First amendment should protect all

On Friday, one of UCLA’s most consistent and fervent
religious zealots was up to his usual shenanigans on Bruin Walk.
Armed with nothing but the Bible, he put on a show, denouncing
audience members for being masturbators, homosexuals and
whores.

Things went south when he referenced a girl’s race by
calling her a “black bitch.”

University police were already on the scene, but it wasn’t
until two representatives from UCLA’s Center for Student
Programming showed up that he was asked to leave.

Citing their legal counsel, the CSP explained that the First
Amendment does not protect “fighting words,” something
that his statement qualifies as when directed against an
individual. This may very well be a sound legal interpretation, but
it certainly is not a moral one.

The preacher is nothing more than a silly fool. Virtually every
claim he makes is wrong and intellectually offensive, from his
reliance on the Bible as factual (and moral) authority, to his
implication that reason is impotent without faith, to his manner of
presentation. Precisely because he deals in faith and not reason,
he cannot make arguments ““ only emotionalist attacks.

Now, “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean that one
can say anything. The concept of “freedom” is tied into
individual rights. It is always wrong to initiate force against
another person, and that includes speech that achieves that effect
““ namely, fraud and threats of force.

Setting aside the issue of how he is defrauding us all with his
religious nonsense, his calling a girl a derogatory term does not
constitute a threat of force (the justification for the
“fighting words” exception to the First Amendment). As
intellectually and verbally abusive as the preacher is, I have
never seen or heard of him initiating violence, or even advocating
its immediate use.

The preacher is rude, confused and vulgar. He is a product of
his own fear of reality, of the consequences of independent
judgment and his own impotence in dealing with life rationally. He
is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Except that he helps to
undermine religious inclinations in UCLA’s student body by
exposing religion for the fairy tale and denial of reason and life
that it is, he has nothing positive to offer and nothing good to
say. But I stand by his right to say it.

UCLA’s public status means that no one may initiate force
against him by censoring his (albeit confused and hateful) speech
““ not one individual, not 100 and not a majority of the
population (via the government, UCLA and the CSP).

His preaching does not constitute an incitement to violence, so
should not be classified as “fighting words.” Further,
police were already present at the scene, capable of stopping any
physical altercation before it could escalate into what the
“fighting words” exception was designed to prevent.

No matter how offensive one’s speech may be, we cannot use
the subjective standard of others’ potential offense or
future action as a basis for censorship, regardless of the
characteristic made fun of, be it race, sexual orientation, fashion
sense, or favorite ice cream flavor.

Racism, as one of many types of collectivism from which our
society suffers, is a particularly horrible scourge, but it cannot
simply be legislated away. This represents an attempt to have
effects without causes. We cannot simply outlaw racism any more
than we can outlaw poverty (through welfare programs), homelessness
(through housing projects and rent control), disease (through
public health care), or ignorance (through public education).
Instead, we need to create conditions conducive to individuals
rectifying these problems of their own accord.

The preacher is not the type of man we want to see in society.
The answer is not initiating force and punishing him for
non-conformity (however objectively wrong he may be), but fighting
irrationality with reason.

Lechtholz-Zey is the chief executive officer of L.O.G.I.C.
and a first-year law student.