In Russia the members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." Their crime was protesting in a church against the alliance between Putin and the Russian church .
In Russia the members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." Their crime was protesting in a church against the alliance between Putin and the Russian church .
This NY Times ad for the Freedom from Religion Foundation criticizing the Church's position against birth control was accused of being 'hate speech' against Catholics
Criticizing Catholics for tolerating priest's sexual abuse could be prosecuted. Critics of clergy were routinely charged with heresy in the past.
Should it be a crime to criticize the culture of a group? Should it be a crime even when it is done by a member of that group. For example, several African Americans have criticized hip-hop culture for its clothing styles and use of language. Should that be illegal, or only illegal for non-African Americans? Or is it OK to criticize a culture if it is not adopted by everyone in a particular group?
Anti-circumcision activists and critics of Israel have been accused of anti-Semitism. Should they be prosecuted for religious hate when they criticize a religious custom or a nation's policies?
Should animal rights activists be prohibited from criticizing animal sacrifices for religious or cultural purposes?
Should critics of ISIS's religiously motivated murders be prosecuted for religious hate?
Should the terrorists who bombed Charlie Hebdo be exonerated because they were objecting to bigoted cartoons that the government failed to ban?
Thanakorn Siripaiboon was arrested for mocking the king of Thailand's dog
Do you support the law in Thailand that calls for imprisonment for insulting the King, which they consider a hate crime against their most significant religious/cultural/political figure?
Do we want to see people punished by the government for calling (for example) Dr. Ben Carson or Clarence Thomas "Uncle Toms?"
These protesters wanted Maher fired well before he used the N-word in a joke
Should the law restrict words, or only the sentiments expressed? Bill Maher's joke used a taboo word, but the joke was not intended to disparage any group. It appears to me that most people didn't understand what he was talking about when he made the joke. Should the government punish him for making a joke that was widely misinterpreted because it contained a taboo word?
It was talking about sex and using "four letter words" that got Lenny Bruce in trouble with the law--not using the "n-word."
Should Lenny Bruce have been prosecuted for his legendary routine about the word "nigger." After using a bunch of ethnic insults he concluded with "...Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school."
Bruce was trying to use the taboo word in excess in order to take away its power to cause harm. Similarly some gays, African Americans and others have reappropriated words such as "queer" to take away the word's power to harm. Should such efforts be banned?
What about black comedians and rappers who use the word "nigger?" Should they be prosecuted? Or will the law specify which groups of people can use certain taboo words? Should the next Lenny Bruce (who was white) be prosecuted, while African Americans are allowed to use the same word?
What about comedians like Sarah Silverman who can appear to be expressing bigoted statements, but uses them ironically to make a point against bigotry. Does it matter whether some people lack the ability to understand her satiric message?
What about actors portraying a racist character in a movie or play? Should the government dictate to the writer and actor which words or phrases they can use in their portrayal of the character?
Should hate speech laws retroactively suppress older works with racist content? Should Huck Finn be banned for including a taboo word despite its message of opposition to slavery and bigotry? Should the historically important (culturally and aesthetically) Birth of A Nation film be banned? Gone with the Wind?
The Bible and Koran are filled with hatred and calls for violence for those who are not a follower of their religion. Both have inspired many horrible acts of violence against groups of people, probably more than any other books. Should they be banned?
Should the disabled, including the mentally disabled, be protected from hate speech? Would you support banning all use of terms such as stupid, lame, crazy, imbecile, fool, etc. to criticize someone, disabled or not?
Black Lives Matter has been accused of hate speech against the police, Occupy Wall Street has been accused of hate speech against the 1%, Democrats have been accused of hate speech against Republicans, and Republicans have been accused of hate speech against Democrats
After the recent shooting of a congressman, conservatives are blaming "liberal hate speech" by the likes of Bernie Sanders for inspiring the crime. Should "liberal hate speech" against conservatives be banned?
Has exposure to hate speech made you more bigoted? Or did you, like most of us, have the ability to judge the words before you accept them as true or not? Should free speech be curtailed to protect the "weak-minded" from accepting bad ideas? (which is the most popular argument for censorship laws)
Do you trust these people to recognize the difference between hate speech and legitimate criticism?
Most import, do you trust the government, or even a jury, to enforce the law with enough nuance to know the difference between legitimate criticism of a group of people, the point of view of a character in a work of art, hate speech, irony, satire and parody? Do you trust our Republican/conservative dominated legislative bodies to appropriately regulate which words you can use and who you can criticize or insult? Do you trust any administration in power to resist the temptation to use hate speech laws to stamp out criticism?
Also, consider whether such laws are effective and whether they might actually be counter-productive. Making something taboo and/or illegal often makes it more attractive for people to try. Our laws against obscenity, recreational drug use, prostitution and many other (often victimless) crimes have been proven to be ineffective or counter-productive.
Many people enjoy being transgressive and breaking taboos and getting the attention that can result. I have to wonder whether racism might be the new equivalent of sex. The increase in bigoted speech in recent years might be the result of the loosening of other taboos (such as unconventional sexual behavior) while there has been an institutional strengthening of the taboo against bigotry. As Lenny Bruce noted "...it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness..."
Europe's anti-hate speech laws didn't seem to stop the rise of nationalists like Le Pen and Wilders or the anti-immigrant motivated Brexit campaign. It seems to me that Europe has as many nationalists and bigots as the USA. The only difference is that in Europe they have to choose their words somewhat more carefully when they advocate for discrimination. Or, as with the anti-hijab laws in Europe, they use a purported concern for the weak "victims" of the practice (women) to institute a bigoted law that takes away the "victims" freedom of choice.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," Holmes wrote. "I think that we should be eternally vigilant," he added, "against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."
I share Holme's belief in the ability of the people to determine for themselves which viewpoints and information they accept. I do not believe people need a governmental filter to protect them form bad ideas.
There is a good reason why the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free expression but offers no protection from being offended. Offense is highly subjective and a personal choice. Many times people misunderstand the actual intent of a statement especially when irony, satire or a parody is intended. Comedians and other commentators such as Lenny Bruce and others often intentionally use taboo words to reduce the word's ability to hurt or belittle others.
Words and pictures cause material harm (which does nor include hurt feelings) only when that harm is in the form of action. We should punish the actions that people take when they cause harm to others, but we don't need to punish the words, images or thoughts themselves. In the USA, we have reasonable hate crime, libel, slander, copyright, workplace harassment and incitement laws to protect the public when opinions are turned into action that causes genuine harm.
We live in a media world that is mostly controlled by editors and censors. Even internet forums such as Facebook and YouTube that allow "open" public participation have complaint processes and censors on staff whose job is to remove content deemed offensive. These censors have been proven to be influenced by public outrage, often changing their decisions oer rules when they make an unpopular decisions. Only a small sliver of the media that we access is actually without editorial or censorship control and likely to have extreme content.
There is also value to letting people express their fears and hostile feelings, even if their opinions are irrational and/or extreme so that we can have an honest discussion and directly address the issues that divide us. Allowing free expression allows us to see and hear people's real opinions and concerns without the cloak of euphemisms and politeness which can make it hard to differentiate between bigots and open minded people who are just unfamiliar with a particular group of people.
In real-life situations, any one of us can respond to hate speech or a bigoted/ignorant comment by notifying the speaker and the other people present that you don't appreciate their comments. Our responses can range from discreet frowns, an expression of hurt feelings, a history lesson or a punch in the nose. Of course, we all need to think about our safety when deciding to respond. I don't recommend a punch in the nose since it is not just illegal, it is also unethical and unlikely to change anyone's opinion.
A great model for dealing with hateful comment is Ijeoma Oluo who was harassed by a racist troll on Twitter. But instead of expressing anger, Ms. Oluo started responding with quotes from Martin Luther King. As the Huffington Post reports:
"...when Ijeoma stopped responding with quotes from Dr. King, and instead empathized with the troll, a bit of light started shining through. The troll was clearly looking for someone to lash out at him, and was taken aback when he was met with kindness....During the rest of the dialogue, the troll's bigoted persona begins to fall apart, and Ijeoma fills the space with grace and compassion. It comes out that the troll is, allegedly, actually a 14-year-old kid who's recently lost his mother, and whose therapist has told him to vent his anger on Twitter..." I recommend reading through the posts at Huffington Post. Ms. Oluo deserves a award for her patient and compassion responses.
Below is another good example of how we can handle hate speech when it turns to action without weakening the First Amendment and our right to speak freely:
"The group [WAR- White Aryan resistance] was eventually bankrupted as the result of a civil lawsuit centered on its involvement in the 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian man who had moved to the United States to attend college. In 1988, white power skinheads affiliated with WAR were convicted of killing Seraw and sent to prison. Kenneth Mieske said he and the two others killed Seraw "because of his race". Metzger declared that they did a "civic duty" by killing Seraw. Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil suit against him, arguing that WAR influenced Seraw's killers by encouraging their group East Side White Pride to commit violence...
...At the trial, WAR national vice president Dave Mazzella testified how the Metzgers instructed WAR members to commit violence against minorities. Tom and John Metzger were found civilly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, in which one can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or by another person who is taking instructions. The jury returned the largest civil verdict in Oregon history at the time—$12.5 million—against Metzger and WAR. The Metzgers' house was seized, and most of WAR's profits go to paying off the judgment..." Wikipedia
In the USA the government is not a significant barrier to free expression, except for sexual expression. The laws on the books and case law are usually sufficient to protect people from the material harm that can result from libel, slander and incitement of lawlessness or violence. The free market place of ideas with the ability to complain, protest and boycott has successfully made hate speech pretty rare. Not only has hate speech been curtailed, but hostile racial/ethnic/sexist jokes, stereotypes and caricatures are also less common than ever before. Progress towards a world without prejudice and bigotry is moving forward without government intervention despite the many bumps that are still in the road (i.e. Islamaphobia, homophobia, Trumpism).
Back to Oranj Productions Home
Page
Contact Info
All content Copyright 1993-2017 Oranj Productions.
All Rights Reserved. Commercial use, public distribution or presentation allowed with written permission only.
Back to More Content Magazine