Ann Coulter says hateful, ugly things. Our free speech laws protect her, too

We don’t need freedom of speech for the messages we like. We would let that speech happen without needing a First Amendment. We need freedom of speech for the messages and speakers we detest.

I loathe Ann Coulter. She is hateful and has said countless ugly things about Muslims, immigrants, racial minorities, liberals and others. In 1998, when we were regularly guests together on a CNBC program to discuss the Clinton impeachment, I told the producer I no longer would appear when she was on the show. I found her rude and very unpleasant. I have adhered to that choice for over 20 years and never will appear on anything if she is present.

But I will defend Coulter’s right to speak and the right of people to listen to her. I had the occasion to do just that this week and have taken much grief for doing so.

On Wednesday, November 20, Coulter spoke on the Berkeley campus. A student group had invited her. She spoke without disruption. Unfortunately, though, those protesting against Coulter harassed those going to hear her. I have heard from students and seen videos of those attending being spit at, doused with water, punched and obstructed.

The next morning, I sent the following message to all of the faculty, staff, and students at Berkeley Law:

“I deeply believe that a campus should be a place where all ideas and views can be expressed. The appropriate response to speech we dislike is more speech, not disruption or harassment.”

“I was dismayed to learn that last night some who chose to attend Ann Coulter’s speech on campus were harassed and subjected to clearly inappropriate behavior. I was relieved that this did not prevent Ms. Coulter from speaking to a large audience, but the harassment of those wanting to attend was unacceptable.”

“To be clear, I think it was completely appropriate to protest against Ann Coulter. But as a law school, it is important to also express support for the right to speak and to condemn those engaged in harassment and disruption.”

Although some students expressed support for my message, many did not. One student angrily told me that he felt my message was a “slap to the face.” Students posted on bulletin boards throughout the Law School: “Dean Chemerinsky sent an email after Ann Coulter’s visit. And it wasn’t in defense of students affected by hateful rhetoric.” Other students communicated to me their strong dislike for my message and their wish that I had condemned Coulter instead and spoken up for students who were offended and hurt by her presence on campus.

Perhaps I should have more strongly denounced the things that Coulter has said. As an administrator, I find it a hard question as to when I should condemn a speaker’s message. I have chosen instead to tell students who are upset at the presence of a speaker to protest and engage in their own speech, so long as they do not disrupt the speaker.

But I strongly disagree with those who told me that I should have objected to Coulter’s presence on campus. I would not invite her, but others have the right to do so and some on campus did that. I would not go listen to her, but others have the right to do so. And I believe that is the responsibility of the university to protect her speech and the rights of those who want to hear her.

I realize that this is not a popular message with some students and faculty right now. There are many who believe that campuses should prohibit hateful speech. But that is not the law and nor do I believe it should be. I do not deny that hate speech causes harms. The Supreme Court has been clear, though, that the government never can exclude or punish speech on the grounds that it is offensive, even deeply offensive. When St. Paul, Minn., enacted an ordinance prohibiting burning a cross or painting a swastika in a manner that would “anger, alarm, or cause resentment,” the Court unanimously declared it unconstitutional.

I wish that hateful messages never would be uttered, just as I wish that Ann Coulter would just go away and be quiet. But I don’t trust the government, including campus officials, to decide what messages to allow and which to prohibit. I know that the only way that my speech will be secure tomorrow is to protect the speech that I don’t like today.

I have thought carefully about the students who are upset at the message I sent. I appreciate their being candid with me and sharing their feelings about this. But on reflection, I stand by what I said: A campus must be a place where all ideas and views can be expressed.