We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
rights vs. wrongs
Free speech: freedom for whom?
The thoughts so well expressed by Mike Cox in Freeing Free Speech once again set me thinking about my own attitudes to this thorny issue. It’s a difficult one for me; on the one hand I’m pretty much against censorship and all for free speech, on the other I despise those who sneer at ‘political correctness’ for no other reason than that it curtails their right to be offensive to people who are different from them.
I can see nothing offensive in nudity – male or female – and scoff at the double standards of news sites when subs (do they still have subs?) write screamers like [Insert name of celebrity] DARING TOPLESS PICS over photos that have black bars hiding the supposedly daring bits, but I am enraged by what amounts to the kiddy-porn that is the stock-in-trade of Toddlers and Tiaras. I support the right of people to make and buy pornographic films featuring supernaturally appendaged adults but would like to see life-sentences for those who exploit the powerless to produce it. And why in the name of Old Harry would any local or state government waste police time setting up sting operations to catch prostitutes and in the same breath resist efforts to regulate the industry? In my five years in the US I never ceased to be amazed and amused by the attitudes of the general public and the self-styled arbiters of public taste towards anything that may have been contrary to what appear to the outsider as ironclad laws of irrational national etiquette.
I’ll never forget Mike Williams on NBC warning people that a book under discussion “contained the word [Bleeeep] in the title” then showing the offending volume on camera to prove that the jacket did indeed bear the word “Hell”, but at least we hadn’t heard it from him and this dreadful breach of NBC’s standards – formulated I presumed to protect the delicate ears of a militant Christian minority – was the author’s. On PBS’s ‘Mystery Theatre’, female corpses on mortuary slabs in British detective shows had their nipples and pubic mounds blurred, but you could see their horrific wounds in HD. If that was still too offensive, why, just change the channel to watch ‘family entertainment’ featuring two-year-old girls in heavy make-up, feathers and pre-kindergarten versions of g-strings strutting and shimmying in ghastly parody of 1920s burlesque queens and presided over by a gay man who either has no conscience or is as thick as two short planks. And I’ll bet those same parents who push their baby girls on stage to strut and shake imaginary breasts no doubt gasp in horror when an artist exhibits pictures of her own naked children and want all paedophiles summarily castrated before they are executed.
One day in a supermarket, checking the price on a ‘leg’ of lamb caused me to undergo an involuntarily lapse into Australian dialect: “jesus-bloody-christ, forty bloody dollars!” (Australians pronounce that bloke’s name, and his dad’s, without capitals). A fat man in camo gear, face turning purple, turned on me and wagged a fist in my direction: “Y’all are goin’ to Hell sah. To suffah fire and damnation f’evah.” I replied that he might want to leave my vicinity in case “…the old feller’s aim with the lightning was a bit off,” then instantly regretted it as the devout gentlemen seemed about to suffer a stroke. Yet on teevee I could watch the preachers and politicians that many fat men and women who wear camo gear admire seemingly ejaculate in their designer underwear as they drooled over phrases such as ‘homoseksyooal child molesters’ and ‘godless A-rab Moozlms’.
And can you tell me why people in the US, well teevee ‘personalities’ anyway, use ‘ass’ and ‘butt’ and the even worse, ‘buns’ with gay [oops] abandon, yet rarely ‘boobs’ and never ‘tits’, and in a serious discussion about offensive language insist on alluding to the “N word”, usually with those stupid finger gestures that have replaced voice inflection? What’s worse is the opinion often expressed by people who should know better that it is all right if “they” use the “N word” to describe “themselves”. No it isn’t. No matter who utters it, nigger is horrible and is offensive – at least used in the way it is today – but if you want to dissuade people from such vile name calling, then coy euphemisms aren’t really going to help. And used like that, “they” is damn near as fraught with offensiveness as “N word”. Let’s call a spade a spade, but of course I won’t – or shouldn’t – in this context because I’m intelligent enough to know that there are people without my vocabulary or ability to read or interpret who might be offended by it and others who will think it funny and still others who would deliberately use that time-honored saw precisely because they know it will offend just about everybody, allowing them to shed crocodile tears over political correctness and its interference with their the right to free speech.
Sadly, Australia is once again following the Confused Right of US politics. Our new conservative government is led by Tony Abbott (yes, that’s his name), a Lycra-wearing, Catholic, ex-seminarian xenophobe who seems to have problems relating to women in anything other than a subservient role. It replaces one which, when led by a woman, was ranked fifth in the world by Forbes, apparently so deeply affecting the Mad Monk that he has appointed just one woman to his cabinet, as Foreign Minister, and she a simpering sycophant who has now been the token Exhibit A female in two conservative governments. Her name? Julie Bishop. It doesn’t get much better than that, now does it? The Abbott also recently appointed to his Priory of Fools a commissioner of human rights who has vowed to replace political correctness with the right to free speech, i.e. the right to belittle anyone not a member of the privileged, white, anglophile elite. His argument – and presumably his boss’s – is that public opprobrium will be a greater deterrent to racially offensive and inflammatory language than any legislation could be. Yeh? Pull the other leg, mate, it plays In the Sweet By and By.
Among the strongest ramparts against xenophobia, racism and countless other isms are a broad-based education, a broad mind and a well-worn passport. I was absolutely stunned by an audience’s collective gasp when as part of a public performance in Western Australia I told a Kentucky joke about ’coon hunters. Coon is a derogatory Australian word for an Aboriginal but the audience should have been sophisticated enough to have known that it has other meanings elsewhere. Not one of them would have thought twice about telling someone they had a caught a wog when referring to a cold, but would never in a million years use the same word to describe an immigrant from the Mediterranean. It seems that education is now so narrowly industry-focused that general knowledge is becoming a thing of the past, deemed unnecessary by the Lords of Finance and Industry. It is apparently deemed simpler to edit offensive words from Mark Twain novels than educate people about the era in which the books were written.
When we are told that a group of ignorant, bigoted, bible-thumping homophobes are allowed to obtain perverted sexual gratification by intruding on the grief of mourners and expressing joy at the death of their loved ones by exercising their rights to free speech, then perhaps the concept needs redefining. When the pursuit of happiness impinges on the rights of our fellow citizens to go about their lives in peace, then maybe we’re getting too much of a good thing.
- Image: Hear No Evil See No Evil Speak No Evil - licensed by LikeTheDew.com - © amfroey01 - Fotolia.com
This work by LikeTheDew.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
Recently my wife and I attended a reunion of her first cousins (and their spouses). These cousins are the children of the children of a couple of Swedish immigrants who settled in Iowa to farm in the late 19th century. What a wonderful family event! Just enough people to fill all the seats around a table not so big we couldn't all converse together. In all our time together, there wasn't a single hurtful word. Even the spouses, like me, were embraced in the family feeling, all glad to be together. All these cousins -- except for the two children of those Read on →
People like Bill O'Reilly call upon people to raise themselves up while helping keep a foot on their necks. Conservatives like O'Reilly do have some kernels of truth on their side. They rightly think people should develop good character, including virtues such as discipline and responsibility for oneself. And they are rightly concerned to assure that social policies don't discourage people from developing such virtues. But after those kernels of truth, their map of the world is dominated by a river of denial. First, as Jon Stewart pointed out in his confrontation with O'Reilly, they deny how much their own ascent was boosted Read on →
In a class on Dante I'm currently enrolled in, Professor Frank Ambrosio of Georgetown University quoted the nineteenth century philosopher Friedric Nietzsche that human beings, as far as we know, are the only animals who make promises. I only add that humans are also the sole ones who break them. According to Ambrosio, Nietzsche puts the significance of human promising and its place with regard to freedom this way: "In man, nature set itself the task to breed an animal worthy of making promises." It's an extraordinary idea. What is it that allows an animal that lives in the here and now to Read on →
The ethical man keeps his hands to himself and does not destroy what he admires and loves. The ethical man does not subscribe to the excuse that “you always hurt the one you love. The ethical hurts no-one at all. Most of the electorate is probably too young to remember the perverse responses Jimmy Carter’s admission of having lusted in his heart occasioned among Republicans. In retrospect, it seems rather obvious that people, who live and die by the euphemism, were ready to believe that Carter had uttered a prevarication, as they, surely would have done themselves. Moreover, because it came out Read on →