Hate Speech

"The summer of 2009 has not been our finest hour."

So wrote Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (Aug. 24) in response to those individuals who have brought Hitler and Nazism into the debate on health care.

There's political commentary and there's hate speech, and I'm sick and tired of hate speech passing for commentary.

Earlier this month, conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told listeners nationwide, "Adolph Hitler, like Barack Obama, ruled by dictate"; followed by, "[the] Obama health care logo is damn close to the Nazi swastika logo."

On July 28, Fox News conservative commentator Glenn Beck told a nationwide television audience, "This president is a guy who has exposed himself over and over again who has deep-seated hatred for white people.... This guy is, I believe, a racist."

If I were the head of Fox, I would have immediately suspended Beck from the airwaves, allowing him to come back only if he made a sincere public apology to President Obama and TV viewers and gave assurances that he would not engage in such talk in the future. Sadly, that was not the response from Fox. Instead, they released a statement saying that Mr. Beck "expressed a personal opinion, which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel."

Apparently, executives at Fox do not know the difference between opinion and hate speech.

Does anyone at Fox remember the racist and sexist remarks made by Don Imus toward the Rutgers women's basketball team in 2007? Imus was suspended. He later apologized to the team in person.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology from either Limbaugh or Beck. Why? No one seems willing to hold them accountable.

However, according to the New York Times (Aug. 14), "About a dozen companies have withdrawn their commercials from 'Glenn Beck,'" among them ConAgra, Geico, Procter & Gamble, and the insurance company Progressive. Pharmaceutical companies Roche and Sanofi-Aventis, and electronics retailer Radio Shack have pledged to remove ads from Glenn Beck.

ConAgra issued a statement saying that, "We are firmly committed to diversity, and we would like to prevent the potential perception that advertising during this program was an endorsement of the viewpoints shared."

"We have TV today that's very polarizing and controversial," said Donny Deutsch, a former advertising executive and frequent contributor to both CNBC and MSNBC. In an interview, Deutsch told viewers that any individual offended by Mr. Beck's remarks should write the CEOs of the companies that advertise. Deutsch considers this the "ultimate check and balance."

Good start, but not enough.

Anyone who participates in hate speech should be fined and banned from all public airwaves -- period.

This is not about free speech. It's about responsibility and how a responsible citizen should behave. And any citizen or media company granted an opportunity and license to speak over radio and television has an even greater responsibility for what they say and do.

Don't like the policies of the Obama administration? Great, offer your rebuttal from the mountaintop in all its detailed glory. But to compare the President of the United States to Adolph Hitler; to call him a racist without a shred of evidence to back it up is bigotry that should be condemned as reckless and wrong.

This is not about politics. This is about intolerance, and the signs don't get any clearer than those demonstrated by Beck and Limbaugh.

And the choice we have is just as clear: speak up and denounce it or stay silent and allow it to grow.

Jim Lichtman has been writing and speaking on ethics since 1995. His commentaries on ethics can be found at www.ethicsStupid.com

Comments

[Rick Bayan]

Ever heard of the free markeplace of ideas, folks? A fundamental tenet of classical liberalism, it places faith in the wisdom of the people to reject ideas worthy of rejection. (Granted, it might overestimate public wisdom, but it's still a noble and valid priniciple­.)

Throughout the current Beck brouhaha, the left has attempted to assume control over the process. This is precisely what has been driving the right to paranoia: the notion that American leftists in power, like the Bolsheviks of yore, would ultimately censor all opposing viewpoints. Political correctness was the fairly innocuous first step; now we have left-wingers referring to opinions they don't like as actionable "hate speech."

But what IS hate speech? Does all criticism of "protected" minorities fall under that banner? Is it still OK to heap insults on unprotected groups, like white people, men, and Christians? You simply can't control public opinion without letting your own prejudices upset the natural balance of ideas.

[SaiyD]

If you prosecute Beck you might aswell prosecute every other broadcaster in the media. Being Native American, I tolerate all you white people just living here. I also tolerate the Authoritarianism of the Democrat and Republican parties.

If you're going to ban and fine people from public airwaves, why not ban and fine people from the internet, it's public to is it not?

Constitution, Amendment 1, Fahrenheit 451, nuff said.

[QOTW]

The issue is that for some broadcasters there is no definition between where free speech ends and where what they say and do constitutes a crime.
Commonly broadcasters adhere to guidelines from which they never deviate for fear of offending the audience and/or losing their jobs. Yet others of a certain religious/political persuasion use their air time to spew their personal prejudice as acceptable reason, truth and fact. Once their slot is over they absolve themselves should any 3rd party take that rhetoric and act upon it negatively toward others.
'Race crime' doesn't just mean victimization because of skin colour, it also includes nationality, culture and language. Similarly you don't have to be physically attacked / injured to be a victim of such crime.
There are some cable shows that intentionally bait their audience in the full knowledge that most take their words as Gospel. They preach to a particular demographic and encourage them to take it out of the home and into the mainstream where they demand it be tolerated when for most of us it is completely intolerable.
Do exercise your right to free speech but when you broadcast extremism as accepted truth or fact, which may inflame others but defies any reason or logic to the contrary, then you should be prosecuted, it is hateful propagation. And until people are prosecuted for being hateful the assumption remains that we all tolerate it, we do not.

[BurtonOerney]

Beck and Limbaugh are not unaware of what they're doing. They are attempting to elicit a reaction. In their best case scenario, they'll cause some democratic law maker to try to force them to stop broadcasting their 'opinions.­' At the very least, they include the most willfully uninformed and intentionally provocative people on their side in the national argument. If liberals engage and try to label those people a dangerous threat that needs to be stopped by a moralizing government, well, that's just gravy, isn't it?

[BPolite]

I find it very unfortunate that there are so many Americans listening to and watching these hatemongers who don't just turn their TVs off or at least switch the channel. Some of them say it's just entertainment. Well, that's a pretty sick way to be entertained. Debating issues in an intelligent and adult way takes work; i.e. you have to take the time to undserstand the issue before you can have a valid opinion. It's too bad there are so many Americans that would rather not do the work to understand the issues. They just listen to the Becks and the Limbaughs and regurgitate what they have been told. Unfortunately there is a lot of hate in this country and these mouthpieces have given their minions free reign to express that hate. This is really bad for our democracy.

[RabidRightRebel]

These people need to be properly identified and labelled as rabid right fanatics. It is a clear name tag that is completely appropriate for their behaviour.

The vile and hateful messages that they spew should not be persecuted but ridiculed. Persecution would just make martyrs of these fanatics.

As Barney Frank pointed out trying to have a conversation with them is like having a conversation with a dining room table. My less diplomatic motto is: Trying to reason with the rabid right is like trying to reason with a rabid dog; absolutely pointless.

[Garybot]

You are such a wonderful person.

[faith]

Great post concerning hate speech Mr. Lichtman. A similar incident happened just in front of our local Vons store. There was a woman with her table, chair, posters, and petitions set up in front of the Vons store. Included was a picture of the sitting President of the United States depicted with the well recognized moustache and strong inference to Adolf Hitler. I, and several others entered into the Vons to let them know that if they supported this type of symbolic hate speech (depicting our president as Hitler) that we would choose to shop elsewhere. This is beyond outrageous. The fact that the news media, local grocery stores, etc. allow or turn a blind eye to this type of characature, disrespect, and hate against the United States President is unacceptable. Inciting others to hate or make hateful associations with historical evil doers is not only immoral and misleading is a taboo. This has nothing to do with political idealogue disagreements. It is vicious, misleading, and just plain mean. It needs to stop.

[CynAnne]

Bravo and very well said, Mr. Lichtman. The tolerance that has been given to such yellow-rag rhetoric is unbelievable, and one starts to wonder why such leeway has been given, when SO much of what is said is just factually wrong, plain and simple. Many countries throughout the world literally shake their heads in collective disbelief at the hate-speech that flows like sewage from the microphones of these radical conservati­ves..no facts, no balance, just ill-will, 24/7...