Free to be bigoted: The First Amendment exists to protect the ?expression of ideas, even offensive ones

Free expression is a simple phrase with a broad meaning. It has no caveats.

But for many of our peers, the commitment to free expression ends at certain ideas. Students need to better recognize the paradox of lauding the expression of some beliefs while seeking to stifle others.

The impulsive desire to repudiate certain ideas is something that we all face — especially when confronting what is generally described as “hate speech.”

It was demonstrated last Wednesday at N.C. State. There, students blocked the school’s Free Expression Tunnel to prevent access to viewing hateful graffiti painted after Tuesday night’s election.

Let’s be clear: We believe speech that is racist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory is wrong. People should be valued based on their character.

But clearly not everyone thinks this way, and there are still many people who hope to peddle their ideology in spite of its inexorable decline in the United States.

And they have every right to.

Yet because they are crude and hateful, ideas that are on the wrong side of history often act as an argument against themselves. Protesting their mere expression gives greater weight and attention to them than if they were allowed to stand and be judged on their merits.

Of course, protest is a valid form of expression. But to protest against the presence of objectionable ideas in a haven of free expression is to protest against free expression itself.

The strength of the protestors’ resolve was indicated by their willingness to block the tunnel until it was painted over, in spite of personal visits by N.C. State Chancellor Randy Woodson and other administrators.

Surely, these students felt they were defending an ideal. And in an ideal world, free expression always means enlightened discourse. But the reality, as always, is much dirtier and more complex.

Again: Free expression is a commitment. And, like any commitment, it often requires begrudging compromise and intense disagreement. But it is a commitment one either adheres to fully, or not at all.