Letter to a Socialist Gay Wonk

The following is a message originally written to the American journalist and video producer Carlos Manuel Maza.

---

With respect, @gaywonk, I am surprised to hear this coming from an LGBT activist whose parents were from Cuba, and a member of Democratic Socialists of America who has described being in the debate club as a kid as “the most meaningful thing that’s ever happened to me.”

As a former university instructor of debate, I read that line and I’m like: We’re debate bros, we should know better than anybody why this stuff matters!

But I never had a student who didn’t understand the importance of free speech. I never knew a gay activist who thought they’d be better off in this country without free speech protections. Especially not at any point in this nation’s history.

As a Bahamian-American, I’ve never met a child of Cuban refugees who thought the Communist Party of Cuba’s way of doing things, which includes imprisoning or possibly killing people for their dissident opinions, was better. Especially not a dissident like yourself!

I’m not listing these aspects solely as if to say all these people have a point. I think they do. But also, perhaps you have a perspective on this that’s worth unpacking. And I’d love to hear it. You know, exercise our free speech on the subject.

Do you really think that without the First Amendment, LGBT heroes like Harvey Milk, Marsha P. Johnson, Larry Kramer, Sylvia Rivera, or Edie Windsor would have had the same success?

One counterpoint is to say, “Oh, I didn’t mean that kind of censorship.”

But of course, once you hand over those reins, you no longer get to say where this horse strays.

I don’t mean to disregard your reasonable concerns about the dangers of unfettered speech. We now have people claiming Hurricane Milton, which nearly killed members of my own family, was created by the government, or Jews, or that it didn’t even exist and folks should not evacuate.

And that’s just one of many, many troubling examples. So I get your point. Free speech is dangerous. It carries risks. But so it goes with freedom.

Walk with me for a minute.

Consider the 1958 case ONE v. Olesen, in which the LGBT magazine ONE was deemed obscene by the FBI and the Postal Service, which refused to distribute it. The Court ruled in favor of ONE, establishing that LGBT content is protected by free speech rights.

Or consider the legendary 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which actually involved the KKK but expanded free speech protections for all political activists. Yes, including LGBT and socialist activists.

This is the lesson of Skokie, Illinois. You protect speech for those you detest so that the State cannot cut short your own protest.

Or consider the 1967 case Keyishian v. Board of Regents, which reinforced First Amendment protections by striking down the need for loyalty oaths, ruling that states cannot bar employees from being members of the Communist Party.

Or the 1994 case Gay and Lesbian Services Network v. Eastern Michigan University, in which the Court ruled that denying GLSN benefits solely because of their LGBT advocacy violated free speech protections.

Or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which targeted Chinese laborers and prohibited their immigration to the United States. Virulent anti-Communist sentiment in America might have resulted in your own parents being similarly barred. Thankfully, activists opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act and used the press and public protest to change public opinion on the issue. And the law was repealed. See also, the Immigration Act of 1924.

Or Arizona SB 1070. Remember that one? Where cops could guess the immigration status of a person by looking at them? The Supreme Court struck that racist garbage down in 2012 in Arizona v. United States—after nationwide protests and the good work of noble activists flexing their free speech.

Do you think your own beloved DSA would exist if the powers that be, perhaps even especially in America, had their way? Cast your glance back over American history and tell me you think we would have been even kinder to gays or communists had the shield of the First Amendment never been raised across their backs.

We already have speech restrictions for incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and defamation. I support these. I'm not a free speech absolutist. But I am, as Greg Lukianoff has put it, an opinion absolutist.

You and I disagree on a great many things, to be sure. I have little regard for the DSA. But I would defend your right to express your speech with my last breath because it’s not just about your speech.

It’s about freedom of speech. Respectfully.