OPINION: Colin Kaepernick and Freedom of Expression

Author Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses earned him death threats from the Muslim world in the 1990s, defended free speech by saying, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick offended millions by sitting down during the National Anthem at a preseason game. His refusal was an attempt to shed light on what Kaepernick views as oppression and discrimination directed toward people of color.

Whether or not one agrees with the animus behind his boycott, one thing is certain: Kaepernick reopened conversation about some pressing issues and inadvertently revealed something upsetting about the manner in which people respond to free expression.

It is not an accident that the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights is the one which guarantees freedom of speech. This was something the Founding Fathers saw as paramount to the creation of a free and just society. It is one of the rights which separates our country from some of the more backward and restrictive nations around the world. Ben Franklin encapsulated the salience of this edict when he stated, “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”

Simply put: this liberty is foundational to everything America symbolizes.

Kaepernick’s complaint about injustice is an important issue in and of itself, however the outrage over his actions over the past few days has been telling. The people who are angry are dichotomized into two distinct camps. The first takes umbrage at his refusal and makes points, typically concerning hypocrisy or a failure on Kaepernick’s part to scrutinize specific instances of violence.

They argue that a black man who is making millions has audacity to denigrate the country which proffers such an opportunity (a weak argument—it implies that having money automatically precludes a person from being able to speak out about social issues). They also believe that—based on his tweets—he demonstrates a tendency to generalize about instances of police violence. Whether they are right is immaterial here. The thrust is that, while they may find the act repugnant, they are at least providing reasons to repudiate it.

The other faction simply hates Kaepernick. There are a wealth of people who have created an ad hominem parade, leveling at him with every opprobrious insult they can muster. People have burned his jersey. Others have called for his release from the 49ers. To put it another way: one group contests the “why” while another wants to restrict the “what.”

This is wrong.

The latter group needs to understand that Kaepernick (and everyone else for that matter) has the right to act or speak out in ways with which the majority of people may disagree.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the National Anthem or the flag or the Pledge of Allegiance.

Love of country is not compulsory. Neither is patriotism. Nobody needs to say the pledge or stand for the anthem. People can dislike, and still appreciate, things about their country. If there are topics that are off-limits, then there is no such thing as Freedom of Speech.

Once again, there are some important points to mention that will be lost on people who hear something mildly anti-American and fly into an apoplectic rage. The right to criticize aspects of our country is not only allowed, but it is necessary. There are places in the world where such denunciations land a person in jail or in the clutches of the executioner. If a person, especially one with a vast platform, decides to voice their disapproval with the country, they must be allowed to do so.

Unfortunately such criticism is anathema to many Americans—most of whom are quick to preach the importance of other constitutional amendments. There is, for them, no situation where one can or ought to condemn the U.S. This view runs counter to everything entailed in the First Amendment.

If you think Kaepernick is wrong for not standing, that’s fine. After all, Colin was seeking a reaction, and, since he’s entered the marketplace of ideas, he deserves to have his actions critiqued. But remember that disagreement must come second to the staunch support of a person’s right to express themselves.

As Noam Chomsky said, “If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”