Helen Oriatti-Bruns
Contributing Writer
On Aug. 31 from 5 to 6:30 p.m., the John Stuart Mill Forum (JSMF), a student organization, hosted an event discussing free speech. It was the first in a series of three events, with the aim of encouraging students to engage others in discussion and broaden their perspectives.
JSMF has the mission of fostering a campus community “which actively celebrates the plurality of opinions” through civil discourse, as outlined in the organization’s constitution.
JSMF President Dylynn Lasky ’24 posed three questions to participants of the Aug. 31 discussion: “what is the free speech climate like on campus?”, “is free speech worth it?” and “should there be limits on free speech?” Participants sat in a circle, raising their hand or speaking to add to the conversation.
“We’ve had more participation in the past, so this was sort of a lower attendance than we normally have had,” Lasky said. “[During the meeting] people were exchanging a lot of different perspectives, engaging with one another [and] challenging one another to think differently on certain issues.”
According to Lasky, the typical number of attendees at JSMF meetings is 15 to 20, although it can vary based on the topic. Despite 11 student participants on Thursday, she felt that others’ contributions ultimately made the discussion productive. Other attendees including Max McCullough ’27 thought that the choice of topic limited helpful discussion.
“I was rather disappointed by the banality of the topic [of freedom of speech], though perhaps this speaks more to my personal tastes rather than to the quality or importance of the topic itself,” McCullough said. “It is a topic whose questioning almost invariably demands the answer, ‘It depends,’ which is not something I find particularly useful.”
Despite his distaste for the topic, McCullough remains intrigued by the JSMF, partly due to his interest in more casual debate. Similarly, first-time attendee Liam Michael ’26 decided to attend the meeting because he wanted to hear others’ opinions. During the meeting, Michael appreciated listening to positions that struck him as well thought out.
“It’s nice to not only hear new opinions, but evidence that further supports said opinion,” Michael said. “It’s not just a bunch of folks blabbering for the sake of noise.”
During all JSMF meetings, participants follow three rules, which are: democratic moderation is utilized, “brevity is the soul of wit” and discussion moments cannot be quoted out of context later. The executive board of JSMF moderates discussions, ensuring that participants have an opportunity to speak if they so desire. Moreover, Lasky said that the executive board prioritizes creating an inclusive environment, which allows participants to engage with the discussion topic.
“We’ve tried to make it a welcoming space,” Lasky said. “People who maybe feel intimidated to show up or are nervous about possibly confronting challenging ideas can…hopefully have a positive experience.”
During Lasky’s freshman year, she struggled finding a space where she felt like students could freely express their beliefs. As she worked with JSMF co-founder Bobby Ramkissoon ’23 to create that space, she found inspiration and support in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
“[FIRE has] this program that was established within the same year that John Stuart Mill was established called the ‘Let’s Talk’ program, and it’s to help students like Bobby [Ramkissoon] and I [to] create clubs on campus, discourse clubs,” Lasky said. “They were an incredible resource with knowing who to talk to, the steps in the process [and] all-around just being a good advisor [and] mentor.”
This year’s executive board also is working on a possible revision of the College’s policy on Freedom of Expression and Inquiry, as detailed in the Scot’s Key. Lasky and other board members believe that the policy detailing possible limits on freedom of speech is vague and needs clarifying. Among the participants of the Aug. 31 discussion, including Michael and McCullough, there are varying opinions on what limits on free speech should look like.
“Free speech is very important and the utility of restricting freedom of speech very rarely outweighs the benefits of having it around,” McCullough said. “The government and ultimately [the] Supreme Court at this point decide what counts as free speech (as pertains to the First Amendment), which is fine with me.”
The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects the populace from the government infringing on freedom of speech. Categories of unprotected speech under the amendment include obscenity, defamation, false advertising, true threats, fighting words and child pornography. While some believe that these restrictions on speech are sufficient, many also believe that the conversation around freedom of speech is nuanced.
“Since free speech is subjective, there is no universal solution,” Michael said. “Perfectionism is in direct contrast to what is human.”