Free Speech in the Age of Sensitivity: A Cautionary Tale

Nearly a century ago, Justice Brandeis warned: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”  His words hold no less true today—particularly with respect to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech has increasingly taken a backseat to the government’s seemingly benevolent (to some) guarantee of freedom from offense and paternal protection of us hapless, naive Americans from thoughts and ideas that, like sticks and stones, it turns out, can harm you.  Or so they say.

But it is not for the government to shield us from speech.  It is, in fact, the First Amendment that shields our speech from the government.

I’ve always been a proponent of the idea that more speech is better than less.  For that reason (among others), it is with great disgust that I imagine anyone—let alone the government—filtering and curating the speech that I’m exposed to, and deigning to select which words are “safe” and which might hurt my feelings, make me mad, or—far worse—encourage me to engage in wrongthink.[1]

However, the “right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought,” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002).  And I would much rather live in an open world in which I might offend or be offended, than in a carefully moderated safety bubble.

Take the case of Nephtalí De León, a Chicano poet, writer, and artist whose case exemplifies the sheer absurdity and harm inflicted on free speech when the government deems a word, a thought, or a viewpoint to be “wrongthink” and enforces cancel culture over the First Amendment.

For over half a century, Mr. De León has dedicated his career to advancement and celebration of Chicano culture and language.  He is also a passionate cultural activist who has worked over the last 50 years to dismantle the stigmatization and alienation that Chicanos have faced in America by building an inclusive platform for his creative work that unifies, rather than divides, and which champions the spirit and vibrancy of not only his native community, but of all people and cultures.

Born in 1945 to migrant workers and raised in various parts of Texas, traveling with his parents for their work, De León is considered to be among the founding fathers of Chicano literature.   Indeed, it is his generation that launched the Chicano literary movement in the mid-60s and 70s, establishing for the first time a nationally recognized platform for Chicano arts and literature.  His work in poetry, children’s literature, theater, and public speaking has sought to reclaim and celebrate both Chicano culture and its distinct language Caló, a dynamic code-switching dialect, which combines English, Spanish, ancient Nahuatl, and Spanish Romani, and which De León frequently incorporates into his writing and poetry, as well as his speech.

By incorporating Caló into his work, De León has hoped to revive what he believes to be a rich yet misunderstood language, which was heavily stigmatized prior to the Chicano civil rights movement in the 1960s as a low-class or gang-related language.  Even the word “Chicano” was considered by some to be a racial slur.  However, within Mr. De León’s lifetime, he has witnessed the word (and concept of) “Chicano” evolve from its designation as a slur to it now being embraced as a term of identity and pride.  And, at 79-years-old, he continues to fight the good fight to eliminate the pejorative labels that have been imposed on Caló over the years by promoting its social, historical, and literary functions within the Chicano community—and by enthusiastically sharing it with anyone he can.

For that reason, among others, De León was overjoyed to learn in March 2023 that had been selected to serve as the City of San Antonio’s Poet Laureate. Yet the joy would unfortunately be short-lived.  Just four months later, he was abruptly dismissed.  The reason?  According to the City, De León had used a “racial slur” in a poem he had posted on social media, which, according to the City, was counter to the City’s values, which included “denouncing racism.”  The poem?  An elegy that De León posted on his personal Facebook page in honor of Dr. Roberto ‘Cintli’ Rodriguez, a long-time friend and fellow Chicano writer-activist who had passed away just days before, and who, ironically enough, had dedicated his career to battling racial injustice.

And the purported racial slur?  Mr. De León’s used of the word “mayates” in his elegy, which, in Caló, is a neutral term that can be used to refer to June bugs, the color black, or to Black people.  The single line of the elegy in which De León used the term describes his friend Mr. Rodriguez as follows: “he touched so many Raza, gavachos y mayates, he touched everyone between two cultures and two nations” (translated to English as: “he touched so many Chicanos, Whites and Blacks”).

If you’re like me, you might wonder how the use of the term “mayates” in the context of an elegy in Chicano Caló, dedicated to a man who had dedicated his life to fighting racism, could be interpreted as anything bearing even a vague resemblance to racism or racial discrimination.  Yet this is precisely what the City deemed De León’s speech, in his native tongue, to be. And with no notice, no warning, no conversation or communication whatsoever with Mr. De León beforehand, the City fired him on the spot and, within a day, immersed De León in a nightmarish media frenzy, in which countless news and media outlets reported on San Antonio’s former poet laureate for his supposed use of a derogatory, racial slur in a poem.

And just like that, De León’s reputation and life’s work were reduced to the theme of the headlines that now dominate the Google search results of “Nephtalí De León”: “San Antonio fires poet laureate for using racial slur in a poem.”

***

Mr. De León’s case underscores the need to vigilantly defend free speech against cancel culture, particularly, when it is wielded by the government to suppress minority viewpoints.  Indeed, creative expression can only thrive in an environment that tolerates diverse perspectives, out-of-the-box thinking, and, well, creativity.  This holds particularly true for writers and poets like Mr. De León who, by definition and by trade, must use words, ideas, and speech in ways never used before, to challenge perspectives, to create new perspectives—and who, above all, must be free to use words freely.   By prioritizing cancel culture over creativity and free expression, government actors, like those here, risk eroding the very freedoms that they are sworn to uphold.

De León’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale for American citizens and government actors, alike. To truly honor the fundamental principles of free speech, we must resist the impulse to censor, or “cancel,” and instead embrace the messy, vibrant, and often uncomfortable realities of the marketplace of ideas. The health of this republic depends not on silencing minority viewpoints, but in allowing them to flourish.

[1] “Wrongthink” as defined by the right-minded powers that be, of course.

December 13, 2024