Here's something I doubt the folks who bemoan 'political correctness' will say much about. Because according to popular fairy tale, 'political correctness' is only used against conservative ideas.
A Queensbury (NY) resident named Chris Schmidt was recently arrested for a second time for holding up a protest sign in neighboring Glens Falls that read 'Down with the fascist' on one side and 'Fuck Bush' on the other.
The man was cited for disorderly conduct.
I'm certainly no advocate of swearing being part of the political discourse. It's tasteless, demeans a serious debate and says more about the person uttering it than about the object of the invective.
But I've been an anti-war protests when 'fuck you' was one of the more mild insults hurled our way and those people weren't arrested.
Nor should they have been.
Sure such language may have offended some people. But unfortunately political speech will offend people sometimes. That's one of the hazards of democracy.
I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'Nuke em all and let Allah sort em out.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'If there hadn't been Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that imply opposing Bush's policies is a slap in the face to the troops. I'm offended nearly every time Bush opens his mouth.
But I'd never say this kind of speech should be banned. And I'd never say these people should be arrested.
If you can say 'fuck' (or worse) against anti-war protesters, why you can't you say 'fuck' on a sign? Why are the two forms of political expression treated differently? Why is such language permitted on bumper stickers but not on a political sign?
But the thing most upset me was the remark by an observer.
"Language is a very powerful tool," Glens Falls resident David Smith told The Post-Star.
This is absolutely right, which is why I disagree with the use of such language in political discourse.
However, Smith added, "If you're going to use that kind of language, you're asking for people to get violent."
This is absolutely dumbfounding.
The irony is that such comments illustrate the protester's point. Infantilizing the population, saying they need to be protected from uncomfortable ideas, these are key traits of fascism. In fact, at the very root of fascism is the fearmongering proposition that dissent inherently leads to disorder such it must not be tolerated.
It reminds me of how some fundamentalist Islamic societies treat women. They claim that men are so out of control so women must keep their faces or heads covered at all times. They claim that the mere fact of a woman showing her face will provoke uncontrollable men to rape them. It treats men as infants (although it's the women who are made to suffer because of it).
David Smith thinks that Americans are so childish that the mere fact of one person insulting the president is going to incite them to violence. They are unable to control themselves in the face of political words.
I'd like to give Bush supporters more credit. I'd like to think that they are not so immature and out of control to 'get violent' just because someone doesn't like their man.
But if they really are that fanatical or inherently violent, then it's they who need to be restrained, not Chris Schmidt.
5 comments:
Having a sign that says "Fuck Bush" may be seen as some as incitement to violence, though obviously less extreme than the scene in Die Hard III where the bad guys made Bruce Willis' character where a "I Hate Niggers" sign on a Harlem streetcorner. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the standards are on such public vernacular, though I do lean with the free speech perspective. Let him wear the Bush sign.
Mark, seen as inciting violence how? I don't think anyone can seriously argue that this would provoke anyone to rape or otherwise have sex with the president, the literal meaning of the phrase. I mean, come on!
He didn't say "Kill Bush" or "Death to Bush," which is certainly a lot closer to inciting violence against this person.
I think unless there ought to be a pretty high standard for the very vague phrase 'likely to incite violence.' And if such expression doesn't include encouraging specific acts of violence against specific people or property, then it almost certainly should fail this standard.
If we want to crack down this harshly, we should ban pro-war rallies which, by definition, promote violence.
I think the 'incitement to violence' line might be slightly less ridiculously if, for example, he went to a pro-Bush rally and was screaming 'F**k Bush' or something ilke that. But just standing on a street corner... come on.
Furthermore, city law defines disorderly conduct as (among other thigns) not just "[using] abusive or obscene language" but doing so "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof".
I think it's a pretty big stretch to say this was his intent. (Except to the extent that any political speech is inherently going to annoy people who disagree)
I used to think "political correctness" was invented by rightists like DeSouza, to discredit attacks on racism and sexism. That is true.
I was shocked to find out Trotsky invented that term, to mean anti-Stalinist Bolsheviks.
I wasn't agreeing with any possible incitement to violence charge, I was only saying it might be possible. And I certainly didn't mean violence against Bush, rather, violence against the guy with the sign by some short-tempered passers-by.
Disorderly conduct, as you defined, yes, seems more likely to be the charge. But like my original note said, this one case doesn't merit any prosecution.
Post a Comment