Students and faculty gathered in the Student Union Theater for Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project symposium from Sept. 19 to 20.
San José State University hosted the two-day symposium “Free Speech at the Crossroads: A Silicon Valley Dialogue” in partnership with Georgetown University, The Knight Foundation and The John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships.
The Free Speech Project was founded in 2017 and is directed by Sanford Ungar at Georgetown University and has become a hub for upholding First Amendment rights as an independent and nonpartisan initiative, according to The Free Speech Project website.
Speakers at the event included SJSU professors, attorneys, news reporters and tech company leaders who discussed some of the threats to free speech, Section 230 (within the Communications Decency Act of 1996), the development of artificial intelligence and its effect on society.
Teairra Brown, an SJSU public relations and radio-television-film major in her second year, said that she attended the event for a class requirement and enjoyed the conversation on hate speech since there are multiple facets to the issue.
“I do agree on both sides that having a hate speech law will be good going forward,” Brown said. “But that will impact marginalized groups when it comes to speaking out about things … especially who is making the law.”
There have been a total of 996 global free speech issues in the past seven years, according to the Free Speech Tracker from Georgetown University. Some of these issues consist of college protests, Heckler’s Veto, foreign policy, and regulations on technological platforms.
Ungar said one of the main purposes of The Free Speech Project is to bring attention to the depletion and threats to free speech.
“We don’t know the results of this election yet, but we may have a real free speech crisis coming up,” Ungar said.
Ungar said that oftentimes people advocate for free speech but only when they agree with it, which is one of the largest issues plaguing free speech rights.
Friday’s free speech dialogues expanded on more ideas about free speech, all with different speakers from the day before.
Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, spoke at the event with other panelists, about the relevancy of privacy in the digital age.
The other two speakers were Tiffany Li, professor of law at University of San Francisco, and Smita Hashim, chief product officer of Zoom, the discussion being moderated by Gloria C. Duffy, co-president and co-CEO of Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California.
“We take (free speech) for granted,” Garcia-Ruiz said. “It’s an absolute key to a successful society for people to be able to speak their minds.”
He said that the relationship between free speech and privacy can be seen with the example of someone posting something online that becomes very public, now that you can find anything with just a simple Google search.
Ralph Richard Banks, professor of law at Stanford University, spoke with other panelists about students’ right to protest while still keeping hate speech at bay.
The other panelists included Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Law and Jamienne S. Studley, president of Western Association of Schools and Colleges president, the discussion being moderated by Neil Chase, CEO of CalMatters.
“One problem that a lot of universities have is that they make decisions based on political expediency and short-term decisions,” Banks said. “The hard thing is ... to articulate your values, be clear about which principles you hold to dear and to really adhere to those.”
All of the panelists agreed that students have a right to protest, but they should follow the time, place, and manner policies, a regulation that states people have the right to speak, provided the time, place and manner is appropriate.
To try to keep the conversation interesting, however, Banks brought up points of disagreement on the basis on which universities protect the First Amendment.
Banks’ point of contention between the panelists was that the primary goal of a university should not be to uphold the First Amendment, but rather to have a “vibrant learning atmosphere.”
“We should be doing the analysis ourselves, rather than simply deferring to the Supreme Court and how it has interpreted the First Amendment,” Banks said.
Ungar said he plans to work on the Free Speech Project for the foreseeable future, hopefully for as long as he can.
“Talk about it, read about it, find the free speech elements of everyday events and experiences that some people don’t necessarily recognize as free expression issues,” said Ungar.
a
