Okay, GOP, Defend Speech You Don’t Agree With

palin-tolerance-350As the dust settles over A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson’s interview in GQ, I’d like to offer a challenge to all who defended his right to wax nostalgic about how happy black people were before the civil rights era (also stating that Shintoism is basically Nazism and homosexuality is basically bestiality). To all those who rushed to Robertson’s defense—invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, specifically free speech in an effort to immunize against any repercussions—I’d like to dare you folks to defend controversial speech that doesn’t fit your worldview.

If you really believe in free speech, if you really think it’s in danger of being abridged, if you really believe it’s an absolute right of living in a free country—then stand up for liberals who say dumb things, too. Rally for Alec Baldwin. How about the governor of Louisiana spend an afternoon tweeting support for Martin Bashir’s alleged right to a basic cable show. Get some Change.org petitions going. Get these people back on TV!

In 2010, Sarah Palin called for President Obama’s then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be fired because he privately used the word “retarded.” Palin was so offended by the word “retard” she equated it to the “N-word” (then later passionately defended the use of the “N-word” when Dr. Laura was the one slinging it across the airwaves). Palin cited her child with Down Syndrome as the reason Rahm should lose his job for his potty mouth. She wrote on Facebook: “I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts.”

I have no idea what “indecent tactics to cloud efforts” means but I defend her right to use her random thesaurus generator app to create fake controversies against her political enemies.

Corporations should not have to sponsor people who say things which will hurt their brand. That’s their choice. It’s, in the literal sense, their business. The Constitution is about what the government can and can’t do—not what A&E execs can and can’t do. That’s the issue I have with privatization: It erodes liberties ensured by the government.

But also, my telling you to shut up is not infringing on your constitutional rights. There is no law or ordinance against private citizens telling each other to shut their yap traps, nor should there be. The First Amendment is about the government—specifically Congress—not creating laws to curb speech.

That being said—you the chattering class of conservative culture war mercenaries; you the Trumped-up, tooth-bleached, memo-driven, outrage industrial complex genuflectors; you the good-old-days evangelizing, controversy-touting, overly aghast gasbags: You don’t actually believe in free speech. So shut up.

Why am I convinced America’s right wing is not a bastion of unfettered—uninterrupted—speech impunity? I’ll sum it up in one name: Shirley Sherrod.

There was no 24-hour news cycle defense of Shirley Sherrod being able to say whatever she wanted without consequence. No. Her words were taken out of context—edited with an agenda—and she lost her job as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture along with her reputation. Did anyone at Fox News stand up and raise an inaccurate interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment to defend Ms. Sherrod? No.

They’re for selective free speech. It’s like saying everyone has an absolute right to own a gun as long as you’re a Republican. Then you are not actually for the absolute right to own a gun. You’re for the absolute rights of Republicans.

tina-dupuy-2013So here’s my plea to the “decency” police—Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Gov. Bobby Jindal and their many parrots: Defend speech you don’t agree with. Stand up for the right to an opinion you don’t share.

Phil Robertson isn’t the first right wing public figure to say racist and flatly stupid things in a magazine profile. He won’t be the last. But if Free Speech is actually something you believe in then you’ll be for it when speech is offensive to you, not just when it’s offensive to those you oppose.

Tina Dupuy
Taking Eternal Vigilance Too Far

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. martaz says

    You know what would be a really fantastic idea for the New Year? For progressives to ignore this woman who does not yet understand that her three minutes of fame are OVER. Every word, every photo that you print of her only enlarges her cancerous ego.
    To a narcissist, any publicity is good publicity. She’ll Google herself and be so pleased that you wrote about her.

  2. Ryder says

    This article presents a bogus premise. I’ll leave R Zwarich’s comments to stand on their own… an eloquent observation if we allow the premise in the first place.

    But the premise itself is flawed for failing to understand the issue at hand.

    Tina is not the only one to fall short of understanding the issue… such people are to be found on both sides of the argument.

    The Constitution cannot be properly cited as the guarantor of Robertson’s freedom to say what he wants without repercussion, and for the the most part, so far as I have seen, his defenders generally do NOT use it that way.

    See Ann Coulter’s piece this past week on the subject.

    In fact, I don’t believe I’ve come across anyone that says that A&E could not fire him because the 1st Amendment protects his speech.

    Instead, what I observe, is that people cite the hypocrisy of the left that pretends to stand upon a pillar of tolerance, when they routinely are very intolerant. When you practice “tolerance” only of the things you approve of to begin with, well, that’s a brand of tolerance that has no real function.

    To the extent that people have referred to the First Amendment in Robertson’s defense, I observe that it is meant as a place holder for the high value we place on *expression*, and that A&E, by *acting to remove* Robertson from our televisions were demonstrating that they placed the importance of not being objectionable *above* the natural right of expression.

    In other words, A&E was wrong to side with the politically correct crowd instead of cherished natural rights. They made the wrong choice.

    Tina makes the mistake that this is all about defending things you don’t agree with. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Part of expression is to express disagreement with others for their beliefs.

    But don’t preach *tolerance* of ideas (which is different from protecting expression), and then *act* to silence ideas you don’t like.

  3. R Zwarich says

    I have great respect for Ms. Dupuy’s writing, but the layers of irony enveloping this particular piece are somewhat mind-boggling. It sure sounds like a pot and a kettle on every side, all calling each other black.

    I applaud Ms. Dupuy’s devotion to Voltaire’s proverbial, and seminally democratic pronouncement that, “I despise what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it”, but she seems to miss her own point by aiming her lecture at the GOP. The fact that she is defending attacks on ‘free speech that one doesn’t agree with’ from the progressive Left by deriding the same proclivity among those on the Right detracts rather heavily from the righteous nobility of her thesis.

    This piece would be more genuine, i.e.: it would be more true to its own thesis, if it were aimed at anyone, on the Right or the Left, who would attempt to abridge the freedom of others to express opinions simply because the would-be abridgers disagree with those opinions.

    RZ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *