I stopped writing this blog about 6 months ago in part because
a busy life got in the way and in part because I assumed that after a year
people could see the things I was observing and writing about for themselves. Well, that assumption proved erroneous. So, while the busy life continues, I return
to the blog in the hopes of waking even one person from the stupor that lack of
independent and critical thinking creates.
Today is about free speech or lack thereof along with a
definition of racism. Let’s begin with
that definition: Racism is defined as “the belief
that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to
that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to
another race or races.” Someone
is a racist when the show or feel “discrimination or prejudice against people
of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another”. Disagreeing with an individual of another
race is not racism, although of course someone who is a racist might disagree
with a particular of another race. But,
it does not follow that everyone who does so is a racist. Similarly, name calling does not necessarily
prove racism or that someone is a racist; it is often simply a reflection of
someone’s poor judgement or bad behavior.
That is so even when the name-calling includes words that are racially
sensitive generally or to the particular individual against whom the name is
directed.
Now that those definitions have been clarified, lets turn to
the topic of free speech. It is on my
mind today because of ABC’s cancellation of the show Roseanne for the star’s
personal tweet which the network called “abhorrent”
but which social media labeled “racist.”
The tweets addressed both Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s aide) and Chelsea
Clinton. While it is not clear what is being called racist, I am assuming that
it is her statement that Jarett is like “the muslim brotherhood & planet of
the apes had a baby.” Ugly, yes. I personally don’t see this as a racist statement,
though I guess that some will find the word “ape” in any sentence associated
with a black person to be racist. (Of course, the Apes in planet of the apes
were pretty intelligent, one might recall).
Perhaps it is instead the reference to the Muslim brotherhood since
Jarett was born in Iran? Roseanne almost
immediately apologized for making a “bad joke about her politics and her looks….my
joke was in bad taste.” Yes, it
was.
But was it really any more abhorrent than Jimmy Kimmel making
fun of Melania Trump’s accent – not as a private individual but on his ABC
television show? Wasn’t that not only a “joke”
about Melania but also a derogatory statement about all immigrants? Kimmel also later apologized for his “bad joke.”
So, we have two “jokes” attacking individuals associated
with a political perspective contrary to that of the person making the
joke. One puts her joke on Twitter, then
almost immediately apologizes. The other
broadcasts his joke from his TV show and then doubles down on it before
ultimately apologizing. One “joke” was
clearly directed at (the parentage) of just one individual. The other was arguably directed at an entire group
of people. Both individuals have shows on ABC and the Melania joke was broadcast
on that ABC show. One gets fired, the
other doesn’t.
There are some differences between the two “jokes”, but they
are similar enough that one would think that ABC’s treatment of them would also
be similar. Yet, Roseanne’s show is
cancelled, Kimmel’s is not. In
cancelling Roseanne, ABC stated that Roseanne’s Twitter statement was “inconsistent
with our values.” I am at a loss to understand why Kimmel’s on air jokes about
Melania are not also inconsistent with the network’s values along with his and
many other ABC personnel statements that make personal attacks about those
associated with Trump (I am not referring to attacks on the substance of
policies, etc, but rather to personal attacks on appearance, etc., or simply
unfounded name calling). Perhaps I just don’t understand ABC’s definition for
its “values.”
So, this leads me to more general comments on the idea of
free speech.
First, yes, there is a right to free speech, but that does
not mean that it is always right to exercise it. Common decency should cause one to restrain
oneself from uttering every single speech that might be allowable under the Constitution. There is no need to make fun of how someone
looks or talks, and it is simply polite not to do so. There is no need to make fun of everyone one
disagrees with, no need to hold up the severed head of the president, even
jokingly. There is no need to use the
right of free speech to attack everyone and everything that one disagrees
with. It would be far better to instead
use speech to open a dialogue with those with differing views.
Secondly, the right of free speech does not just pertain to
accepted or popular speech. It does not
pertain just to politically correct speech.
Many today seem to think it is perfectly OK to shout down or otherwise
censor speech with which they do not agree.
Yet it is that free market place of ideas and opposing views, freely spoken
and discussed, which are the mark of a truly free society.
So, back to ABC. It
seems that they have chosen to punish someone who speaks from a point of view
with which they do not agree, yet if not reward, at least not punish someone
whose political positions reflect their own.
If these are the values that ABC lauds as its justification for the
cancellation of Roseanne, then they are, in the opinion of this author,
worthless and false morals that do not reflect the ideals of this country but
which instead support the denial of free speech that moves us ever further from
our freedom.
