Dean has called me out, but after prayerful consideration I decline.
Some background. Dean and I have been having some personal discussions about the idiocy of those who make a moral equivalence between hate speech and violence and the investigations of symbolic speech as "hate crimes." I was tempted to burst the bounds of decency by posting images that were examples of what various groups consider hate speech; nooses, pictures of Mohamed with a bomb for a hat, crucifix in a urinal, some homophobia, a burning American flag, etc. in order to make the point that, yes this is offensive, but how is it a crime or excuse for violence in a nation that guarantees free speech? However, when I started blogging I personally committed to avoiding the extremism and demonization that is so rampant in the blogosphere and on television. Sure I could make my point, but I would abandon the principals of fair play in which I believe.
So with less bombast, here is what I believe. Attempts to suppress free speech always result in worse abuses than results from the offending speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is afforded First Amendment protection as symbolic speech, so why must a district attorney investigate the leaving of a noose at a tree in Jena? Is that not symbolic speech as well? Why is it rational to commit violence over offensive (hate) speech. Is that not protected? Isn't it a civil rights violation to assault someone exercising their first amendment rights? To quote Jonah Goldberg in NRO:
If I needlessly offend my neighbor, shame on me. If, in response, he burns down my house and threatens to murder my entire family, who cares what I said in the first place?So if we are offended by hate speech, whatever that is, by all means protest, launch a boycott, petition our government not to fund it (another first amendment right), or better yet, just ignore it. Let the idiots be ignored for the idiots they are. But violence and legal action? Give me a break, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave. If we can't face down hate speech with our moral indignation, what is this country coming to?
Posts
9 comments:
I must disagree with B Daddy, a noose hanging from the schoolyard tree is not the same as burning the flag.
Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted policies prohibiting offending speech based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, (unless Christian) or sexual orientation. These free speech “codes” by government funded institutions amount to government censorship in violation of the constitution.
Just as the debate raged over the Iranian president’s speech at Columbia U raged, we found allowing free speech and exposing buffoonery and ignorance was our best revenge.
But the schools have an obligation mitigate the disruption of our children’s education and provide a sfe environment. So a line must be drawn to limit expressions that will incite violence, just as the limits must be drawn for safety. These freedoms do not allow me to yell fire in a crowded building, and should not allow a noose to be hung from a tree.
But these laws are already on the books, inciting a riot, endangering lives, defacing public property, or starting an unlawful fire. Where is the need to escalate them to “hate speech”?
It seems the liberals of the past claimed a monopoly on the great Voltaire quote of defending your right to free speech though in disagreement. With the hate speech movement, where are these liberals now? I hear them yelling about the “illegal wire taps” and how we are losing our freedoms, yet speech that is offensive to them does not warrant the same protection.
This shows the hypocrisy of these folks. How much we value the right of our free speech is put to the test when the speaker is someone we disagree most.
Dawg, How do you equate burning the Flag with hanging a noose? Burn an American Flag around my 'hood and you have my word, violence will ensue.
Whether one is hanging a noose or burning a flag... why do we need a law to realize both are repulsive and morally repugnant?
If we need a law for either, then we are failing as a civilized, liberal Western democracy and we are failing as Americans.
I HATE hate crime laws. Yeah, I said it. I HATE them.
I agree, read B-Daddy original blog, B-Daddy equates flag burning and noose hanging.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is afforded First Amendment protection as symbolic speech, so why must a district attorney investigate the leaving of a noose at a tree in Jena? Is that not symbolic speech as well? Why is it rational to commit violence over offensive (hate) speech. Is that not protected? Isn't it a civil rights violation to assault someone exercising their first amendment rights?"
road dawg said, "I must disagree". I thought I was rather articulate in the basis for my conviction.
'Dawg, I'm awfully confused... Read your initial comment "...a line must be drawn to limit expressions that will incite violence..."
Who draws that line? An un-accountable bureaucrat? A politician wanting to score cheap points a' la the SF City Council condemning Michael Savage's "hate speech"?
I fail to see why flag burning is constitutionally protected but leaving a noose is not. Both are repugnant, both have incited violence, both are symbolic acts. If we are to be a nation that follows the rule of law, then we must be consistent in the application of those laws.
By the way, I am NOT in favor of a constitutional amendment on flag burning either, so I believe I am consistent in my position on this issue.
I'll let 'Dawg speak for himself but I believe he was making a distinction between speech that is protected in general public and that which is not acceptable in an environment like school.
The applicable analogy would be a school (rightly) prohibiting someone wearing a "F#ck You" T-shirt but that same T-shirt being Constitutionally protected if worn out on the street.
That school is charged with providing a non-hostile atmosphere that is conducive to learning while the Constitution is not bound by any such obligation for expressions in the public arena.
B-Daddy,
the minute the noose is placed at a school, the speech became unprotected, as I am sure is flag burning.
In the context of your original post, it was made clear that the comparison to flag burning was in general, and the noose hanging specific to the incident. No one ever accused B-daddy of being inconsistant. Just incorrect in his comparison.
As for Dean, thank you for articulating my position, it was helpful. But who draws the line? Unfortunately that is where we have slipped down the slope. But for saftey's sack someone has to. Because well-meaning beauracrats are drawing the line we have the censorship problem of today.
My original reply was presented as such: 1) I disagree with the position flag burning = noosehanging vis a vis the school argument stated above.
2) They have gone too far and violated the constitution.
3) Allowing bigotry to be exposed is a natural consequence of free speech.
4)Schools have an obligation to protect.
In summation, I realize it is a slippery slope, but it is not a black and white issue. It's a delicate balancing act.
road dawg,
The problem I am having is that the school is a public one. So don't they have an obligation to protect free speech? Turns out that you are right, the Supremes have ruled that students don't have unlimited free speech rights. But there are other noose incidents being investigated as "hate crimes" not committed on school property, hence my ire. Also, it was not initially clear to me whether the tree was on school grounds or just nearby. But heck, some bacon left on a mosque's steps was investigated as a "hate crime" as well. So my point is this: In the "public square," all symbolic speech should be equally protected, no matter how repugnant.
I think the tougher question becomes: "What is the public square?" The government is not just the government, but the school principal, the dean of students, and an employer for that matter, that it blurs the boundaries between public and private. Private companies can fire employees for spouting off in the newspaper about issues. Can the government? Turns out they can, sometimes and with conditions. You see how quickly this gets tricky. Just another reason to minimize the amount of government we have.
B-Daddy,
Don’t we have limits on free speech already? I can’t go into the post office and joke about the anthrax package I’m missing or ask the airport security guard where I left my C-4.
Assault is a crime with or without battery, if deemed in a threatening manner. Our government has been charged with protecting the public, and while I can agree that less is always better, someone still has to draw the line.
Although I wish it wasn’t pencil pushing, pointy headed, beard scratching, do-good politicians, I’m glad that it’s not B-daddy either. I don’t want my child going to a school where tyranny is protected under the guise of free speech.
Of course the definition of “public square” is blurred. It is the point of my post. I want common sense to dictate, not someone that only sees black and white, and not someone attempting to achieve a social agenda. Geesh, one is as bad as the other.
If a child posts his hate and angst on MySpace with threatening overtones, do we allow him his free speech? Look at the cost of such freedoms in the wake of Columbine and Virginia Tech. A NOOSE IS A DEATH THREAT, not merely inflammatory speech. What the heck do you think it represents? It is not a piece of bacon at a mosque, or hippies burning a flag.
We also have a greater charge with children. We have an obligation to provide a safe learning environment. This environment is already filled with the petty tyranny of bullies and $10 hour bus drivers with a chip on their shoulder. We can’t provide them a little protection?
Post a Comment