The Olympics, Academia, And ISIS

The Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί αγώνες, Olympiakoi Agones, the Olympic Games. According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals were always met, but those were the goals.

When the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century, they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or political influence.”

Unfortunately, the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and, worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport. Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.

Academia has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other than that which they had met earlier. They would have the opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to them, but which they never completely understood before. They expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a formal setting or a bull session.

In recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,” “fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But you could speak.

However you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them – has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down (much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced, and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.

It's also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting college students may sometimes force university officials to apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more. There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity. Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain. There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.

Dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity.

Perhaps there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.

Niggers Ain't So Bad

“A spade, a spic, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar.”

No. Wait. Scratch that. This isn't going to end well. Let me start again and find a different way to introduce my subject. Dysphemisms make for a bad start.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”ⁱ

That's better.

When we speak (or write) we communicate using words. And that, by itself, is a very complicated process. It involves not only a speaker and a listener, but the words themselves, and their meaning. And their meaning, or at least their planned meaning, derives from the intent of the speaker.

But their understood meaning is determined by the listener.

One way to explain the difference is by a lesson I learned when I was young. It consisted of the idea that when a non-Jew told a Jewish joke it was evidence of anti-semitism. That wasn't always the case, but whatever the intended meaning, it was understood by the (Jewish) listener to be a slur. While that understanding was usually correct, it was not invariably so. When the same joke was related by a Jew, however, it was funny.ⁱⁱ

An analogous truth relates to other words. Nowadays it's “the N word.” Whereas “nigger,” when used by a white, is understood to be evidence of prejudice, when used by a black in a conversation among blacks it may be neutral.ⁱⁱⁱ   "People of color" is acceptable, though never "colored people."

But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.

According to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "For us, Hamas is not a terror organization; it has never committed any act of terror." But that was not Ankara's first sleight-of-hand for an entity that vows to kill every last Jew on earth. President Erdogan has repeatedly described Hamas militants as "freedom fighters." ^iv

As the saying goes, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Words mean different things to different people. Or, perhaps, this illustrates a fourth meaning of a word – the one that a listener wants to convey as his understanding, even if it's not. Perhaps PM Davutoglu understands “terror” as most other people do, but he wishes to make a political statement. Notwithstanding our own President's avoidance of the terminology, Muslim extremism exists.^v

Discounting the political, however, where a conscious effort is made to use words to convince the listener of a “truth,” our words are generally an unconscious part of what we say and, for the most part, reflect unconscious ideas, often colored (that's probably a bad choice of words), rather than premeditated slights. I don't mean to suggest that everyone would prefer to be unbiased and sensitive to the feelings of others. That, sadly, is not the case. But more often, ill thought-out comments reflect a lack of thought rather than a plan. We live in an age of speed, of rapid response, of short attention spans. We do not take the time to craft everything carefully. We express our thoughts thoughtlessly – without refining or filtering them. We pay too little attention to meaning – to what is explicit and to what is implicit. And words hurt.^vi  But don't blame them. They're not really the problem. It's us. It's what we do to them.

The common response in the last few decades has been to accept the use of euphemisms and coded speech, and to avoid any word or idea that may be “painful” to the hearer.  In all likelihood, however, it is more painful to the advocate of euphemisms than to the object of his pity. The person who is blind knows he is blind, not “visually impaired.” And to call someone who cannot walk “differently abled,” rather than disabled, is most generously viewed as condescending. The problem is not with the words nor, usually, with the audience. Even when the speaker is “sensitive” and words are carefully chosen – even when politically correct language is used to spare their feelings – people usually understand what is said.^vii

And what is meant.^viii

The problem is not simply what people mean, for all-too-often people haven't even thought about what they mean. The problem is mean people. A limit on free discourse by the prohibition of “hate speech” will not solve the problem. It will only lead to even greater misunderstanding complicated by the restraint of all of our constitutional rights.

The problem with our society is our society. Our moral standards, as reflected in the news media, on television and in the movies, are less restrictive than in the past. We assume that all politicians are crooks and we don't trust our government. We can't anticipate any legislative answer.

And laws cannot end prejudice any more than Prohibition ended alcohol consumption. Perhaps the solution is education or time. More likely it is a problem that will never be solved except by our understanding of it, and our rejection of its practitioners. There will always be prejudice by those who feel inferior or put upon – people looking for an excuse for their own inadequacies. The only answer is the marginalization of those people by the rest of us, rather than efforts to limit their words. Their ideas may be abhorrent, but let them give themselves away.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 4” – Your turn.

I        Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Lewis Caroll, 1871

ii       Actually, it wasn't always funny. Some of the jokes were just plain bad. But they (usually) weren't anti-semitic.

iii      The Oxford English dictionary describes the term as “usually contemptuous,” “[e]xcept in Black English vernacular, where it remains common.”

iv       Excerpt from Hamas in Turkey: “Humanitarian Activity” by Burack Beckdil, Gatestone Institute, March 6, 2015. Cited in CIJR Isranet Daily Briefing, March 12, 2015.

v        Ignoring reality doesn't make it cease to exist.

vi       Actually that “truism” is false. Words don't hurt, people do. (This is not a Second Amendment argument about guns, but a different point which I'll make shortly.)

vii      Intent usually can be determined by content and context – not by vocabulary.

viii     If anything.

Boy Scouts Lite

                                                                    

I have a dream. Chances are it's not your dream. In fact you'd probably abhor it, and condemn me for having it. In my dream, there's no penalty for calling someone a “nigger” or a “guinea” or a “spic.” There are Boy Scout troops that prohibit homosexuals, and colleges that don't admit women. I dream of segregated lunch counters and hotels that prohibit Jews. As I said, it's my dream, not yours.

Let me begin with the disclaimers: I'm a kike,ⁱ a neocon, and I'm an old man. Thus I'm disqualified when it comes to saying anything intelligent about our modern, democratic, Christian society. But I won't let your biases stop me. I have my own views and I have my own blog. If you don't want to read it, that's your right. So if you want you can stop right now. Your loss.

The bases for my views are the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. They're documents once revered, but now viewed as antiques which may only be cited in patriotic speeches since they're so out of date that they can't be taken seriously any more.ⁱⁱ Yet they remain the foundation of the world's oldest constitutional republic. Whatever their imperfections, they work.

The principles, doctrines, and laws they contain, however, apply only to the government. The private sector has – or, at least, should have – considerably more latitude.ⁱⁱⁱ The rights of the individual as opposed to those of our government constitute an important distinction, one of which we should all be aware, and one that is part of the structure of the American dream. It matters. It helps keep our republic alive, and, as Martin Luther King said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Thus I will not be silent. I will speak out for prejudice, hate speech, and segregation.^iv

It's not that I support those positions. I don't. But that's my choice, and should not limit the rights of others.^v I fully believe that there are acts permitted to “private” individuals and organizations that would be viewed as unconstitutional or contrary to law when involving “public” ones. The government^vi should not attempt to control what anyone thinks, says, or even does as a private individual, unless his actions directly or indirectly cause physical damage to others. And then he should be punished for the harm he has caused – not for the thoughts or words.

So let me get back to my dream, for I have only related part of it.

In my dream, there's no penalty for calling someone a “nigger” or a “guinea” or a “spic.” There are Boy Scout troops that prohibit homosexuals, and colleges that don't admit women. I dream of segregated lunch counters and hotels that prohibit Jews. But there are few who use epithets and a diminishing number of those who listen. The insults have lost their sting because they elicit little response. Human nature may not change but inhumane actions may.

In my dream, also, the segregated Boy Scout troops, colleges, lunch counters and hotels are open but empty. No one is interested. And there are numerous alternatives, public and private, to those facilities, some with and some without governmental funding, that provide equal accommodation to all takers. The change will take place because of economics rather than compulsion. People's actions will change as they forget the old, and unrewarding, practices. Even their prejudices will fade as they learn that no one is interested, and that it is more productive to move on.

As Reverend King said, our children “will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin^vii but by the content of their character.” Nowhere in his “I have a dream” address^viii did he suggest that people should be forced to act properly. He knew too much about our weaknesses to even suggest that. His hopes were pragmatic as well as idealistic.

Perhaps we share a dream.

Next episode: “Take It From Whomever” – Everything you may or may not have wanted to know but didn't have time to ask.

i         That's not the way I view myself, but I know there are many who see me that way. And that's their right according to the Constitution.

ii        In fact, I'd bring them up to date myself if I could. But for now they remain in effect.

iii      Hillsdale College (and, perhaps, others more recently) refuses all government support and declines to participate in any governmental programs, so that it will not be subject to any strictures that derive from involvement in any relationship with it. The college is a strong supporter of the Constitution, and prides itself on its independent status and its refusal to sell or compromise that independence from governmental regulations while enjoying the liberties guaranteed it by our Founding Fathers.

iv      Actually I view arrogance, corruption, violation of the ten commandments, and complicity in the seven deadly sins as greater threats to our republic than these.

v       When their actions are unrelated to, and not dependent on, any governmental authorization. Our ancestors recognized and accepted what we find intolerable: you can't change human nature. It has to change itself. The best you can do is to make it clear that society itself is proscribed from involvement in immorality.

vi      And self-appointed censors.

vii     Nor sex or religion or any other such extraneous criterion.

viii    http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

Free Speech, Gossip, Bullying, Hate Speech

I've written on the subject before,ⁱ but news of the conviction of a Rutgers student for, among other things, a “hate crime,” prompts me to do so again. The student hasn't yet been sentenced, and his lawyer has stated that there will be an appeal, but whatever the outcome, the charges and the trial themselves raise concerns.

The story is clear. The student spied on his roommate – he invaded his privacy – and invited others to do so as well. The spying was done with a live action television camera, which added to the titillation because his roommate was gay, and the viewing was to be of a gay liaison. Ordinarily it wouldn't be much of a story and it's unlikely that a trial would have resulted from it, nor would it have gotten the publicity it's received. But the individual who had been spied on committed suicide. While the accused was not specifically linked to that suicide by the prosecution, the jury was aware of it and it is likely that they were concerned about that result when considering their verdict. So a stupidⁱⁱ college prank – one eventuating in a suicideⁱⁱⁱ – ends in the criminalization and possible incarceration and deportation of an otherwise intelligent student just out of high school – a result which seems to be motivated more by the desire to “send a message” to others than anything else. The accused student invaded another's privacy and publicized aspects of his life that should have been private. His actions were irresponsible and reprehensible – and he should be punished for them in the same way that they are treated in other instances of spying and bullying – but I cannot help wondering about the piling on of statutes forbidding “bias crime” to add on to the guilt. In fact, it is hard for me not to wonder if there is any justification at all in the conceptions of “hate speech” and “bias crime.”

If there is one activity in which we all participate it is gossip. It is not always done with the intention to cause harm, but it is the basis for much of the conversation we have – whether over the telephone, by the water cooler, at a cocktail party, on Facebook, or Twitter. We live on the troubles of others, real or imagined. Soap operas, motion pictures, and television programs that chronicle those troubles fascinate us. And that's the way we view it – as a fascination.^iv We don't consider ourselves as “bad” people because we're interested in the lives and problems of others. We're good, and we know right from wrong. We know, for example, that the paparazzi have no business spying on others. Like the student in this case, they invade the privacy of their subjects and they publicize what they find. But if they have a particularly revealing photo of someone famous,^v we're eager to see it. And if a private investigator^vi produces photographs of some financier's or politician's dalliance as part of a divorce procedure or political campaign, it's sure to attract our attention. It may be invasion of privacy but no matter. They're fair game and we're interested. And if the paparazzi document activities that some view as immoral or outside society's limits, all the better. Unless they involve a “protected” group, in which case they cannot be tolerated. In that circumstance we abhor them. (But we look anyway.)

After all, crime is crime, but making fun of others – especially those sensitive to perceived insults – must be condemned. Fortunately political figures are usually thick-skinned. So late-night TV personalities can make jokes at their expense, no matter what conduct they have displayed. Even though most viewers would condemn the behavior that is belittled – even if they are “biased” against it – watching and laughing aren't crimes.^vii Actually, virtually all humor is at someone's expense. If someone weren't belittled, shown up, or criticized one way or another, it wouldn't be funny. Is the comedian biased? Is he guilty of “hate speech?” Does it matter if the butt of the humor is recognizable or not?

And does it matter if the butt cares? Who decides what is “hate speech?” Is it a function of what the accused says or how the “victim” takes it? And does labeling something as a hate crime^viii depend on the thoughts of the accused, what he says, or is the deciding factor what is perceived by the accuser and the law? The individual convicted was considered as biased because he invaded the privacy of a gay and publicized it. Does a proud gay who “outs” a fellow – who invades his privacy and publicizes it – do the same. Is the act any less troubling to the victim because it was done by someone not biased against homosexuals? And is someone guilty of sexual abuse because a statement he makes,^ix one which might be considered unexceptionable by some, is viewed as derogatory by others? At what point does free speech yield to societal preferences and prejudices? And at what point does a person's thoughts become a crime separate from whatever else he does?

We have moved far from the principles on which our country was established. At least in terms of our laws and their interpretations. As people we're probably pretty much the same. Even if we try to show our concern with insincere proclamations that we assume will only involve others.

i     See “Hate Speech,” which appeared on January 8, 2012.

ii     And mean.

iii    Although it is difficult not to wonder about the underlying mental health of an individual who would ultimately take his own life.

iv    There are many who argue that viewing crime on television leads to criminal behavior. Is the same true of watching such programs? Does it legitimize and lead to the kind of behavior we condemn?

v     Or one not so revealing; or of someone not so famous.

vi    He's not Congress but an individual citizen and not subject to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution or to the remainder of the Bill of Rights.

vii   It's interesting that in the case described I've seen no mention of prosecutions of those who were titillated by the transmission. Were their “biases” different from the accused?

viii   As opposed to a “love crime?”

ix     Or a calendar in his locker.

Hate Speech – The Case For (Against?)

“Suffer you mother-*#&@%<~ son-of-a-!%*&$. I hope you rot in Hell.” Not a nice thing to hear. Especially if you're being kicked at the same time. It's assault, and it's punishable as such.

But what about “I pray that you are forgiven.” Said to a homosexual, as the speaker knocks the wallet from his hand while he is preparing to make a contribution to an LGBTⁱ charity, it's hate speechⁱⁱ and it may also deemed assault,ⁱⁱⁱ but more than that, because of what was said, in this instance it's also a hate crime.

The First Amendment, it seems, has become a framework for various pressure groups to use when promoting their aims. Thus:

“In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Neo-Nazi parades and demonstrations. Skokie, Illinois at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens. A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court.”^iv

Free speech had to be protected irrespective of the consequences, but in an age of diversity and multiculturalism

“Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet.”

That statement, and its explication of “acceptable speech,” as printed in the blog of Caliphate Online, doesn't come as much of a surprise. The fact that important American publications refused to publish those cartoons, however, is a little more troublesome. Although there are loud protests whenever their own actions are criticised, and accusations that other parties would abridge their First Amendment rights, “Major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, did not publish the caricatures. Representatives said the story could be told effectively without publishing images that many would find offensive.”^v They chose, in this instance, to practice self censorship. Free speech was less important than not offending others. Sensitivity was the prime consideration in reporting this piece of news. When it comes to expressing editorial policy, however, the same papers are not at all reticent about stating views that many will find offensive. First amendment rights and free speech^vi are for those who can afford it, and they can exercise it whenever they choose to do so. And, as they have demonstrated, they can eschew it whenever they choose to do so. Notwithstanding any protestations of virtue and concern, their agendas seem to reflect politics rather than sensitivity.

And some publishers had other motives. “John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said the press has a long history of defending free expression, but the risk of violence in this case, outweighed the benefit of including the images, which can easily be found on the Internet.”^vii The same fear of violence motivated other publishers to take the same course.

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... ” That was the take on speech in 1789^viii But that has since been viewed as more a theory than as an appropriate reality. Though the Constitution said nothing about judicial interpretations of that or other mandates, nor about legislative measures that respond to the Court's decisions, it's clear that the First Amendment (as well as the remainder of the Constitution and its amendments) is flexible.^ix It shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's not an absolute. It is more important that we not risk the possibility that emotional harm that might come to anyone who is in a preferred^x group. That, of course, is not everyone, as the ACLU has shown.

And the definitions of “free speech” and one's First Amendment rights are also somewhat fluid. They include both the requirement that one be able to express his views, even if others^xi may find them hateful, and that he be able to prevent those others^xii from expressing theirs. It may not be clear from a simple reading of the Constitution that these “rights” exist, but executive, legislative, and judicial practice reflect the fact that they have a significant presence in the American ethos. Surely they're in the Constitution. How could it be otherwise? If we haven't found them, we haven't looked hard enough.

We are left with a language of sensitivity and euphemisms. We are reluctant to “call a spade a spade.” So we deny the language we learned as children and substitute code words when we suspect precision will cause discomfort (without always asking those we see as “victims” whether they agree). Later, however, we'll have to substitute other code words when we feel that the ones we have been using have taken on the pejorative tone at which we cringe.^xiii We practice self-censorship and the censorship of others with whom we disagree. And if we cannot censor, we punish. Somewhere along the line “hate speech” has become more offensive than any crime it might accompany. And the ACLU seems to take note only of certain “offenses” while ignoring others. It is clearly inappropriate to defend those who would insult Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, or others who might be offended. That would show a lack of sensitivity for their feelings, and the Constitution certainly shouldn't protect that. But if Nazis want to affront Jews or others, stopping them would be in violation of the same Constitution.

I know it's wrong of me to think so, but from my perspective there should be a single standard – either all speech designed to express opinion is permissible^xiv or it isn't. If the latter position is to be adopted, then it should apply to every instance in which an individual takes exception to what is being said or done. It should not be made the rule only for some preferred people of groups. But in any case, I don't think that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. If the media are free to express opinions, so are individuals. And a crime is a crime. It is the crime that should be prosecuted, irrespective of the motive. If the opinion of the perpetrator is the decisor of the significance of the crime, we have lost the freedom to form our own opinions, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless. However attractive that may be to many among us, we will all lose by it. “Acceptable speech” is not acceptable.

Next episode: “Mom, Pop, And Jack The Killer Giant” – Burnt fat and me.

i     Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender.

ii    The previous declaration, since it mentions “mother” and “son,” clearly expresses family values and represents a statement of love, not hate.

iii    And it's probably a few other crimes as well.

iv    Wikipedia article on ACLU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

v     U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive, Joel Brinkley and Ian Fisher, New York Times, February 4, 2006

vi    Ditto propaganda.

vii    Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, August 12, 2009. The view, apparently, was that others should take any risks involved. Yale was playing it safe.

viii    That's when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the new states. It wasn't ratified until 1791.

ix    I'll comment on the Judiciary in a future essay – a continuation of the ongoing series on proposals for changes in the Constitution.

x     Read “minority,” although that is a political, not a mathematical term.

xi    Who are not in one of the favored groups.

xii    See note x. It is permissible, indeed appropriate, to shout down those who would espouse a contrary view.

xiii    I recently heard on the radio about a politician who was taken to task for using the word “disabled.” Some felt that this was too harsh. Presumably they preferred “differently able” or “challenged,” but the individual who had been careful not to specify the disability (lest it be considered insensitive) was berated.

xiv   Holmes's exception for speech intended to cause danger – he mentioned “fire” in a crowded theater – however, makes sense. I'd also make an exception for speech (or publication of material) that threatens pubblic or national security. Some governmental secrecy is necessary if we are to be able to deal with other nations.

Sez Who?

 

“One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”

“Muslims are the majority of terrorists.”

Where do you draw the line between bias, opinion, and fact?  And where does outright lying fit in?  Should you draw a line?  How shall we interpret and implement the First Amendment?ⁱ

Justice Potter Stewart is remembered (among other things) for his attempted definition of “hard-core pornography”: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it …”ⁱⁱ Not everyone agreed,ⁱⁱⁱ some questioning the “definition” and others the decision. In fact, another concurring opinion in the same case, that of Justices Black and Douglas, maintained that the First Amendment does not permit censorship of any kind. Is “censorship” the same thing as the banning of free speech? And is it really total?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. didn't think so, writing "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."^iv Why not?  The test that the Court applied was the possibility of creating a “clear and present danger.”^v In the case they were evaluating, the Court decided unanimously that the plaintiff had crossed that line by pamphleteering against the [First World] war and urging draftees not to cooperate, and his conviction for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act was upheld. Speaking for the entire court Holmes related the view that particular statements had to be viewed in the context of the times. Statements which were considered unexceptionable in peacetime might be punishable in time of war.

But ideas about the definition of obscenity and clear and present danger aren't really the main issue. The real question has to do with free speech. Is it absolute?

That, though, brings up another question. Are there absolutes? Or do views of “eternal truths” really depend on the times and mores. What does a Justice “know?” Justice Stewart was sure of himself, but was he doing any more than expressing a prejudice?

And, who decides what [absolute] community standards are? If those are the benchmarks by which people and ideas are to be judged, there has to be some way the individual will know what they are, and what the law is, if only so he can obey it. Although the decision would ultimately be made by a jury, the standard remains very subjective and that presents the possibility that someone might act in good faith according to what he believes are reasonable standards, but be overruled by a more conservative jury.

That kind of subjective criterion for what is and is not acceptable is also one that has been the focus of more recent debate. It has yielded euphemism as an art form, and euphemisms as societal norms: politically correct speech and the entire idea of “hate” speech are good examples. So is “advocacy journalism” – the use of what pose as objective news stories to promote personal biases or political spins. It is the Trojan Horse of journalism.

What's the line between “hate speech” and “fire?” Is there one? I think so. And my inclination would be that it relates to what the speech is likely to provoke or has already provoked. If the crime was caused by the speech,^vi the speech should be actionable. If the crime did not specifically result from the speech, it is the crime that should be punished, and adding a penalty for “bias” is simply a means of discouraging free speech. In the case of the individual who cries “wolf,” whose shouts of “fire” cause a crowd to stampede and result in an injury or death, the shouts are crimes additional to the injury or death and should be prosecuted as such. However offensive we may find calling a Jew a “kike” before mugging him, though, the crime was the mugging, not the insult. Using his words to add an additional punishable offense – a hate crime^vii – impinges on his freedom of speech.

Much remains subjective. But the punishment of speech that does not result in physical injury seems a contradiction of what we consider a basic right. The view that a particular statement is a threat, that it insults someone, or that it may cause psychological damage,^viii is certainly one that must be respected, however censorship is a solution that is even more threatening. No one will defend the idea that “names will never hurt you.” They will. As will verbal abuse and bullying. But punishing the name-caller is not the solution. Justice Louis Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."^ix,x,xi

Next episode: “Pride And Principles” – Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, and American Foreign Policy

i     The real question relates to what the first amendment (and, by extension, the fourteenth – Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925) covers. That seems to be a moving target.

ii    Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 1964. His opinion concurred with the Court's that the film that was being evaluated fell into the category of protected speech which, in his view, permitted all obscenity except hard core pornography.

iii   The Court, itself, later changed its view of obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 1973 it loosened its definition, making “community standards” the deciding factor.

iv    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919.

v     The “imminent lawless action” test (the Brandenburg test) has replaced that concept. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969.

vi    Libel and incitement are two examples that come to mind immediately.

vii    Hate speech will be discussed in a future blog. Nah. Whom am I kidding? I haven't been subtle about where I stand, in this or prior blogs, so let me finish this off now. The whole idea of “hate speech” is obtuse. It's the creation of PD (politically delicate) people who are so sensitive to the feelings of others that they would sacrifice free speech and liberty in general for the chance to appear to be concerned for the rights of others. It's simply a way to pile on charges when someone is accused of another crime. Correctness is more important to them than the First Amendment. I don't buy that argument for a moment. There's no need to waste another blog on it.

viii     It is, however, difficult to determine who would be wise enough to make such a decision.

ix     Emphasis added.

x     Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. Justice Brandeis joined in the decision to uphold the law under which the plaintiff was convicted, but that was for Constitutional reasons separate from the facts of the case.

xi    “The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert Jackson

Sex And The Single Cell

 

It all started with a single cell.ⁱ Life, I mean. And then, after a long time,ⁱⁱ we reached our (sub) species – Homo sapiens (sapiens).

The earliest cells were sexless. They were all pretty much the same. But as the cells divided so did the species, and ultimately there developed a system of reproduction based upon two different “types” within each species – a “male” and a “female.” Usually in the animal kingdom, but certainly not invariably, the two types occurred in different individuals. That's the way it is in humans, and weⁱⁱⁱ are grateful for it. Men are different from women. Oh! You noticed. Anyway, vive la différence!

Along the way patterns developed. The females bore the young and cared for them.^iv The males, who begot those young, generally hunted and provided sustenance for all. They usually retained the ability to father longer than the females retained their fertility, but the females typically outlived the males. And that's the way it is now. It's generally accepted, and “the way things are” among most species. It's the unquestioned pattern among lions, elephants, mice, and sheep, and many others. Only among humans is there a questioning of these roles. We're the only species that denigrates that difference^v and in which significant numbers of our members seek to possess the attributes of the other type. And in many ways^vi that's difficult or impossible. Because of evolution.

Men and women are different in terms of visible anatomy, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we're wired differently. We have different hormonal systems, temperaments, emotions, and interests. Because we're wired differently, we think and act differently. Clearly, whatever the contribution of nurture and culture, there is a major component of difference that can be attributed to nature.^vii

But evolution occurs in many ways. While it's not completely clear how we got to this point, women now get more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men, they have higher salaries in some^viii age categories, they control most of consumer spending, and they've changed the nature of education. The classroom used to be faulted for teaching boys at the expense of girls, but it seems to be the other way now. And there's been a change in the language.^ix “He” used to be the default pronoun, but nowadays “they,”^x and often “she,” are finding their way into print and speech more and more often.^xi And, for a variety of reasons, distinctions between the sexes^xii are being played down or eliminated. Among others, unisex clothing, toilets, and hair-care establishments are common, and many schools and jobs that formerly were identified with one sex or the other are now “personed” equally, or now have more members of the group that once either shunned the positions or were shunned by them. Unisex has replaced unicell (with a long stop for two sexes along the way). In part this may be attributed to a changing of qualifications for membership which may or may not be appropriate. However other causes can be assumed as well. Some kind of evolution seems to be responsible for many of the changes. If that evolution is social or political, it is evolution nonetheless. Perhaps it represents the victory of brains over brawn, though to characterize the possessors of either of those qualities would be frowned upon in our current society.^xiii

Not that the changes are bad. There's no denying that males have used physical means to maintain their position in society and that females have been limited by their role as the bearers of children. But there are many, both men and women, who favor this situation – this division of responsibilities. Many men are flustered by competition for jobs by women, and many women resent the pressure to be childless or to have their husbands or other surrogates rear their children. To a great degree, evolution has conditioned us to be like our ancestors in this regard, whether we are speaking of humans or of humanity's predecessors.

One feature of the change cannot be explained adequately by evolution, however. That is the apparent increase in identification with a gender other than that determined biologically. It's not clear if this is a real change or reflects the greater visibility of those who would have been unknown in the past. The emergence of preferences for relationships between members of the same sex should not be discouraged, but it is obvious that such “matings” will not be reproductive ones.^xiv They will not contribute to survival of the species. ^xv

And language is an issue here as well as it is in other contexts. I used to view “marriage” in a particular way, and I think it's useful to retain the term with its traditional meaning. I'd rather use “union” or some other term for the coupling of individuals of the same sex. Perhaps a term can be invented to suit that purpose and make it unnecessary to blur the distinctions between the different forms of pairing. But I suspect that blurring is the aim, and my suggestion will not be acceptable to many. Moreover I can understand the need for “partner” when dealing with same-sex unions,^xvi but I am unable to comprehend the trend for its use between married couples of opposite sexes. In the past “husband” and “wife” served this function pretty well. Anyway, language evolves, and its changes, as well as the behavioral ones, are realities.

In any event, from my perspective, a few guidelines for the new society are in order. First of all, opportunities and rewards for men and women^xvii should be equal, but they should not be made to be equal. If there are valid reasons for particular requirements – such as anatomic or physiological reasons – they should not be changed, simply because a change is possible. If, for example, a certain amount of strength or intelligence is needed for a particular job, that requirement should not be eased in the service of “equality.”^xviii It is obvious that the setting of requirements will be a problem, and the choice of the those who set the rules will be a difficult issue. But that should not deter us from trying.

Choice should be available to all, in the form of contraceptives for those who want, and in the acceptance of “life-styles” of every conceivable^xix kind – choice is certainly preferable to pressure – however

People should not be forced into associations with those with whom they may feel uncomfortable, nor should they be belittled for their feelings.^xx

Individuals and families should be able to choose a “traditional” life or any other form without worrying about pressure from those who criticize their choice.^xxi A single “acceptable” option – with any other considered betrayal – removes any possibility of free will. One choice is no choice.

In order to increase the likelihood of equality, boys and girls should be taught separately, in settings and with techniques fitted to their style of learning. Neither should be held back because the methods are not suitable.

These guidelines would be a start. Women will still live longer than men and they will be healthier (and should have pension benefits and insurance costs which recognize these differences) but the changes required by a limiting society would be minimized. People want different things and the choice should be theirs, with no society norms that must be followed – assuming there is no harm to others.^xxii

But being equal is not the same as being identical. It's nice^xxiii to have men and women. The system seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.

Next episode “Sez Who?” – It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

i     At least for those who accept the idea of evolution. If you believe otherwise you will probably not agree, but that dispute is for another time.

ii    I won't involve myself in arguments about the precise number of years, but it's been a while.

iii    At least most of us.

iv     That's not true of the entire animal kingdom, but it's the rule among mammals.

v    It's interesting that we deny the differences of men and women while glorying in “multiculturalism” and magnifying the differences among other groups – sometimes inventing characteristics and distinctions for them which improve their image in comparison to our own.

vi    But not all.

vii   According to the (“feminist”) dogma, the differences between the sexes are primarily based on what we are taught – nurture – as opposed to nature. After all, more than 98% of the genes of the two sexes are the same. Of course more than 98% of a woman's genes are the same as those of a female chimpanzee, but that is a distraction from the “truth” of the nurture hypothesis.

viii   A minority to be sure.

ix    At least in English. I don't know what changes, if any, have occurred in other tongues.

x     My favorite example is the new expression, “To each their own.”

xi    One of my favorite expressions is “To each, their own.”

xii    We now call them “genders,” which is, itself, a change in the language.

xiii    Indeed, the carriers of culture, movies, television, and the like, make a point of putting women in roles intended to demonstrate their power – physical and professional.

xiv    Adoption is an option for these couples, but the reproduction is usually done by others. Even artificial insemination requires people of opposite sexes.

xv    The argument can be made that childless unions are preferable to world overpopulation and abortion, and that as such they have evolutionary value. The existence of homosexuality prior to such overpopulation weakens this argument.

xvi    And in situations where unmarried people are living together.

xvii    Whatever their sexual orientation.

xviii   I recall one production of “On The Town” in which a Japanese man had the role of guard at an American naval port during World War II. It was a victory of equal opportunity, race-blind casting and equality over reality.

xix    That's probably a bad word to choose.

xx    “Hate speech” is just as deplorable when aimed at those who are accused of using it. Sadly, we live in an age when freedom of speech is subject to political review and approval given only to those who say the “right” things and use the right euphemisms.

xxi    See previous note. Because freedom of speech allows people to say almost anything, it is inevitable that one group will fault the ways of another. There's no stopping that. But we must all realize that we can and should pursue our own way of life irrespective of those criticisms. Those who feel and express them are the ones with the problem.

xxii    Obviously some rules are necessary. Every society must set limits on the actions of its members. Murder and molestation, for example, must be addressed.

xxiii   In my view.