave the neighborhood.”

In the other, as she walked across the campus with a white male colleague, white students in a car drove by and yelled sexual and racial remarks at Hill and the man.

Later, as she sat on a panel with peers addressing free speech, Hill related those stories and told them that there is another side to the issue.

“I sat on the panel recalling the fear, anger and embarrassment I felt at those incidents,” Hill said. “And while the response I received was sympathetic, one of the people on the panel said, ‘Nothing really can be done because the First Amendment protects expression.”’

Hill rebutted the claims of those who say negative speech can be countered with positive speech.

“I’m not going to chase down that car and resolve the problem through logic and reason,” Hill said.

She said it is unrealistic for free speech “absolutists” to ignore the historical context and emotion of racist and sexist speech.

Hill said the nation needs to address the issue of free speech rights against the rights to be protected from such language.

And she also disputed that free speech even exists for all.

“Free speech is determined by money, access to the media and form and context of your speech,” she said. “It’s a right that everybody has but only a few enjoy.

“My concern is that what we are calling free speech was never free speech,” she said.

She said until traditionally disenfranchised voices in society are heard, freedom of speech will remain limited to those select few.

“We can only do that if we take a good and open-minded view of the First Amendment,” Hill said.

, DataTimes