« JOTWELL: Coleman on Carroll on class action reform | Main | Entry Level Hiring: The 2015 Report - Actual Final Call for Information »
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Muslim cartoons and Nazis in Skokie
Here is a nice post from Ron Collins (CoOp) on several different angles and issues in the controversy over Pam Geller and the cartoon contest. Interestingly, Collins compares this controversy to the Nazis marching in Skokie in 1977, which similarly divided the left on the appropriate protection for hateful, deliberately provocative speech that might provoke violence. Collins points out that the National ACLU has been unequivocal as to Geller, insisting that "it’s not even a tough question" that what she is doing is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU famously lost money and members over its decision to represent the Nazis back in the day.
Collins also links to this piece in Reason comparing The New York Times' op-ed page position on Skokie with its position on the cartoons. It includes excerpts from last's week's editorial and from January 1, 1978's Nazis, Skokie and the A.C.L.U. The comparison reveals the shifting "yes, but" that Paul identified. Thirty-seven years ago, The Times never felt the need to suggest that Frank Collin's stunt was "not really about free speech," but instead was "an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom." Rather, that piece placed the burden on the People of Skokie to "demonstrate their respect for the law" by not engaging in violence.
Again, none of this affects the legal protection of anyone's speech. But there is a rhetorical and narrative difference that does make a difference.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 13, 2015 at 01:31 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink
Comments
NY Times Editorial Board position:
Expression that causes anguish to the bourgeoise, Christians and Red State "slopeheads" (in the memorable word of a Timesman) - good idea, and if you don't agree with us you're a hater!
Expression that causes anguish to Muslims and Progressives - hate speech!
Posted by: Mark | May 18, 2015 12:53:35 PM
"censorship would be preferable. Or it puts a burden on her speech--it must be "about free speech," not just an exercise of the right that merely poses as free speech"
This is the inference but the actual text in the first sentence reaffirms her freedom of speech (and opposes violence in response) though the op-ed then in effect says she is a troll. This is a judgment of her motivations. Both op-eds reaffirm the 1A.
What "censorship" are we talking about here? Self-censorship? The op-ed as a whole might demean her actions. But, it doesn't say she had no right to do them. To avoid such demeaning, her motives count, but she still can speak all the same.
It is noted too that the two situations are not the same. Pam Gellar wasn't subject to a court fight. There, the NYT reaffirmed in the face of calls of governmental censorship their right to march. The "not free speech" comment in the op-ed here (comparing her to Charlie Hebdo) is a matter of her motives. I rather Reason go into the wayback machine and find a more comparable situation.
Posted by: Joe | May 15, 2015 5:57:59 PM
"censorship would be preferable. Or it puts a burden on her speech--it must be "about free speech," not just an exercise of the right that merely poses as free speech"
This is the inference but the actual text in the first sentence reaffirms her freedom of speech (and opposes violence in response) though the op-ed then in effect says she is a troll. This is a judgment of her motivations. Both op-eds reaffirm the 1A.
What "censorship" are we talking about here? Self-censorship? The op-ed as a whole might demean her actions. But, it doesn't say she had no right to do them. To avoid such demeaning, her motives count, but she still can speak all the same.
It is noted too that the two situations are not the same. Pam Gellar wasn't subject to a court fight. There, the NYT reaffirmed in the face of calls of governmental censorship their right to march. The "not free speech" comment in the op-ed here (comparing her to Charlie Hebdo) is a matter of her motives. I rather Reason go into the wayback machine and find a more comparable situation.
Posted by: Joe | May 15, 2015 5:57:58 PM
If one considers the spirit of the law, does anyone believe that our Founding Fathers desired to protect speech for the purpose of slander and libel? I suppose if we believed they did, there would be no slander and libel laws. Just as speech or perhaps a video can provoke a reaction, one is never justified when that reaction is to destroy human life.
Posted by: N.D. | May 15, 2015 9:34:25 AM
If you have both interpretations in mind, I'm at a loss for why you would interpret it the way you are.
"It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom."
This sets up the contrast as between good speech and bad speech, not speech that should be protected and speech that should be banned.
"The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”"
This further establishes the question as which speech should be praised, rather than which speech should be protected.
"Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."
And the piece concludes by once again focusing on whether the people are doing something praiseworthy or blameworthy, not whether it should be protected or banned.
By contrast, unless I've missed something, you've pointed to no specific language that supports your interpretation other than the claim that the event was not "about free speech," and the headline. But since, as you seem to agree, that's at least susceptible of both the positive and negative interpretations, and given that the rest of the piece supports the positive one, I don't see why you would nevertheless read it as the negative one.
I see two possible reasons someone might read the piece as advocating censorship. One is if you think the Times is committed to an ideology that says bad things ought to be banned by the government. But then you're stuck in a circle of you try to use the piece as evidence that the Times actually is committed to that ideology. The other would be if you thought that no one was advancing the position Geller was doing something socially valuable, and therefore the Times didn't have a reason to respond to the non argument, and therefore it's a coded call for censorship. But as Hayes shows, people are making that argument.
I'm not trying to be snippy or dismissive here, I'm just honestly having a lot of trouble figuring out the perspective that leads you to interpret the piece in the way you do. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 14, 2015 7:30:18 PM
I don't think I'm confusing those two things. I'm just not sure it is so clear that The Times was, in fact, arguing # 1 and not # 2.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | May 14, 2015 3:19:32 PM
I don't pretend to speak for the NYT editorial board, of course. But all this "what else could the Times be advocating except more censorship?" hand-wringing strikes me as quite silly.
The question the Times is addressing is whether Geller's speech should be celebrated. They say no - even though it is undoubtedly free speech, the fact that it is said is a net social loss. The reverse position is taken by, e.g., Chris Hayes (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/07/msnbcs-hayes-i-dont-care-if-cartoon-contest-was-provocation-its-important/).
Both the Times position and Hayes' position are 100% consistent with believing that Geller's speech is nowhere close to the line of what the government should be empowered to ban.
You seem to be claiming that no one is expressing the view that Geller doing what she did is an important thing for the advancement of free speech values. But that's exactly the point Hayes, and many others, have been making. And that, straightforwardly it seems to me, is what is countered by the Times' point that Geller's speech is not "about" free speech.
To put it another way, you're confusing the claim that "the world would be a better place if Geller didn't do what she did" with the claim that "the world would be a better place if the government could prevent Geller from doing what she did." Those are two extremely different points, and running them together cheapens free speech discourse.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 14, 2015 2:51:43 PM
Jesse: Welcome, thank you for reading, and thank you for your comments.
My slight pushback would be to ask what it means to say Geller's event is not "about" free speech or that it was hatefulness "posing" as a blow for freedom. This seems to go beyond calling out Geller as a whackjob bigot, telling people to ignore her, or other forms of "more speech." Instead, it hints at this event being "less than" what free speech is about. And I think that (along with the headline) is why many people, myself included, read it as, if not explicitly calling for censorship, suggesting that censorship would be preferable. Or it puts a burden on her speech--it must be "about free speech," not just an exercise of the right that merely poses as free speech.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | May 14, 2015 1:01:07 PM
As a current member of the NYT ed board (but not one in 1978), I agree with you, Howard, that the emphasis in the two pieces is different, yet both make the identical substantive point: the speech in question is surely hateful, but that does not diminish its constitutional protections.
My sense is that people who have tried to point out the board's "inconsistency" (as though, distinct from some other precedential institutions we might name, it should never express any change or even nuance to a position once adopted) are upset most by calling the Garland event not "about free speech." They appear to have taken that phrase to be a call for censorship. But isn't it simply the "more speech" that ardent First Amendment defenders are always calling for? Of course Pam Geller can say whatever she wants about Islam -- as the current editorial says in the first sentnece. And we (and many others) can say that what she's saying is hateful and bigoted, just as we (and many others) said that about the Nazis in Skokie.
You suggest, more thoughtfully, that the more interesting point is a burden-shifting that's going on. Perhaps that's so. But I'm not sure that the prior balance of burdens was necessarily better for the country, or the protection of speech, than this one. It's almost as though there's a deep and strangely self-contradictory insecurity about the status of free speech going on here, which is ironic given the predilections of the current Court, if nothing else.
Anyway, as Asher put it very well in a previous comment, the more-speechers like to say certain liberals defend the First Amendment except when they really don't like what it protects, yet sometimes it seems that the more-speechers themselves fall victim to that same tendency.
Posted by: Jesse | May 14, 2015 11:54:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.