The Mainstreaming of Hate: That's Entertainment!
As a group, they are the pop culture equivalent of necrotic carrion beetles, crawling with insectile determination from one infected open wound in the American psyche to another. The wounds include fear of race, fear of foreigners, fear of sexuality, fear of difference, hysterical religious fundamentalism, violent nationalism, and paranoia. They lay their eggs in the infected abrasion, then scuttle away. When the eggs hatch, disgorging rage and discontent, they start counting money.
Michael Rowe on the Pop Culture hate mongers, "Death at the Museum and the Degradation of the American Dialogue", Huffington Post, June 11, 2009
There have been mutterings for years about the insidious effects the constant barrage of hate talk has on the unhinged fringe. One day's look at the internet, one day's listen to the radio, a few hours of Fox News prime time is all one needs in order to get the full picture. Hate sells. That's the bottom line.
Never mind that it corrodes our National psyche and sends the loonies to near-orgasm. . .it's fun! The people who are out there on the front lines selling hate--Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, Hannity, et al--are enjoying the hell out of the impact their carefully choreographed and mostly disingenuous rantings have on an increasing number of followers.
And their followers slurp up every spurting syllable, as if from God's lips. . .
Janet Napolitano tried to warn us in a Homeland Security memo entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", but was so severely shot down she ended up having to apologize for it!
I wish she wouldn't have done that. I wish the White House had backed her up and let it ride. We cave to extremists at our own peril--which is exactly what her own memo warned us about.
Eugene Robinson writes about it today:
For days, some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating "right-wing" with "terrorism." It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn't matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn't to illuminate a subject with light but to blast it with heat.
And it wasn't just the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world who pretended to be outraged. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused the administration of trying "to segment out Americans who dissent from this administration, to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration, and labeling them as terrorists." Steele seems to have decided that telling the truth isn't nearly as important as the high-temperature exercise known as "firing up the base."
The thing is, though, that words have consequences.
There's profit for the pundits, and perhaps personal advantage for some politicians, in calling President Obama a "socialist" and calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a "racist Latina" and claiming that Democrats want to "take away your guns" -- in creating and nurturing a sense of grievance among those inclined to be aggrieved. But what about those who might not understand that it's all just political theater?
Paul Krugman writes about it today, as well:
This set the crew at "Morning Joe" off on such a tangent, they were practically foaming at the mouth (and it wasn't Starbuck's froth). Suddenly Krugman, that past Morning Joe guest, that great American hero, that deserved Nobel Prize winner, was nothing more than a Left Wing toadie. The gushing is over.Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven't directly incited violence, despite Bill O'Reilly's declarations that "some" called Dr. Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer," that he had "blood on his hands," and that he was a "guy operating a death mill." But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.
And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.
It's an odd state we're in when supposedly reasonable, responsible, intelligent adults defend extremism from any quarter. And yet we see it all the time. We declare the First Amendment as our arbiter. Free speech, as long as nobody dies. Free speech, above all else.
Adam Liptak wrote a piece in Wednesday's NYT called "Hate Speech or Free Speech? What Much of West bans is Protected in U.S." In it, he talks about how much stricter Hate Speech laws are in Canada and other civilized countries:
A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.
Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."
Oh. My. God. Can you imagine the battle royal in this country if we came up with something similar? Wouldn't those hideously hateful entertainers have a field day with that one?? Here's more:
Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
Well, who cares? We hate all those countries, anyway. What do they know? They're not the Greatest Country in the World.
So which one of us is going to be the first to admit that it's time to cast a new look at our First Amendment rights? What does it really mean? Are there absolutely no limits? The fomentors have gone way beyond "sticks and stones". They not only revel in the attention it brings, they're addicted to it.
There are millions of people who take to heart every seriously off-base utterance from the Right Wing extremist "entertainers", and the number of incidents caused by their acting-out is only going to increase--unless we as a society stop allowing hate speech to masquerade as amusement.
Even little children understand how hurtful words can be. We teach them not to lie or to slander. We would never condone in children the kind of language we protect in adults.
And the irony to me is that--those adults we're in the business of protecting? They're not worth it.
Ramona
(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here)
Great essay, Ramona.
Just for reference, I put a couple of links in this comment for ease in finding info on the 1st Amendment. :o) (Yeah, I had to look it up again just to make sure.)
U.S. Constitution-Amendment 1
Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Two items from the" Things That Are Not in the Constitution "site.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp
Freedom of Expression
It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. This site, in fact, uses that term in its quick description of the amendment: "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." But "expression" is not used in the amendment at all. This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of "freedom of expression" is ubiquitous in this area of 1st Amendment study, it is important to note exactly what "freedom of expression" refers to - let this be such a note.
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
And from the Constitutional Dictionary:
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS
Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [
June 12, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific, FC, thanks so much! I guess I know that the gov't isn't going to cut off those jackals. I just wish that we as a society would see the need to curb them. The only way it can be done is by shutting them off and not giving them a platform. I don't see that happening, unfortunately. I see their platform getting bigger and stronger, and it stuns and disappoints me.
But I figure the more people who speak out against them, the more likely that, eventually, they'll be seen as the irresponsible clowns they really are.
It could be that at least ONE of them will wake up one morning and say, "What the hell am I doing? I'm an AMERICAN!"
(But I won't hold my breath.)
June 12, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terminello v. Chicago http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/terminiello.html is a Supreme Court Opinion written by Justice Douglas in 1949. 337 U.S. 1 for those who care.
Justice Douglas found an Illinois Statute and a local Ordinance Unconstitutional under the safeguards of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (which incorporates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The opinion noted in part:
The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.
Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
As you can see there is a 'clear and present' danger requirement before someone may be charged with something speech related.
There are hundreds of cases discussing this issue both state and federal. And there is no easy answer. If you read the opinion, you can Justice Douglas found the statute/ordinance unconstitutional so he never even got to the question of the nature of the speech itself.
The problem arises for us that we must look at the shoe on the other foot. w actually stated that the NYT article that called him out for lying about domestic surveillance made the NYT enemies of the state. But he knew, as did his cabal of attorneys at the DOJ that there was no chance in hell that a prosecution against the NYT for their article would fly for more than a day following an arrest.
What are we to do?
What you are doing. WE MUST CALL OUT THE HATE MONGERERS WHENEVER WE CAN.
June 12, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much, DD. Very, very interesting. I'm a big proponent of free speech, but this new fad of hate speech as entertainment has me in a tizzy. I DO see it as a "serious, substantive evil". The numbers of followers is staggering and unprecedented in the U.S, I believe.
I value dissenters. Been one myself, more than once. But I fear that, in today's environment, the violence will surely continue to go beyond words. I really do fear for Obama's life. This "dissent" is turning into wholesale unreasonable rage. I've wandered onto some of those hateful websites and I've literally gotten sick to my stomach. They are frightening beyond belief.
My point in writing this post was not to change anyone's mind but rather to add my voice to the many who are finally recognizing the dangers in encouraging or even allowing this kind of "free speech". Hate should never be rewarded--as it is these days. It's become an entire industry, and we're far from being the better for it.
June 12, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona, just looking at rush's paycheck tells us that there is a hate industry out there making tons of cash. It just sickens me and we all need posts like yours to initiate a real battle with these devils.
June 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, 30 million to lie, slander and look stupid. Only in America. . .
June 12, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good day to you all, the posters of the best threads on the www. Maybe because I find the likes of these haters offensive and destructive, restricting their ability to influence the naive has never bothered me.
Living in Canada, let me say, that the only people who are angered by such legislation are the vendors of hate. I started listening to the 'fat one' a few weeks ago, and was shocked at the things he says. No one who doesn't have a vested interest in spreading hatred would feel that he/she had lost a right.
Today, after years of referring to Pakistanies as Pakis, people don't do that anymore. Instead, people realize how destructive hate groups are.
Have a great day, everybody. The truthspeaker
June 13, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for commenting, Truthspeaker. Good to hear from a Canadian who can come at this issue from a different perspective. When hatred becomes the norm and civility is looked on as a sign of weakness, we're all in trouble.
June 13, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my favorite books is The Book Thief. On one level there's a great story about a little girl in Nazi Germany whose family ends up hiding a Jew for some time. On another level there's an essay on the power of language, of words, and how Hitler's words affected all of Germany.
I'm still torn about limiting speech here in America. I am trying to see both sides. But the way we receive hate speech, how the media portrays it, how the rational person sees it, is a problem. We hear the crazies since they yell very loudly. But the far larger non-crazy population is saying very little. We've got to speak up.
June 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eggzackerly. It's unfortunate that some of the non-crazy population would like to keep the noise level down. ;o)
June 12, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's what bothers me most--that the average person is sickened by what's been happening on OUR airwaves.
Reagan threw out the Fairness Doctrine and now it's money that sets the standard.
June 12, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matyra, thanks for recommending "The Book Thief". I'm going to look for it.
June 12, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The audiobook is also great. I've actually not read it; I listened to it.
June 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, even better. Thanks.
June 12, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to see is a greater ability to hold such public hate speech accountable for financial damages in a Civil court. Maybe, something more akin to the slander and libel standards the British have. In civil court it would be citizen versus citizen. Private entity versus private entity. That would seem to avoid 1st Amendment issues over the government making criminal or otherwise curtailing the freedom of speech.
June 12, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newton, that is one hell of a good idea. Yes it is.
Very fine approach. Thank you.
June 12, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LIKE it! When can we start?
June 12, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I knew.
June 12, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to win the war in the court of public opinion. Pieces like these are critical and need to be made more widespread. We make noise in the pubs and public places. Just a remark amongst a crowd at the doctor's office or whereever FOX is being shown, seemingly to oneself can make a difference. Something to the effct, "Why are they making us watch this crap?" and walk away. No need to debate. Just mumble and go.
June 12, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, I know what you mean. I HATE it when I see Fox News on a TV that's in a public place. I always make a comment, loud enough to be heard, and then I wander out before I get tarred and feathered!
We've left restaurants and bars that do that. I make sure I tell someone why I'm leaving, too.
I doubt if I've changed a single mind or caused a single lightbulb to go off, but to me it's air pollution of the worst kind. Gotta get outta there.
June 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this oddity has been the subject of posts here before. In every doctor's office I've ever sat the waiting room TV was/is ALWAYS tuned to Fox. It's like there's some kind of underground law or something. Are they all getting kickbacks from Newscorp? I mean, truly, what gives?
June 12, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The medical practitioners are in the top 5% so it's their taxes that get raised. They also believe the BS that the government will ruin their practice. As if private insurance wasn't already dictating their prices. Doctors have scientific, medical minds. They are seldom social experts. Their patients do becoem commodities. just another "customer" there to help pay for the medical center. While I k now the lawsuits are a small part of their costs, it has to irritate them a patient comes after their practice because they made a single honest mistake, although there are those with TOO MANY mistakes. There ought to be a better regulation to control who continues practicing after making mistakes. The courts and their lawyers hide too many suits to actually de effective in this regard.
June 12, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head again, Ramona, great post!
What I really can't believe is how the ditto-heads lap up the idea that the liberals are the hate-mongers.
Rush went so far as to label Von Brunn a left-wing liberal nut. And, bank on it, many many people will believe every word out of St. Rush's mouth.
But when Von Brunn left a _written_note_ stating his views and people STILL believe he's a liberal, it's obvious the lies are powerful. All people have to possess is a willingness to remain ignorant and the rest is easy.
btw-- I love Newton's idea, too. How do we start something like that?
June 12, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Icetree, I watched a clip of Limbaugh saying Von Brunn was a leftist, and there wasn't an ounce of sincerity in that room with him. He KNOWS he's lying. He KNOWS that most of us know he's lying. But he ALSO knows his audience. They'll believe him. It's the bottom line and nothing else matters.
June 12, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What I really can't believe is how the ditto-heads lap up the idea that the liberals are the hate-mongers."
I suspect that they HAVE to believe it. Else, they would face the possibility that, just maybe, they might not be the good guys. That they are, and worse than that, always have been wrong. If that notion that they might actually be on the wrong side of the extremism/terrorism battle in this country ever took hold among right-wingers, well then, what else might they be wrong about? Their heads would explode upon the opening of that Pandora's box. Of course, none of that will ever happen. Right-wingers (today's GOP base) will continue to believe any liar who tells them they are always righteous, always on the right side of both God's will and of history. I believe that they are gripped by fear, both of the cowardly sort and fear masquerading as hate.
June 12, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe that they are gripped by fear, both of the cowardly sort and fear masquerading as hate."
xxx
I think you're absolutely right, new10.
The 'I MUST be right at all costs!' mentality is rampant among the far-right.
I have a friend who is not FAR right -- but is right of center by a pretty good margin. I came to the conclusion, last week, that she is incapable of apologizing.
She had said something hurtful to me and she knew it. She reached out to me the next day to the extent she could. But she could not admit she had been wrong.
I took her response as the best she could do.
On a much larger scale -- the Limbaughs, Coulters, O'Reillys and their followers simply cannot allow themselves to entertain the idea that they might be wrong about something. Their universe would fall apart.
June 12, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know people just like your friend--and yes, they all seem to lean right. They've been so busy pinning "Bambi Lover" and "Tree Hugger" and "Bleeding Heart" on those of us who give a care, they can't possibly go there. Sad.
June 12, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess your rights end where mine begin.
1) We know you can't legally yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for laughs to see how many people get trampled to death.
2) You can't legally say things that present a "clear and present danger" to others.
3) You can't legally deliberately lie about someone in a way that would hurt their reputation.
4) You can't legally use "fighting words" against people.
It would seem many in the right wing media are inciting people to violence which would fit under the "clear and present danger", in my opinion.
June 12, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mine, too.
June 12, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope so.
In the West, obnoxious laws limiting free speech are a relatively new phenomenon, the oldest dating from '70s. And there is growing, considerable push-back from European and Canadian citizens tired of this nonsense. Severe "hate" codes in Britain were used for years to crimp right-wing groups like the British National Party. The oppression was a factor in boosting that particular fringe group to prominence:
There are always great reasons to censor speech and press, and censorship is always a bad idea.
June 12, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where the problem lies--when is hate speech so hurtful, so incendiary, that it needs to be monitored or stopped entirely? On the other hand, should speech EVER be censored?
I can agree with Greenwald's argument for unfettered free speech up to a point. In fact, until recently--say, the last year or so--I would have argued with MYSELF here. But there comes a time when we have to realize that monsters are coming in through those Free Speech open doors.
That's just one example of how far this has gone now. There are hundreds if not thousands of websites out there that push their readers toward actual violence. The media clowns, with their multi-million dollar budgets and huge audiences, keep that trash going and they do it knowing full well how it will be taken. They are mainstreaming hate and we're trying to justify it because we're so afraid of what MIGHT happen to our free speech rights if we make a fuss and try and bring it to a halt.
People are dying now because of it, and I know I'm not the only one who fears for our president's life. So what's the solution? And how far does it have to go before it's too far?
June 12, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The monsters have always come through the doors, Ramona. People have always died because of it. But many more people have died defending our right to unfettered, free exchange of ideas.
The beasts always lurk in the darkness just beyond the light. They strike because of hateful ideas, they strike because they believe they are correct, even righteous, doing so. They strike because God told them to, communicating in His mysterious way from an open can of tomato soup.
Throwing away a freedom so basic, so fundamental to who we are, because we're afraid, or because we're outraged at rampages of fanatics, screams to the world that we are weak and deficient, we are confused and foolish. We blinker and degenerate ourselves, we corrupt our ability to argue openly, without fear of reprisal, and we abandon discovery and quick use of good ideas - better ideas than smothered societies can reveal.
Why is the Left so relentless in its drives to stifle free and open exchange of ideas? Why do most substantive campaigns to censor press and speech originate with the Left? There are First Amendment enemies on the Right, as well, and certainly there have been in history. But in this country, and in the West in general, grim oppression dressed up as "hate speech" curbs is always propelled by Leftists. They are not so stupid to truly believe something as nebulous and personal as hate can be controlled by laws and governments. No... "controlling hate" is just the pretext to cork up free speech, unfettered thought. Why? What is the Left so afraid of? Are their intellectual and political foundations so weak they won't withstand open criticism? And why are Leftists so hypocritical about the issue? Why do they preen as champions of free speech - but only in countries that already allow it?
I'm asking these questions, here, to provoke comment, not as a condemnation. I really would like to know.
June 12, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, SFC. I appreciate your thoughts. I even agree with most of them. I honestly don't know what the answer is. My premise here concerns the mainstreaming of hate and how it legitimizes the lunatic fringe. (Or at least THEY see it that way.)
I didn't post this to start the same general free speech discussion that goes on all the time. I'm leery of regulating speech, but at the same time I think we're in new territory here. Protections have to run both ways. We can't ignore, nor can we invite the kind of vicious hatred we see now, not just on the fringes but everywhere, including the mainstream media.
It's a dilemma and I appreciate all input. I honestly don't know the answers.
June 12, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for limiting speech providing that I get to decide which speech to limit. Personally, I would probably start by banning essays such as this one.
Is that OK with you?
June 12, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine with me. Go for it.
June 12, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will do, Dick Licker.
June 12, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, sorry. Thought you were No Class Willie.
June 12, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny thing about Ramona's post is that she doesn't really define hate speech in any way - other than how republicans speak.
How they are like "necrotic carrion beetles, crawling with insectile determination from one infected open wound in the American psyche to another".
How they send "the loonies to near-orgasm"..and naturally, "their followers slurp up every spurting syllable, as if from God's lips".
When "Even little children understand how hurtful words can be".
But the thoughtful, reasoned commentary like this makes a joke of her implied claim that only liberals like her have a mandate, skill and obligation to heal the wounded national psyche, while they right all wrongs and fix all problems.
Of course what she really wants is to control the opposition, who's allowed to say what and how. So that only she's allowed the "hurtful words" when she's so inclined (often!).
Funny to watch Ramona fighting hate speech with hate speech.
What a little person.
June 12, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I mention "republicans" and how they speak? Did I mention liberals? Did I say I had an answer?
Do I want to heal the "wounded national psyche"? You bet I do.
Am I about to repent for what I said above? Not in this lifetime.
Are you diverting attention away from the real issue, which is the escalating danger of unfettered hate speech? Yes, it seems you are.
But since you said nothing threatening, you're welcome to make your comments. Free speech and all that.
(BTW, the "necrotic carrion beetles" is a quote, as is that entire paragraph. Wish I could take credit for it, but I can't.)
June 12, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did I mention "republicans" and how they speak?"
- Erm, in all but the name.
"Did I mention liberals?"
- Did you really have to??
"Did I say I had an answer?"
- Clearly: "So which one of us is going to be the first to admit that it's time to cast a new look at our First Amendment rights?"
I don't know how many voices Ramona has, but this one sounded full of hate and it drowns all the others.
June 12, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona I found myself saying yes,yes,since I find these hate mongers and their speak so harmful,but Curt has a point too. When you begin to legislate speech then eventually any speech can be legislated. Who then decides what constitutes hate speech but the however elected legislators. What if some newly elected legislators are corrupt and dislike the group, the religion,the race, the sex of which you are a part, and decide your words are hate and subject to penalty or prison? It is not a far fetched argument because it exists in communist countries today, where what you say and what literature you possess can land you in a dark prison. We cant let the hate pros be the cause of our losing one iota of our freedoms so costly won.
June 12, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, DonDi, I can see your point--yours and Curt's and anyone else who cares deeply about our inherent right to free speech. I'm conflicted, myself. These are new thoughts for me, but I present them here because I really do believe we're in a climate we've never witnessed in this country before--to this degree.
It has been building for several years now, this perverse celebration of hate, and I see it becoming more and more mainstream--and thus more and more dangerous.
There has to come a point when we're serious about attaching responsibility and consequences to so-called free speech. Otherwise we're being held hostage by those who go against everything we stand for.
Is it better to do nothing because they have the "right" to foment? I hope that's not who we are now.
June 12, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Otherwise we're being held hostage by those who go against everything we stand for"
- that's what it was all about, your post.
And that point is clearly more important to you than the "inherent right to fee speech" that you pretend to care so deeply about.
June 12, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, when I said "we" I meant we as a country.
It would be nice to read some actual thoughts on the subject coming from you instead of the usual attacks.
June 13, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona, This was a fine post and your posts always are, Im just thinking this out with you,thats all. Somehow we have to change the minds of those that would even listen to such foolishness, without losing our own freedoms.You know how they say that in Afghanistan we cant just use military might but we have to win the hearts and minds of the people,
well it looks like thats the same battle we have to wage right here in our own country with our own people. We have our own form of terrorists dont we? So how do we go about winning hearts and minds Ramona?
June 13, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
DonDi, if I knew how to win the hearts and minds of those people I wouldn't have felt the need to write this post. That's the dilemma. I see the hatred growing day by day. I knew when Obama was elected that it would hit the fan, but I really thought that maybe the mainstream rhetoric would stabilize, at least. Instead, it's gotten much worse. The hatemongers rule the airwaves, and they're using their bully bench to create an atmosphere that is bound to lead to tragedy.
Writing letters and emails, threatening to boycott advertisers, posting blogs and articles about it. . .useless, as long as they have an audience, and I see their audiences growing by leaps and bounds.
Frankly, their popularity terrifies me. I've been around since FDR was pres and I've never seen anything like it.
June 13, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
conventions banning hate speech
The problem with banning hate speech, is that you have put yourself in the business of distinguishing hate speech from non-hate, albeit disrespectful speech.
Cf, the 12 Controversial Cartoons of Copenhagen...
Recall that the Danish government first became involved at all when the local imams made a "hate speech" complaint against the newspaper, and the government agency involved in determining whether to pursue or find "not hateful" some allegation, found that the speech in question was not such as to trigger the state sanction (whatever it might be).
Here, the government is free to turn to the imams and say "what do you want us to do? We are prevented by the First Amendment from punishing this vile blasphemy, however much we share your righteous anger at it..."
June 12, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, jollyroger, I remember the cartoons very well. I have them saved on my computer. You're right--that was a case where freedom of speech overrode any concerns about insults, and I applauded it.
As I've said, my concerns here are not just with the degree of violent speech, but the preponderance. It's becoming accepted, common behavior. It's a part of us now, and the only time anyone seems to get upset is when somebody dies because of it.
June 13, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very thoughtful post, Ramona.
There is a growing consensus among psychiatrists that when an individual is thinking of, or considering heinous behavior - the simple fact of seeing that he is not alone greatly affirms these thoughts, and significantly enhances the likelihood of those thoughts becoming behavior.
June 13, 2009 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
KurtisMae, you've said in one sentence what I've been trying to say here in both my main post and my comments.
Thank you!
June 13, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I like the honesty our country affords us. We need it to keep all the liars in check. Even then, our largely unrestricted ability to challenge the wrongdoers seems inadequate. We are routinely dished up the most outlandish spin on events that deliver the most horrible results. Our civility might be prohibiting us from adopting a more persuasive choice of words.
June 13, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi tpc, it would be nice if we actually could keep the liars in check. I see it happening less and less.
Our freedoms should include the freedom to expose and counter hate speech wherever we find it.
I think it's "civility" that's driving those of us who want to put a stop to the vicious hatemongers. Unfortunately, we're not in the mainstream anymore.
June 13, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
...in the mainstream anymore. I hadn't thought about that angle. Then would I be correct to assume when I see civility between opponents on TV its a phony civility? The parties would much rather tear out their opponents heart?
June 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what your point is. Most of the hatemongers I referred to in my OP don't debate anyone. Their opinions are sacrosanct and they don't feel the need to explain, or allow themselves to be challenged.
Of course civility is not dead. It's just invited to speak up less and less.
June 13, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you mean and realized immediately my comment has to do with the identity confusion of the republican party. Which made it very clear they could stand to clean up their act. Though the chance of that looks grim.
This impresses upon me, in a way I hadn't fully appreciated until this moment, how seriously regressive the eight years of Bush actually were. This one piece brings the Bush failure full circle. Virtually everything, the country and his party has been left in a shambles.
June 14, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honesty makes me own up to running short of civility. Of course, I'm sure I had less than some to start with.
June 13, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
My time on the front page is about up and I want to thank everyone who commented here. From my point of view it was a great discussion. Lots to think about.
I want to direct any of you who are still reading to Joe Wood's post today:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/joe_wood/2009/06/my-white-aryan-resistance-diss.php#comment-3497154
A different take on these hateful people. Very good.
June 13, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink