No Such Thing as Free Speech

  At the core, his argument is exactly what the title says. However, it is not just proving that the sacred cow of “Free Speech” is much messier than we admit. He has an entire idea behind it of what does and should structure our debates about what speech should and should not be acceptable. The 1990s campus free speech wars were sort of the rise of the use of “politically correct” as a pejorative term and handwringing about “speech codes” and the like. To complete this response paper, read Fish and answer the following questions. It is a bit dense, so don’t worry about fully understanding all of it, but let’s focus on the key elements of free speech. Things are sometimes clunky, but there are lots of moments of clarity. After reading through the essay, write a response of around 750 words (over or a bit under is fine—the word count is just a rough estimate of the space it will take on average to discharge the prompt) that answers the following key questions. Remember that stronger responses will integrate textual evidence and go beyond what can be gleaned from Wikipedia. 1) As best as you can tell, what does Fish mean when he says that “There’s no such thing as free speech” and that “the label ‘free speech’ is the one you want your favorites to wear.” 2) When dealing with Fighting Words, Gitlow, and speech vs. action, what does Fish seem to be saying about Free Speech doctrine—such as the cases we’ve engaged over the last months? 3) What, according to Fish, is the alternative to free speech the way it’s traditionally been discussed? In other words, if it isn’t free speech, then what is there for deciding what can and cannot be said? 4) Fish seems to have no love lost about notions of “Freedom of Speech,” but what is his ultimate evaluation of First Amendment Principles? What purpose, if any, do they serve?