Do Interventions to Reduce Stigma Improperly Infringe on Free Speech?

Public health researchers identify the source of antigay stigma in social structures and recommend deep social structural interventions to combat stigma. Public health professionals are unified in their belief that reducing stigma is an important step toward improving health and well-being. In the area of bullying of LGBT students, in particular, researchers and public health and public policy professionals have promoted a comprehensive approach to intervention to reduce homophobia. Many such interventions, by their nature, attempt to unsettle social arrangements and alter values and attitudes that fuel stigma. Critics of such interventions, however, warn that interventions that broadly address antigay stigma threaten free speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the First amendment. By aiming to reduce expressions of stigma, the critique goes, interventions seek to control speech, for example, under proposed school-based interventions, speech that expresses stigma—not just harmful actions—would be punishable. Thus, proponents of stigma interventions and critics agree that deeply held beliefs and values are at stake, but they disagree on what interventions should target. The critiques have rarely been address by public health professionals. The authors will review conceptual approaches to interventions to reduce stigma in the context of efforts to reduce antigay bullying. The authors examine to what extent public health researchers recommend broad social interventions that address community and individual values that may raise First Amendment concerns. The authors critically review the legal arguments about speech in interventions to reduce stigma by reviewing court decisions and legal scholarly work on First Amendment.