Greg Lukianoff Affirms: Violence is the Antithesis of Free Speech

Washington D.C. – Greg Lukianoff, CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), recently articulated a fundamental distinction regarding free expression, stating, “Violence is not an extreme form of speech. It is the antithesis of what free speech is for.” This assertion, shared by The Free Press, underscores a core tenet of free speech advocacy: that the purpose of open discourse is to provide an alternative to physical conflict.

Lukianoff, a constitutional lawyer and prominent author, has consistently argued that maintaining a clear boundary between speech and violence is crucial for a functioning society. His work, including the best-selling book The Coddling of the American Mind, often addresses the contemporary debate around whether certain words constitute violence, contending that such conflation undermines the very foundation of free expression. He emphasizes that speech, even when offensive or disagreeable, serves as a mechanism for resolving differences without resorting to physical harm.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where Lukianoff serves as CEO, is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. FIRE actively champions free speech, due process, and academic freedom, often intervening in cases where these principles are perceived to be under threat. Lukianoff's perspective is rooted in the belief that free speech is a vital tool for the disempowered, historically enabling civil rights movements and challenging established powers.

According to Lukianoff, free speech "cures violence" by allowing ideas to be debated and challenged in the public square rather than leading to physical confrontation. He suggests that the historical purpose of free speech, from its inception, has been to enable individuals to sort out disagreements through words, thereby preventing the escalation to violence. This view posits that suppressing speech, even that which is deemed offensive, can paradoxically lead to a less safe environment by removing the non-violent means of addressing contentious issues.

Lukianoff's statement highlights a critical aspect of free speech philosophy: that the ability to express even unpopular or challenging opinions is essential for societal progress and the discovery of truth. He argues that a robust marketplace of ideas, where all opinions can be voiced and scrutinized, is ultimately a safer and more productive environment than one where certain forms of expression are suppressed.