The Jewish people have suffered a layered history of persecution. Among the difficulties of their past lies demeaning, racist speech. When anti-Semitic speech is thrown into the war between offensive speech and free speech, the battlegrounds become much more heated whether it is on a national or local level.
One of the most publicized national debates was over Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Passion of the Christ was Gibson’s graphic interpretation of Jesus’s crucifixion. Many objected due to Gibson’s position with the portrayal. Gibson’s father is known for citing the Holocaust as fiction (3).
Katha Pollit stated, “Gibson has violated just about every precept of the conference's own 1988 ‘Criteria’ for the portrayal of Jews in dramatizations of the Passion” (1). Yes, there are limits set by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for passion plays. The Conference set out distinct guidelines to dodge anti-Semitic depictions in the Passion story (2).
Many individuals called for the movie to be banned. If any form of speech is banned, all free speech is threatened. Furthermore, guidelines restricting speech blatantly strip First Amendment values. It is not up to the any organization to set rules on what can or cannot be said. It undermines the protections of the First Amendment. It is up to an individual to censor himself or herself. If such individual does not wish to censor himself or herself, it is their right.
On a local level, anti-Semitic speech is causing quite the debate. The local public television channel, UPTV, is under intense scrutiny. UPTV broadcasts films by pastor Ted Pike. The content is offensive and often anti-Semitic. Many Urbana residents have voiced requests to create hate speech ordinances and laws. Others have called for the end of UPTV (5).
In response, Urbana Resident David Gehrig stated “Concerning UPTV, I think that it would be a terrible shame if one looney-tune with a swastika fetish caused the entire public access channel to be closed down”(6).
The ACLU believes open access debate should be allowed on UPTV, countering anti-Semitic content with other free speech.
If UPTV were shut down, it would effectively censor us all. By striping one man’s right to demean a community, we would strip the community’s right to rebuild. I agree with the ACLU’s opinion. Whether or not speech demeans a culture, censorship will demean a society.
Sources:
(1) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/pollitt
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12754
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-02-19-gibson-main_x.htm
(4) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(5) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(6) http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/11/01/uptv_could_become_antizionism_channel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although I feel hate speech really is unnecessary, I completely agree with your view that UPTV shouldn't be shut down--as a democracy, the marketplace of ideas and the First Amendment give us a unique opportunity to debate and attempt to reconcile others' ideas--wrong and right-- with our own. It reminds me of the quote attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/331.html
It is essential to the well-being of our country and the continued freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment that all speech is protected, as long as it does not stray into the Supreme Court's exceptions (obscenity, fighting words, etc). In the long run, shutting down UPTV would do no good--it would only stop all speech, "good" and "bad", from being aired to the general public for their own dissection of its merit, or lack thereof.
Nicole's quote is very accurate. Although it is very hard for me to defend such speech, the idea of hate speech is protected. It is conduct that has been labeled as "Hate Crimes" that a person can be prosecuted for. Furthermore, speaking of the acts does not constitute as conduct, only the acts themselves. By shutting down UPTV, they would be silencing the entire medium, not just the hated speech. If those against Pike would like to see his show be taken off the air, the public should protest his views, boycott the viewing of his show and not attend his sermons. By public action and not the banning of an entire public access channel, racism can be defeated without threatening the first amendment rights of others.
I do agree with you whole-heartedly that UPTV is (however unfortunately) protected, and for no reason shouldn't be. I do personally think it is sad that people feel so much hatred that they feel the need to spread it like a plague to anyone who will listen, but the fact of the matter is, there will always be someone who agrees with a speaker.
And you're right, "If UPTV were shut down, it would effectively censor us all." Just because a majority audience would find content distasteful, if there is an audience, there can, and SHOULD, be nothing done to hinder it.
Post a Comment