On Speech, Values, and Roseanne

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.