Free Speech

Lately, it seems that whenever a public figure makes unpopular statements, people cry out that he or she should be fired. Regardless of whether the speaker is engaging in political discourse or bigoted speech, those who disagree want the speaker to be silenced. For instance, Rosie O’Donnell is open about her opposition to the war in Iraq, her belief in the theory that WTC7 could have been felled by a controlled demolition , and mused that the Iran hostage crisis was reminiscent of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the White House lied to Congress by telling them that a U.S. warship was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. Based on that information, Congress authorized war powers to engage in the Vietnam War.

Bill O’Reilly caught wind of this discussion, and started spinning her comments to make it seem as if she is accusing the U.S. government of being directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He accused her of siding with Iran, and generally made her out to be a traitor. Moral outrage on the part of his minions ensued, and now there are websites and polls addressing whether O’Donnell should be fired.

Last Wednesday, Don Imus called the Rutgers Women’s basketball team “nappy headed hos” on the air. His sidekick later said watching them play University of Tennessee for the championship was like watching “the Jigaboos versus the Wannabes.” After making these comments last Wednesday, black leaders called for him to be fired by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Instead, he was suspended for two weeks, starting on April 16.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with O'Donnell's views. The ability to engage in political discourse and to communicate differing viewpoints is a cornerstone of democracy. It is troubling that O’Reilly can whip up support for canning O’Donnell based on her political speech. And, the fact that other news channels picked up on O’Reilly’s spin and treated it as actual news is deeply disturbing. Treating O’Reilly’s purported outrage at O’Donnell’s comments as a news story is hardly journalism. If someone disagrees with O’Donnell, it would be far more useful to have a thoughtful, fact-based discussion on the issues. Instead, O’Donnell’s critics call for her to be removed from the air, and for any debate to be quashed.

George Washington addressed the issue of freedom of speech when he was a general, and an anonymous writer was stirring the Continental Army to rebel against Congress. The writer told his audience to be skeptical of anyone who took a moderate stance, in an attempt to quiet those who disagreed with him. In response, Washington said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington, Newburg Address, March 1783. Washington recognized that chilling free and open discourse would destroy our nascent democracy. Then, he left his officers to freely and openly discuss the issue among themselves.

As for Imus, I agree with Washington Post sports reporter Michael Wilbon:

I don't care whether Don Imus apologizes, or whether he's fired. Freedom of speech allows him to say whatever he wants to say. But I've got freedom of speech, as well, and I prefer to have the right to rip his face off in print and on TV for saying, repeatedly, the racially offensive stuff he says over and over and over and over. He compares blacks and Hispanics to apes all the time. ALL THE TIME. It's not rare, it's not an exception. It's not a one-time deal. ALL THE TIME. He and the people in his studio act as if all Blacks are pimps and whores and all have gold teeth and are illiterate...I'm glad I'm guaranteed the right to come right back at a bigot of this level and say whatever I want to say...And I'm happy to go toe-to-toe. Happy to.

Imus’ comments are disgusting, and apparently not out of the norm for him. Such comments do nothing for the public discourse and are part of the schtick which has made him popular. If I were the head of CBS Radio or MSNBC, and he makes similar comments again, I would fire him.

O’Donnell and Imus both made unpopular, but very different, comments, and both commentators have heard calls for their heads on a platter. There is a distinction, though, between O’Donnell’s comments on the Iraq War and WTC7, and Imus’ comments about the basketball team. O’Donnell is engaging in political speech by questioning the actions of the government, while Imus is making racist comments for the amusement of himself and his listeners. By his own admission, he was “trying to be fun.” This is the distinction between political speech and patently offensive bigoted speech. As a nation, we should welcome and value political dissent, especially when we disagree with it. The opportunity to critically review our positions and advocate our stance is a valuable exercise in democracy. But, we should also insist on high standards of public discourse. Imus' comments brought all of us down into the mud and muck of racism, and the public outcry against him is right and good.