Dear Elyse,
It has been a long time. What were we when last we saw each other? Sixteen? And then we only knew each other for two dates, one a movie and the other an afternoon at your home in Skokie. But I have not forgotten and trust that you remember too.
Recently I have been reminded that Nazis have marched, under the guise of freedom, through Skokie, with its long and deep Jewish heritage, spewing hate and wrath in the unwilling faces of elderly holocaust survivors and the not so elderly who, like you, are their offspring generations removed. In having a discussion on freedom of speech that touched on this subject, you came to mind. Elyse, should you read this by chance, the writing of it caused me to think kindly of you and to hope that you are well.
Before going further, I listened again to Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks singing “Not Ready to Make Nice.” Natalie Maines, if you don’t remember, said publicly that she was ashamed to be from the same state as President George W. Bush after the start of the Iraq War. She received death threats, was told to “shut up and sing” and had her recordings pulled from most country radio stations. But she wasn’t imprisoned or expelled from college for expressing her views. These years later, many Americans who questioned her patriotism at the time respect her courage in exercising her freedom of speech.
Do you have any doubt that the Bush administration would have pursued her given the choice? They tried indirect censorship by allowing reporters only through imbedding with troops, rather than true independent reporting. Remember? Nixon pursued Daniel Ellsberg, and took a shot at prior restraint by getting court orders against newspapers trying to publish the Pentagon Papers. It took three different newspapers, all determined to exercise freedom of speech and press, to outflank Nixon’s Justice Department. And today, the “liberal” Obama administration wants to prosecute Edward Snowden for disclosing NSA secrets.
History is replete with examples, from all sides, of government excess when given the power to censor the speech of its citizens. Ask the families of those who died for speaking out in Chile during the Pinoche regime, or those who died or still sit in Cuban prisons for speaking against the Castro regime…or before that those who spoke against Batista, only to be freed by Castro who then refilled the prisons with those who disagreed with him.
And, I am mindful of Fred Phelps and his offensive disruption of funeral services for fallen soldiers in expressing his homophobic hate. There too were those of the left who solicited the burning and bombing of America from within. That also relied on a message of hate and violence.
There is, of course, another side. Free speech leads to disagreement and lack of harmony. It invites debate and hard feelings. It is often a cause of incivility and, at its worst, violence. Little that I see in our world comes as pure virtue, without warts.
Elyse, you may see things differently than I. Many do. Please bear with me as I share a few thoughts on some things that cross my mind. That you, or others, may disagree with my position is accepted and expected. Please, for your part, understand that it is the ability to openly disagree that is one of the great virtues of free expression. If we must all think and speak the same, or within only a narrow range, we lose, I think, the ability to grow and learn from one another, even from the most foul and vile among us. But to the points.
Micro-aggression. Not everyone knows what this term means. As I understand it, micro-aggression is the use, even if unintentional, of certain words, phrases or attitudes that reinforce negative stereotypes. One example would be use of the universal male descriptor as in “all men” when all people is the intended context. The universal male reinforces the subjugation of the female. Theoretically, the perpetuation of discriminatory thinking through language makes sense to me, though I recoil at the thought of legislating politically correct speech. More on that in a bit.
Polite Speech versus Free Speech. These two are not the same to me, though I understand the desire that only polite speech be deemed worthy of freedom. As you know, Elyse, I was raised in a home where manners and politeness were valued and taught. I hope I have passed those virtues on to my daughter. Speaking in a manner that is not intended to offend or provide a predicate to violence is certainly much to be desired. To me, though, it is short of free speech or free expression which is the right to say whatever one pleases, including the vulgar and mean spirited, without fear of governmental retribution, but with the understanding that there may be private consequences. See my example of Natalie Maines above. “Polite” speech is a personal choice, the result of education and upbringing. “Free” speech is a constitutional guarantee.
Hate Crimes. This is the one that gets me in the most hot water with my liberal friends. Hate crime legislation generally enhances the penalty, often resulting in a longer prison sentence, depending on what one says while committing a crime. Calling out a discriminatory epithet while assaulting a person is the most common example. This “extra” prison sentence for thinking or saying something unpopular has always offended me. However vile one’s thoughts or speech it should not result in imprisonment or the extension of imprisonment.
Ends versus Means. Perhaps my friends and I part ways more when it comes to means than to ends. As I look at the value of speech in civil society, I appreciate the desire to use language in a way that seeks out unity and peace rather than conflict and separation. To me, though, that value is personal, not legislative. When governmental bodies become involved, unity and politeness become excuses for censorship, and the bounds of censorship are always determined by the persons, parties or powers in being at any given time and place. I do not wish on my fellow beings that they live in a world where a governmental body determines who should be imprisoned for saying what. Nor do I see virtue in a world where only politically correct liberals are deserving of avoiding expulsion from colleges and universities…if only the politically correct are worthy of college degrees, we will have sacrificed the greater virtue of diversity of critical thinking.
Elyse, this letter has run on, I fear, to excess. Thank you for your patience. Whatever else may come of this discussion, it has brought me joy that it caused me once again to think of you. I hope that you have lived long and well, and that you may live longer and better still.
My very best regards,
E. S.
graphic via shutterstock.com
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.