Issues & Insights

The Coronavirus Tests Free Speech

Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the absolute best in some of our fellow citizens. Chief among them, of course, are the selfless heroes working in the health care and first responder industries.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has also shown the worst in others. Bigots and xenophobes have been harassing, shaming, and – quite literally – spitting on Chinese Americans and others of Asian descent.  

Recently, the San Antonio City Council unanimously passed a resolution that labels terms like “Chinese virus” or “Kung Fu virus” as hate speech. It encourages anyone who hears the usage of these terms to report it to authorities for investigation to help them determine if a criminal “hate act” occurred.

This is the wrong move. There is a fine line between speech that makes us uncomfortable and speech that could result in a criminal offense.  

Racism is disgusting. And yet, for the most part, such speech is perfectly legal. Using hateful and vituperative language is protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on free speech are largely limited to things like inducing a panic (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater) or instigating violence.

“Mere” verbal racist abuse, though largely legal, does not make it right. U.S. leaders, including the president, are stoking this unfortunate behavior by referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” thus emboldening others to spew hatred against Chinese people. Even some in the media, such as CNN, initially called it the “Chinese coronavirus.”  

The reaction today is not dissimilar to the xenophobic acts that proliferated after the 9/11 attacks. But a key difference was the reaction from the White House. After the terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush publicly discouraged hate-filled attacks against Muslims.

This has not been the response today. The president said he used “China virus” in part to chastise Chinese officials for falsely claiming that the virus was the result of an intentional act by the U.S. Army to plant the virus in China. 

At the same time, while the language can be inflammatory, it is also technically accurate. The virus originated in China, though it largely spread to the U.S. from European travelers. As liberal comedian Bill Maher recently pointed out, Lyme Disease is named that because it was first discovered in Lyme, Connecticut. If you’ve passed through airport customs you’ve probably seen warnings about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. And want to guess why we call it the “West Nile Virus”? 

What should be done when a phrase is accurate, politicized, and also being misused by bigots? 

While we must not ignore the fact that hateful speech produces real physical and psychological harm, we must keep in mind the important freedoms the First Amendment provides for all Americans. Open, free dialogue allows us to express our opinions without government censorship. Sadly, some individuals use that freedom to harm others with their words. But if the government were to censor what we say, Americans would become afraid to speak. Even censoring hate speech could be a domino effect for wider restrictions.

University of Chicago constitutional scholar Geoffrey Stone noted that the Supreme Court subsumed hate-speech legislation within its more general assumption that most forms of content-based restrictions of speech are presumptively unconstitutional. He stated that the “government cannot be trusted to (judge) which ideas can and cannot be aired in public debate.”

Stone’s wariness is echoed across the political spectrum.

While some individuals might choose to use harmful, bigoted speech, it is up to other individuals – not the government – to condemn that behavior. Each person must rely on their moral judgment when interacting with other individuals.

The U.S. is ill-served by having the government choose what speech is permissible and what is not. As seen in San Antonio, a term can be deemed hate speech at the drop of a hat. This is a slippery slope to more government censorship over our First Amendment rights.

America – and the world – is best served by abiding by civil societal norms of sympathy, affinity, and compassion. Not censorship.

Robert D. Lystad is the Executive Director of the non-profit Campaign for Free Speech, based in Washington. D.C.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. You can help us keep our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

3 comments

  • The point to where there was any need to call this the “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese virus” has passed. I’m as politically incorrect as the next guy, but if the terms is going to be misused by idiots as a prerogative for Asian-Americans, well, then I choose to differentiate myself.

  • This is as stupid as stupid gets. We need to be aware that China, one way or another, produced this virus and deliberately spread it world wide so that damage to their economy would not occur in isolation. China is our enemy, just as a significant part of the Muslim world wishes to do us harm. Wake up America. Lots of bad actors in the world, like Antifa, China, Russia, Isis, Taliban….

Subscribe to Issues & Insights via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to I&I and you can receive notifications of new articles in your email. It’s simple, and free.

Join 4,522 other subscribers

Donations

If you like what you see, feel free to leave a donation. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Just click on the Tip Jar above. It will take you to a PayPal donations page. Your contributions will help us defray the cost of running this site. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

%d bloggers like this: