How can a liberal defend free speech when it includes the right to speech that is hateful in nature? This is a question that may be plaguing a great many here on the University of Oregon campus.
While relevant to the topic, the focus of this commentary is not the oft-discussed de-funding of the Oregon Commentator; rather, it is the American Nazi Party’s adoption of roads in Marion County, Oregon. Six weeks ago, in accordance with the Adopt-A-Highway policy, this group took on the responsibility of keeping its span of highway clean, and bright green city signs were posted proclaiming that the American Nazi Party had adopted those spaces. Both signs were stolen last week, but they can be replaced if the party wishes.
According to a recent Associated Press article, the county decided to approve the Nazi Party’s signs because of a January 2005 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Missouri Ku Klux Klan members to have signs of a similar nature, under free speech rights of the First Amendment. In this case, the court decided that Missouri’s “desire to exclude controversial organizations in order to prevent road rage or public backlash on the highways against the adopters’ unpopular beliefs is simply not a legitimate governmental interest that would support the enactment of speech-abridging regulations.”
Coming from a Jewish perspective, there are no fuzzy lines in this situation. For me, these signs are wrong, period, and should not be posted. I believe it is wrong for the state to show any indication of condoning the behavior of white supremacists, especially when such a group has been empirically shown to promote hate and death. This is not just hypothetical harm that such a group might cause; this is real world harm that resulted in the death of over 6 million people. To be forced to look upon the memory of such events on public paraphernalia is distressing, and the county’s decision to allow such signs is indecent and hateful in nature.
Coming from a liberal, democratic perspective, however, the boundaries of right and wrong begin to fade, while the blur of confusion becomes 10-fold brighter. I believe that a pro-choice group should be allowed to adopt a highway and post a sign saying so; yet, a road adopted by people in favor of abortion could easily be offensive to citizens who believe that abortion is legalized murder. To these citizens, it would certainly seem that the state was condoning homicide. How can the government shut off just one voice without shutting off all? Just as I believe that government legislation shouldn’t be based on Christian morals, I also grudgingly believe that it shouldn’t be based solely on liberal morals either.
Perhaps the most important idea to keep in mind is that hypocrisy is natural, and there is not always one right answer. I don’t know what the law should be regarding Adopt-A-Highway signs; for me, there is no solution. If one person cannot even come to a personal truth, how can a government official ever find truth that is valid for an entire nation? Maybe more people, especially those in positions of political power, need to remember the frailty of their own belief systems. Perhaps then, seemingly absolute ideas such as God or life or choice could be re-evaluated once in a while. Accepting that nothing is absolute is essential to finding the best solution rather than the “right” solution, especially when making decisions that affect billions.
Possessing conflicting personal and political views is okay, even important: It means the ability to see the other side of the story. I’m never going to believe that the American Nazi Party should have a public street sign, and I’m never going to believe that a pro-choice group shouldn’t. And maybe, somewhere between the things I know and the things I can’t resolve lies an answer. I guess I’ll just have to keep on knowing and not knowing and wondering and searching.

[email protected]