Freedom Of Speech


Benjamin_Franklin_freedom_of_speech_quoteFreedom of speech has become increasingly complicated. For one thing, the US Supreme Court ruled back in the mid-1900s that “speech” included things like burning the American flag. In other words, acts of protest were repositioned as speech.

Hence, the people here in SoCal protesting the August 2014 shooting in Ferguson had freedom of “speech” to block traffic by walking down the middle of some streets. Not freeways, though. Their freedom of “speech” had some limits.

A few weeks ago, freedom of speech was front and center because of the supposed North Korean threats to Sony and movie theaters that would release The Interview. This film purportedly was about two reporters who were recruited to assassinate North Korea’s leader.

It strikes me now that The Interview joked about doing what the Islamic terrorists actually did in France. Be that as it may, actors and directors and pretty much anyone in Hollywood were up in arms about the “censorship” North Korea was trying to impose on the US movie industry.

Of course those cries would be far different if the film depicted North Koreans coming to the US to assassinate President Obama. I suspect Homeland Security would have been heavily involved in squashing such a project—which probably would not have been called censorship.

Most recently, of course, has been the horrific murder of the French cartoonists/satirists which has stirred great support for freedom of speech. These individuals had the right to say what they wanted, no matter how vile. Here’s one characterization of their work:

you are underestimating the vulgarity of Charlie Hebdo. It goes beyond “offensive and immature”, the cartoons you describe are only the shallow end of the cesspool that is this publication. I grew up in France, I love the country and it’s people, and while I would defend to the death their right to do what they choose to do, I would never go as far as saying “I am Charlie”. Even for solidarity purposes. They are vile, divisive and go out of their way to insult matters of faith in ways that are just simply sick and deranged. (JMerkh’s comment to Chip MacGregor’s blog post “Je Suis Charlie”)

This latest wrinkle in the freedom of speech issue, then, has to do with whether offensive speech should still be free.

While we claim here in the US that the French satirists had the write to spoof and mock to their vile, insulting content, we don’t practice that same kind of free speech. If in doubt, think back to Donald Sterling who spoke in the privacy of his own home in a way that offended others and suffered the consequences for it.

University of California campuses and others across the country are famous for banning speech that is deemed offensive. Speakers have been dis-invited, funding has been cut off, student papers have been shut down.

NYTimes columnist David Brooks elaborated on this point in his article “I Am Not Charlie Hedbo”:

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

One example of this fact is the recent firing of the Atlanta fire chief Kevin Cochran. Cochran’s crime? He published a book that carried a few lines strongly condemning homosexuality, along with other sexual sins. First the mayor suspended Cochran and required him to take sensitivity training. At the end of his suspension, however, he was fired.

The mayor explained the decision:

I appreciate Chief Cochran’s service as fire chief. His personal religious beliefs are not an issue at all, despite the number of comments and emails I have been receiving on a daily basis. The city and my administration stand firmly in support of the right of religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right to freely observe their faith.” (“The Mayor of Atlanta Declares War on Religious Freedom”; for more information, see the Atlanta Sun Times)

George_Washington_freedom_of_speech_quoteSo the mayor affirms his belief in freedom of speech and yet fired Cochran for what he said.

I’ll say again: freedom of speech has become increasingly complicated. We’ve allowed public figures to be maligned in the name of free speech and pornography to run rampant under the same banner.

But the fire chief can’t say homosexuality is sin.

In fact in the US we’ve created a forbidden category called “hate speech” which apparently trumps the US Constitution’s protection of speech. Hate speech, you see, is not allowed.

And who determines what hate speech is?

Another of the free speech complications I mentioned.

Of course, if people didn’t malign others or say vile things about a particular religion or people group, then this topic would be moot. Free speech could be free because people regulated their own speech by determining if it is offensive and harmful to others. At the same time, groups and individuals could be a bit more forbearing rather than thin-skinned when someone directs criticism their way.

Are there really no ways of satirizing without being “sick and deranged”? Can we no longer state our religious beliefs without someone becoming offended?

The problem is clearly on both ends—speakers who have no filters for what comes out of their mouths, and hearers who assume an insult at the slightest hint of disagreement.

We’ve come a long way from the adage I was taught as a child: if you can’t say something nice, don’t talk at all is my advice.

Critique—which is the point of satire—doesn’t fall into the category of “nice,” but neither does it have to be offensive.

I wonder if there’s any hope that civilized people can once again discuss issues without rancor and name calling. It seems as if “to express an opinion” means “to offend others who see things differently.”

That certainly seems to be what the mayor of Atlanta thought.

I think we need two changes: 1) a renewal of free speech as opposed to a demand for politically correct speech and 2) a recommitment to civil discourse instead of slinging insults and engaging in vile and deranged satire.

Love Affair With The Wrong Story


Whether it’s print media or broadcast, those reporting the news have a love affair with the Occupy Wall Street “movement.” It’s hardly a real movement — more a hyped wannabe.

David Brooks in his New York Times article “Is Occupy Wall Street Being Overhyped?” stated that there are all of thirty people involved in the movement in Minneapolis. That number swells to eighty in Washington.

Meanwhile, here in SoCal, the Los Angeles Times lists over two hundred articles covering this movement since its inception. Interestingly, the LA city leadership has been encouraging, even supportive of it:

Los Angeles elected officials have been assiduously wooing the Occupy movement, which inspired protesters furious at Wall Street to take over the grassy area around City Hall downtown — and public spaces in cities across the nation.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave 100 ponchos to soggy demonstrators during the last big rain. Council President Eric Garcetti told campers in the tent community to “stay as long as you need to.” And officials have quietly allowed the urban camp-out to continue, despite a law prohibiting overnight stays at city parks. (“Officials’ embrace of Occupy L.A. loosens a bit over fiscal issue”)

In spite of all this support and the media attention, only seven hundred people are staying in the tents, though that number reportedly “swells” to an unknown degree during the day.

The other notable thing is this: the Occupy Wall Street story sprang up because unspecified hundreds of people protested in Lower Manhattan and marched up Broadway a little over a month ago. One hundred and fifty of them then spent the night. And a story was born. Because of only a few hundred. Now a month later people are starting to ask if perhaps the media loves this story more than the rest of us do.

The Third Step Event is an innovative outreach to women enrolled in secular recovery programs.

Why did Occupy Wall Street become the story du jour? What makes these few hundreds more news worthy than, say, the many Walk for Life events that take place yearly? Or how about something like the upcoming Third Step Event scheduled for this Saturday in the Los Angeles area.

Third Step is a practical, positive movement designed to make a difference in the lives of women struggling with substance abuse. I see these women as similar to the woman at the well Jesus talked with or the Syrophonecian woman whose demon-possessed daughter Jesus healed. In other words, they are women in need of the Savior.

And more than six hundred of them will gather together at the Third Step Event where Christians will serve them and tell them about Jesus. From the Third Step Event “About” page:

The Third Step Event [so named after the third step in the twelve-step recovery program used by many substance abuse facilities, which involves “turning one’s life and will over to a higher power”] is an innovative outreach to women enrolled in secular recovery programs. Once a year, women in recovery are invited to attend an elegant cost-free event within an atmosphere of love, acceptance and celebration of the women’s decision to achieve sobriety. Following a full course meal, the women are treated to a special program filled with music, drama, testimonials of deliverance and they are presented a powerful and inspiring message of how freedom and transformation was attained through faith in Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18). The women are extended the opportunity to respond to the message of salvation and to pray with a trained altar counselor for God’s love and power to free them from every form [of] addiction and bondage. At the conclusion of the event, the women receive a free Bible, literature to continue in their spiritual growth, a gift bag filled with lots of special goodies, and a referral list to local churches for the women’s continued Christian growth and development upon discharging from their recovery program.

I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a better story than Occupy Wall Street.

I wonder what it would take to generate over 200 stories in the LA Times about the Third Step Event. Would the program have to spread to all fifty states? Grow from 600 to 600,000? Would it have to be a sustained movement lasting a month or longer rather than a yearly event now occurring for the ninth time?

I suppose there’s little chance of the media ever falling in love with this story because it shows Christians doing Christ-like things — selflessly helping the most needy and neglected and forlorn of our society.

Third Step is an interdenominational, Bible-centered ministry outreach, seeking innovative methods to reach the lost for Jesus Christ. The Third Step Event strongly depends on the participation and support of local church ministries.

But wouldn’t it be fun to try and get media attention by just these kinds of acts of love? I wonder how those who say hateful things about Christians would resolve their concept of Christianity with the picture of Christians giving generously of their time, talents, resources to strangers.

I know Christians do selfless things all the time. My church’s high school group sent a team of students to New Orleans after Katrina, for example. But then many non-Christian groups went to help, too, so the story surely wasn’t about Christians doing Christ-like things.

Even Walk for Life events brush up against politics and may seem agenda-driven rather than service oriented, so what’s to separate them from other political endeavors?

The Third Step Event is different because there’s nothing in it for the organizers — except obedience to their Savior and His future “Well done, good and faithful servant” they are bound to hear.

This is a story I can love!

%d bloggers like this: