Understanding Free Speech and the Limits of Protest
9 May 2025
Back in the mid-1980s, while I was a law student at the University of Michigan, I overheard some new classmates complaining about the First Amendment. "Sure," they said, "we can publish our pamphlets to express our views, but how do we make people read them?"
That frustration is understandable. People often feel deeply about certain causes. They want to raise awareness, demand change, and, if necessary, force others to listen, even if it means using intimidation. But the First Amendment, backed by common sense, guarantees only the right to speak and share information. It does not guarantee an audience. Others are free not to listen, and no one has the right to threaten or bully others into compliance.
Unfortunately, this distinction is often overlooked, as seen in a recent incident at Columbia University, as noted here:
New York City police arrested dozens of masked protesters on Columbia University’s campus Wednesday evening after they took over part of a central library while students were trying to study for final exams.
New York Mayor Eric Adams said Wednesday evening that city police were entering the campus to remove people who were trespassing. He said the city would defend the right to protest peacefully but would never defend lawlessness.
The Columbia Spectator, a campus newspaper, reported that dozens of protesters had been arrested after 7 p.m. New York police confirmed that multiple arrests had been made.
The Ivy League university’s acting president, Claire Shipman, said two public safety officers had been injured as a crowd surged with people trying to force their way in.
“These actions are outrageous,” she said in a message to the campus community. Disruptions to academic activity will not be tolerated, she said, and “Columbia strongly condemns violence on our campus, antisemitism and all forms of hate and discrimination, some of which we witnessed today.”
Students not involved in the protest were allowed to leave the library, according to an earlier university statement. Protesters were asked to show ID and disperse and were warned of consequences.
Shortly before 7 p.m., protesters said on social media that they refuse to show their IDs “under militarized arrest. We refuse to go down quietly.”
Some students at the library said on social media that protesters were vandalizing the library with graffiti slogans such as “COLUMBIA WILL BURN 4 THE MARTYRS,” and that there were scuffles with officers. In video from the scene, crowds can be seen pushing against doors of the library.
In my view, these arrests were appropriate, not because of what the protesters were saying, but because of how they chose to express it. Disrupting the rights of others, especially during critical academic periods, crosses a line. Adults understand that laws apply to everyone, and protest, no matter how urgent the cause, must occur within legal and respectful boundaries.
Meaningful change takes time, and sometimes even protesters must rethink their strategies or their message if they truly want to make a difference.
The index to my prior essays (mostly post 5 November 2024) is here.
I have another blog on Cancer and Medicine.
You can also follow me at https://www.linkedin.com/in/nat-pernick-8967765/ (LinkedIn), npernickmich (Threads and Instagram) and natpernick.bsky.social (Bluesky).
Email me at Nat@PathologyOutlines.com.
I also publish Notes at https://substack.com/note. Subscribers will automatically see my notes.
I've often been asked how I dare side with the establishment today after all the protests, sit-ins and school shut-downs that I cheered on in the 60's (and yes, Nat, that was at dear ole U of M.) I've been accused of bias because I am Jewish. It's taken a whole lot of self examination and sorting to get to this realization. There is, to me, a distinct difference in standing up FOR the equality, rights and freedom of people oppressed by the government of the country in which I'm protesting, and in protesting to deny the rights of a group of students to exist safely in their space when my issue is with another country. So what about Nam? Protesting MY government's decision to enter a war that had nothing to do with us in support of the "Military-Industrial Complex that had chosen to build and operate over there made sense. Acting like it was the fault of our armed forces kids who had been drafted into that war and treating them as if THEY had committed the crime was much akin to what's going on on campuses today.
Free speech would allow students FROM THAT CAMPUS to gather in peaceful protest no matter how I might feel about the words and images coming from that group. It might even allow them to peacefully block access to a building where administrators were actively participating in what they deem a travesty, or to block the labs where the weapons research was being conducted. The key is peacefully, no matter what their issue. Outside agitators and terrorist activities, which include bullying, are not part of the rights conferred by the First Amendment.