One Utah

Seemingly endlessly litigated and legislated around, the First Amendment reads simply:

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.

For the purposes of this post, I’m interested in freedom of speech.

On a surprisingly regular basis, one hears accounts of “parents” or “family” groups trying to get books banned from libraries on the grounds that they are not appropriate for young people. Or of schools adopting speech codes that restrict speech of an “offensive or harmful nature.” In the interest of rhetorical honesty, I’m willing to grant that in both types of cases the motives are laudable - protecting people from harm. I’ve said it before and I’ll no doubt say it again but the perils of protecting people from “harmful” speech are probably greater than the perils of the speech itself.

At the same time, as Dave Neiwart at Orcinus has documented, conservative commentators have a long history of saying incredibly offensive things and then defending themselves with a butter won’t melt in their mouths response of “I was only joking.” Neiwart’s series on Eliminationism of In America is an amazing examination of the scary levels of hate and violence advocated in mainstream right wing rhetoric - and the excuses and justifications offered in its defense. Some things are simply not appropriate parts of public discourse and should be confronted for what they are - not silenced. When Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, she wasn’t engaging in civil, public discourse - it was grade school playground behavior and she needed to be called on that - the use of the word “faggot” was less problematic than the puerile behavior behind it.

At the same time, we as a culture need to make it clear that a great many things are simply unacceptable as part of public discourse. I think it is Rick Perlstein who coined the term FNB politics for the Republican party’s strategy this year - FNB standing for F*gg*t, N*gg*r, B*tch. Of course no one says those words nowadays, right? Well actually . . . . they do. And when they caught doing in in public - a’la Ann Coulter - they scramble to excuse their behavior by appealing to the baser instincts of their audiences in ways both subtle and gross. That does not mean, however, that we should censor them.

When administrators at universities and colleges establish speech codes, as for example, they are well meaning. They are truly trying to create an atmosphere in which all people are free to engage in intellectual inquiry and in which oppressed groups aren’t targets of blatant discrimination and verbal harrassment. Banning terms like “faggot” sounds like a good idea. In principle, I agree with the argument that the common use of racial, ethnic, sexual and other such slurs are harmful of free and unbiased academic inquiry. At the same time, the historical context of many of those terms makes them far more loaded and troubling than terms such red-neck. (If you don’t believe me, ask yourself: “Would I rather be called a redneck or a nigger?”) In responding to that history, a great many people believe it’s appropriate to shield people from hearing historically offensive terms. While certainly well-meaning such impulses are misguided. We can’t deal effectively with prejudice and bigotry unless we call it what it is.

The larger conversation isn’t, “Stop using term X - it hurts people’s feelings.” The larger conversation it, “Term X is offensive because of its history. It has been used as an insult, as a dehumanizing term. It It cannot be used separate from that history.” We also have a right to ask - for what reasons are you choosing to use Term X?

In the case of Ann Coulter’s slur of John Edwards: The term faggot was cleary inappropriate. Edwards is heterosexual, demonstrably and publicly so. Coulter wasn’t calling his actual sexual orientation into question, she was trying to question his manhood, much as was done four years ago when he was dubbed the “Breck Girl.” Such language is targeted at the lizard brain - it’s job is to portray the target as weak, as “other”, as womanly in a bad way. When Coulter got the pushback, she retreated into the usual conservative shtick of “hysterical womanly liberals can’t take a joke.” The use of slurs in discourse is intended to do one thing - get in the way of discourse. That doesn’t mean we should ban them, it means we need to confront them strongly and identify them for what they are - then move on to the real issue of the debate.

At the end of the day, I’d rather have the raving street preachers at Utah Pride denouncing faggots on the street corner - not because its fun or even healthy but because their viciousness deserves a public forum. In some sense, I’d rather deal with an honest bigot like Chris Buttars than a dishonest one like Ronald Reagan - who covered his bigotry with all sorts of code words and pretty language. The price of being free to call Chris Buttars a bigot is being called a faggot by him. I can live with that.

This entry was posted Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 9:45 am and is filed under 2008 Election, American History, American People, Ann Coulter, Bigotry, Bigotry, Bullying, Chris Buttars, Democracy, Gail Rusika, Homophobia, National Politics, Neocons, Paul Mero, Reagan, Religious Fundamentalism, Republicans, Society, censorship. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.