Every few weeks or so, folks get all riled up because someone, whose fame and legitimacy often elude me, makes some asinine statement... and folks who disagree call for a retraction or boycott... and networks and publicists scramble for a response... and sometimes people get fired, or suspended, or shamed...
and in the meantime, those networks, publicists, magazines, and "celebrities" end up getting all kinds of free press and attention for something that was absurd to say in the first place.
At that point, many of us wish it would just be over and done with, while we wait for the next guy to have a Neanderthal-Freudian slip.
But then, some other folks usually end up talking about "free speech." Even if they claim not to agree with whatever was said, and even if they claim to be horrified that anyone actually still thinks that way, they are apparently even more horrified that public outrage would lead to this poor guy being "censored" by the same machine that manufactured him in the first place.
The argument proceeds that while no one in their right mind (except, perhaps, in the quiet [and often not-so-quiet] thoughts of at least 30 or 40% of the nation) should say such things out loud, they most definitely have a right to say them. If anyone attempts to silence them, it is an affront to their civil liberties, constitutional rights, and indeed the very fabric of our democratic society.
Except, of course, it's not. In any way. A violation of "free speech."
One has every right to say the most insanely offensive things that come to mind, in any public forum. This is plainly obvious, as Phil Robertson is not in prison - nor will he be, unless he breaks an actual law. He was "censored," but not by any legal entity. Rather, he was "censored" by the corporate executives who grant him the privilege of having a lucrative stage from which to project himself, his family, and his views. When celebrities say stupid things, the corporate mechanisms that handle them have to make decisions about how to position themselves in order to maximize profit.
Since we are living in a culture where people are (slowly) becoming less prone to say out loud the kinds of things Phil said to GQ, and more prone to think that those thoughts are best kept to one's self, A&E decided that it was in their best corporate interest to put Phil in a time out for a while. I'm sure he'll be just fine. Indeed, my guess is that after the Twitterverse has moved on to some other bizarre display of (in)humanity, Phil, the rest of the Ducks, and A&E will have made even more money than before.
We do live in a country where, thankfully, one is free to say (almost) anything one wants, no matter how awful or ignorant. The rare exceptions are when one's speech puts others in immanent danger (certain kinds of violence-inducing hate speech, or the proverbial yelling "fire!" in public when there is no fire).
We also live in a country where money talks. Whatever makes the most money for those who (usually) already have a bunch of it - this is the real "rule" by which we live.
So people on all sides of any issue can say whatever they want, and they'll never be censored by any state entity. But if what they say ends up losing money for the corporations they belong to, then their bosses will surely react to position themselves to lose as little as possible - and maybe even make some profit in the end.
This is why you can legally hang a Confederate flag or a sexually-explicit Robert Maplethorpe print in your cubical at work. But if your customer base finds those "expressions" offensive, you will probably lose your job. Choices have consequences.
But you won't go to jail. Because we believe in "free speech."
"Free speech," however, does not mean that anyone has to like what you have to say. And it certainly doesn't mean you are entitled to a privately-funded but very public platform from which to project it. Get a megaphone and spew bigoted nonsense from a soap box in Central Park; no one will stop you.
I wonder if what's really going on with the Phil Robertson debacle is a slowly growing awareness among some corners of this country that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is losing its effectiveness as an "argument" about sexual ethics. Because it's gross and offensive.
Lots of people still make that connection in their minds, but saying it out loud is slowly becoming "inappropriate" in polite company. Eventually, it will be similar to white folks saying the "n" word in public (ask Paula Deen about that one). It's still "legal" to say the "n" word, but if you want to keep your job or your friends, in an growing segment of our country, it's not a good idea. (Not to mention: it's just plain wrong.)
Which means that folks who don't like gay people will find themselves needing more thoughtful (?) ways of making their feelings known in the public sphere. They can still cling to the old "bestiality" line (or any other reductive and dehumanizing argument about people's private parts and lives...), but more and more, folks are finding this argument impolite, insensitive, and wrong.
This is not the creeping spectre of a Big Brother State invading your private thoughts and silencing your "free speech." That won't happen. What will happen (I pray) is that slowly but surely these beliefs about other people's relationships will be dismissed by an evolving public as irrational and offensive. Because they are.
(Kinda like how folks used to argue about how people of African descent were categorically different and lesser beings than people of European descent... like maybe only 3/5ths of a "real" person. Remember when you could make that argument in public without almost everyone around you thinking you were a crazy racist? Me neither. That's called "progress.")
Which means our friends who don't like gay people are faced with a choice:
a) keep on saying irrational and offensive things about other human beings, in public, and face increasingly uncomfortable consequences - imposed not by the state, but by the market and the human community;
b) evolve their thinking about the issue to a new way of regarding other human beings who happen to live and love differently; or
c) hold on to these beliefs, but come up with a more reasonable and less offensive argument than "gay people are just like folks who rape goats."
What I think might be terrifying for folks who (maybe secretly) agree with Phil is that, when push comes to shove, every single argument about how people who love people of the same gender are somehow categorically subhuman eventually falls completely apart. They keep trying - but it's not working. And no one likes to feel ignorant, even if that's precisely what they are.
(That's not to say that all arguments in opposition to same gender relationships are rightly called "ignorant." Some are better than others, although I honestly have never heard one that can withstand intense, reasonable scrutiny [I invite any and all contributions to my moral education.]. I do, however, firmly believe that connecting same-gender expression to bestiality is a fundamental confusion of basic categories. It's sloppy reasoning which fails utterly to take into account matters of consent, power, relationship, justice, mutuality... Some folks might want to argue that bestiality is morally acceptable [and I absolutely am not one of those people], but then we would be talking about a completely different category of relationship - a wholly different issue. To confuse the two is, in my humble opinion, worthy to be called "ignorant.")
Have no fear: you will always have the "right" to be publicly ignorant, mean, and/or offensive. But while there will never be legal consequences for that, there will be consequences. Usually financial. Often social.
But hey - I just saw Paula Deen eating a stick of butter and chatting it up with her son on cable TV, so, chances are, Father Duck will be just fine.
* Note: this post has been edited to explain my use of the term "ignorant," which some may consider to be offensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment