Why I protect even offensive speech
Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)
This was going to be a letter to a colleague on here, but I figured what i need to say needs to be put out, considerign it is about the need to keep discussions in the public area.
Now, a lot of offensive speech is crap. Not crap that will be discovered to have been the greatest art of our age by the grandchildren type of crap, simple crap. I have no love for it, nor admiration of those who take cheap shots to get a buzz in a society where cheap shots get you more respect than talent does. Does anything think that when Charlie decided to announce that it's cover after the attacks would indeed be of mr. you know who (peace be upon him) that Dollar and Euro signs were not going up? "All is forgiven" my ass Charlie.
But when I defend offensive speech, there are two reasons:
1) Becuase attempts to hide or temper offensive ideas do NOT actually lessen the ideas, but allow those who have them to hide them better. The only thing that kills offensive ideas is PUBLIC View, where they can be shamed and ridiculed.
2) And this is sad, but true, the sort of successful, talented artists/journalists that have a safe nice and clout will often temper their own speech because, whether they admit it or not, they are AFRAID of risking their cushy seats. In other words, only those on the margins often dare to attack the powerful directly.
Take for example abortion rights. For years, no one even mentioned it on TV, especially prime time TV. The came Roseanne, a woman who frankly, knew that for all the prime time ratigns she got, she would be considered offensive. As true as it was for many Feminists, even a lot of her sisters hated her, because she would be honest about prejudices like weight, and oh yes, the American hot Button, what is was like to be WORKING CLASS POOR. The characters would PROUDLY call THEMSELVES "poor white trash" and oh yes, it got people ANGRY. When one of the young daughters talked about having an abortion, the wheels of the nation stopped, "HOW DARE THEY TALK ABOUT THAT!" But because Roseanne did not care about beign respectable, she did it, and then people talked.
Same network, different issue: Ellen Degenres, nice lady from New Orleans, ok comedian. She came out, and OMG how dare she? Yet I can gurantee you, every LGBT you talk to you will have a reaction to that moment, because "the love that dare not speak it's name" did on PRIME TIME TV.
Note that these two were Comediennes. Comedians, by definition, have to risk offending people. Even the "clean" routines can and will risk getting a mob riled, especially in an age where the Rich have many tools to make their old game high tech. Yes, a lot of comedy is trash, but the problem is that the people who control this culture know that the only people that are willing to risk attacking them are those on the fringes.
Larry Flynt is a sleaze that will NEVER amount to anything. His "porn" is not even all that good, not even playboy or maxim (which in itself as a damned low bar.) By all accounts, he is proud to be a terrible human being. Great Erotica, he will never make. Yet, out of all the talking heads and pundits, why was HE the one that dare to mock Jerry Falwell? Think of all that fine New England Intelligensia that was around at the time. Hell, think of Hugh Hefner, who unlike Flynt, wrapped himself in the mantle of Intellgensia. WHY were they derelict in their duty to attack Falwell, someone who came very very close to being to this country what ISIS is to Syria? Yes, there were many who could have, and damn well should have, been on the front line attacking falwell, but they sat back, let the funny porngrapher go to the supreme court, and hand Falwell the first bloody nose he got, giving the feminist satirists the supreme court won right to satrize the sexist arrogant white Dudes, as folks like the orginal SNL and others did very well in the 70's. They did it so well that the Right had to go to California and summon Ronnie Ray Gun, a washed up cowboy actor (and former head of a union) to regain control.
There is a sad reality to this: if our culture was as mature as we would like to think it is, we would not need comedians to be the ones to start public discussions. We would not even need internet boards. The fact is, we are not, and those in power do not fear the mainstream, because they know they have it in the palm of their hand, A major reason they do is that the intellectuals and established artists sell themselves CHEAP. It is easy to blunt their teeth, all it takes is a little money spread here, the threat of a little money taken here, and they will march in line as surely as the working class they claim to be better than.
It would be one thign even if those in power would leave us alone: Globalization and the internet promised us we could have our own bit of space and not have to step on other's toes. That is why there really IS no "prime time news" anymore, it's just another soft drink with different flavors. Would you like a DRY Bill Moyers, a sour sassy Rachel Maddow, or are you the "rebel" RT type. It's every bit as cynical as when Marlboro's were orginally marketed to women, with the fliters colored red to hide lipstick. Then when they found out men liked them more, in rode the Marlboro men. Even though some I think are sincere (like maddow, IMHO) the situation is such that the mainstream only has that much impact.
And there lies why we need offensive types, because even though those in power should not have need to attack you, they will, because they cannot stop. Everything that is not completely dominated is to be killed; that is the same MO for Isis, same MO for the Bible Thumpers, same MO for the "libertarians" whose main talk of liberty involves letting the rich white men do whatever they want. Take for example a site that rhymes with "Obstructionist." I can tell what Skinner's idea was: these people will show up anyway, let's give them a nice sandy sandbox and charge them for it, and keep them off DU. Nice idea, funny how it failed. Funny how these people on the nicer, shinier site still talk here about us, and still BRAG about rigging Juries and making sock puppets, and engaging in that all important quest to get those feminists, especially that one feminist in the sea that seems beyond their reach. They cannot stop focuSing on us, even though Skinner gave them gold and said "let those DU people have their silver." That is because those who dominate will NEVER have enough. Every feminist, non christian, poor person, could be incinerated in an hour, and these fiolks woudl focus on the "others", maybe the coalition of "white"males might redefine what is white, which will make that old grandpa former Klan member say something like "does that mean we can hate any male not of Pure Anglo-Saxon blood again, YEEEEE-HAWW!"
It does not stop,and the price of liberty IS eternal vigilance, including letting the comedians go through severald dozen bad routines, until they skewer the bastards hiding in the dark.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The pope advocated punching as a reaction to offence. I restrict that 'punching' to doing so metaphorically - with MY WORDS. I would never condone, suggest or advocate physical violence and he should be ashamed for doing so.
Also, remember, not EVERYONE here cheers for the pope. You know there are a number of us who punch back with our words with you. And we will continue to do so. 
