[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3678-S3679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Free Speech

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I wish to touch on a topic that, 
as I announced recently, I am going to continue to speak about in the 
coming weeks and months on the Senate floor; that is, the right of free 
speech.
  This fundamental right is one of our most cherished. It forms the 
beating heart of our democracy. It sits at the core of our civic 
identity. Yet, these days, it seems to be coming under an increasing 
threat all across our country.
  The challenges it faces are different from what we have seen in the 
recent past, but we must confront these, too, if we are to preserve 
this right for future generations. That is certainly what I intend to 
do. I know others share that commitment, and I hope more colleagues 
will join in this effort as well.
  Our colleagues know this is a topic I have devoted a large part of my 
career to. Throughout the Obama years, I warned that our ability to 
freely engage in civic life and organize in defense of our beliefs was 
under coordinated assault from an administration that appeared 
determined to shut up anyone--anyone--who challenged it. These efforts 
to suppress speech were well documented, they extended throughout the 
Federal Government, and they were often aided by the Obama 
administration's allies here in Congress.
  There were threats before then as well. I know, because I took up the 
fight against many of them. Sometimes it was a lonely battle. Often it 
was an unpopular one, but, in my view, it was necessary because whether 
the threats to free speech came from the IRS or the Obama 
administration's SEC, they shared a similar goal: to shut down or scare 
off the stage those who chose to think differently.
  Today, however, the threat to free speech is evolving. The speech 
suppression crowd may no longer control the levers of Federal power, 
but it hasn't given up its commitment to silencing those with an 
opposing view.
  Yesterday, in the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley held a 
hearing to explore the worsening problem of a lack of tolerance on 
college campuses--imagine that, college campuses of all places--for the 
views of others--lack of tolerance on college campuses for the views of 
others. One of the witnesses at the hearing was Floyd Abrams, whom our 
former colleague Senator Moynihan rightly described as ``the most 
significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.'' Mr. Abrams noted that 
we are witnessing ``an extraordinary perilous moment with respect to 
free speech on campuses'' where ``too many students . . . seem to want 
to see and hear only views they already hold. And to prevent others 
from hearing views with which they differ.''
  So what could account for this?
  A profound lack of information is one answer. For example, Mr. Abrams 
cites a study where ``nearly a third of college students could not even 
identify the First Amendment as the one that deals with freedom of 
speech.''
  The day before, across the street, the Supreme Court reminded us of 
the importance of a vibrant right to free

[[Page S3679]]

speech, where its exercise does not depend upon the sufferance of the 
government.
  In striking down the disparagement clause of Federal trademark law, 
the Court reminded us of what too many of those on college campuses 
appear not to have learned, and too many others seem to have forgotten: 
``Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that 
offend.'' ``Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses 
ideas that offend.''
  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education estimates there 
were 43 reported instances of revoked speaking invitations or similar 
efforts to block speakers on campuses just last year. That is double 
the number recorded the previous year. It is more than 700 percent 
higher than the six incidents recorded back in 2000.
  The trend is getting worse, not simply in terms of the overall number 
of incidents but--more worryingly--in terms of the growing 
aggressiveness of those efforts. This year alone, there have been 
multiple instances of intimidation, violence, and rioting at 
universities across the country.
  There has been nasty and thuggish behavior aimed at suppressing 
speech. Sadly, it has often succeeded.
  As USA TODAY put it in a recent editorial:

       In just the place where the clash of ideas is most 
     valuable, students are shutting themselves off to points of 
     view they don't agree with. At the moment when young minds 
     are supposed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of 
     arguments, they are answering challenges to their beliefs 
     with anger and violence instead of facts and reason.

  This should worry all of us, regardless of party, regardless of 
ideology.
  Hearing criticisms of one's beliefs and learning the beliefs of 
others is simply training for life in a democratic society. It doesn't 
mean one has to agree with those opinions, but no one is served by 
trapping oneself and others in cocoons of ignorance. That is hardly the 
recipe for a free and informed society.
  To quote Frederick Douglass, ``To suppress free speech is a double 
wrong [because] it violates the rights of the hearer as well as those 
of the speaker.''
  Just as it was not right during the Obama years for Americans to 
endure harassment or incur crippling expenses because the government 
didn't like what they believed, it certainly is not right today for 
Americans to live in the shadow of fear simply because they dare to 
speak up or think differently or support a candidate or a cause that 
the speech suppression crowd may disagree with.
  It really doesn't matter who you are or whether what you are saying 
is popular. These rights do not exist to protect what is popular; they 
exist precisely to protect what isn't.
  That is one reason I have long opposed ideas like the flag-burning 
constitutional amendment. That doesn't mean I agree the flag should be 
burned. Of course, I don't. I disagree strongly, but it is the 
principle that matters because the moment we allow ourselves to believe 
that some people stand outside the free speech protections of the First 
Amendment, then we are all in trouble--all of us.
  The growing trend of intolerance we are seeing has taken many forms 
lately, but the underlying hostility to free speech has not changed. As 
I noted earlier, in recent years, the threat had often come from the 
Federal Government. These days, the threat tends to come from different 
quarters. There have been many high-profile incidents of speech 
suppression and violence at universities across the country, in 
particular, but it would be a mistake to think this problem is isolated 
to college campuses.
  The bottom line, for me, is this: We simply cannot allow this trend 
of violence and intimidation to become the new normal in our country. 
This is a really serious problem that deserves serious attention. The 
solutions will not come simply. They will not be found in a single 
piece of legislation.
  As President Reagan famously put it, ``Freedom is never more than one 
generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children 
in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to 
them to do the same.''
  That is what we are called upon to do again now--to inform, to 
engage, to empower; in the end, to inspire a new generation to defend a 
fundamental right for future generations, just as past generations did 
for us.
  That is what I aim to do by continuing this dialogue on the Senate 
floor. From this platform, I will continue to raise the importance of 
free speech, outline the threats it faces, and do what I can to inform 
and encourage Americans to rally in its defense.
  Others are using their platforms to advance similar goals, as 
Chairman Grassley did yesterday. I hope more will join as this 
discussion continues because free speech is crucial to who we are as 
Americans, regardless of party, and we owe it to future generations to 
do what we can today to defend it.

                          ____________________