We’ve run a couple of pointer posts here about the spectacle of actor Mel Gibson apparently issuing forth a series of antisemitic comments when he was arrested on a DUI in that wild town of Malibu. (Oh. Reports say Gibson told the officer he “owns” it.)
Readers say, well, what do you think about it? Ed Morrissey says some of it better than we can say:
Mel Gibson made an ass out of himself this weekend, first by driving while drunk, and then by reportedly spewing antisemitic slurs while police officers took him into custody. As he said in his apology, Gibson’s remarks were despicable, and regardless of his state of sobriety, he richly deserves his embarrassment for those actions and remarks.
Some have said that his controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, should be reevaluated in light of Gibson’s alleged latent antisemitism. Of course, people are free to do so, although people didn’t appear to be shy in reviewing the film on those terms during its release over two years ago…. Gibson invited those reconsidered evaluations with his remarks, as well as speculation on the motivation behind his upcoming work on the Holocaust.
But now, Morrissey notes, the Gibson controvesy is shifting into a new area.
There still IS Freedom Of Speech and that oft-exercised freedom not outlined in our constitution — Freedom Of Stupidity. (Without the latter, there would be no political conventions selecting candidates in either party.)
Morrissey points to THIS STORY that indicates Abraham Foxman, the national director of the US Jewish Anti-Defamation League, is calling for a criminal probe into whether Gibson committed a hate crime.
HUH?? Morrissey again:
What crime does Foxman claim Gibson violated with these remarks? Americans have the right to say some pretty stupid things. Hell, the blogosphere proves that almost every day!
Correct (and some readers will say this post gives additional proof).
So here are some additional thoughts on the Mel Gibson controversy:
- You can already see polarization in the reaction. Some of Gibson’s defenders insist it didn’t matter what he said, it wasn’t really all that hateful, and they seem to be slipping into the role of defense lawyer. If he wasn’t Mel Gibson the guy who made a movie that many say was a life changing experience but Ed Smith down the street who had been arrested for DUI and was reportedly quoted in a police report saying those things they wouldn’t defend him. This is indicative of the breakdown in adhering to political values with consistency, a troubling trend in the 21st century — a century where the highest value seems to be placed on political expediency.
- Gibson isn’t guilty of a hate crime. He’s guilty of a crime of professional stupidity. Even if he makes zillions of dollars on his next projects he will make a certain amount LESS because there are people who will not pay one cent to benefit his bank account.
- Unless he asserts that the comments were made up by the police and makes the case, his stature within the news media will never be quite the same and the studio heads who look at the bottom line will likely continue to do so but since many of their names aren’t Lebanese they now know what he’s really thinking. His upcoming Holocaust TV project may face big problems. His status may change in Hollywood.
- His defenders who say he was only drunk when he reportedly made the antisemitic comments forget the old saying that “the ego is soluble in alcohol.” People say things they wish they didn’t say because drinking removes inhibitions.
- It’s no crime to open your mouth and reportedly show that you’re a bigot, that you generalize about a whole group of people, that you blame them for starting all the world’s wars.
- Gibson is handling it partially right: acknowledge the big screw up, say it was wrong, then try to move on. But he can’t move on (in media and political cultural terms) until he shows more contrition.
Perhaps the silliest comment of the year came from Matt Drudge on his radio show last night. He said he won’t believe this report at all until a video or audio tape is produced.
Really? People are tried and convicted, or even have their lives altered without a trial, by negative information contained in police reports. And there isn’t always a video or audio tape that backs up or duplicates the police report.
Why should the whole way the law works be changed just because some people who like a film Gibson made and feel grateful that he made it because it speaks to them religiously and perhaps politically want to lessen the consequences of his actions?
If confirmation exists that the police report does indeed say Gibson said what reports contend he says, then no audio or video tapes would be needed. It would be confirmation enough for most Americans.
And to those who feel it isn’t confirmation enough, then why don’t you to this:
If ever your son, daughter, spouse or parent is killed by a drunken driver, make sure you go into court and demand that all information in the police report be eliminated from the trial unless it’s backed up by audio or video tape confirmation or documentation.
PS: I have to run now. I have four more wars to start by midnight.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.