I'm not a political person. I find politics and such to be a dirty and confusing business. Except when it comes to dirty politics. That isn't confusing at all. That's just double dirty. Math. Ta da!
But I do like discussing laws. Maybe it is my religious leaning, or my fascination with the precision of wording or maybe it is because I find comfort and predictability in a legal system because then I can be a rule follower and know what I'm following.
One law (and there are different types of laws including rules, actions in equity, precedents etc) or category of laws can be traced back to the bill of rights, the first of 10 amendments appended to the Constitution of the US before all those other johnny come lately amendments snuck in (like proposition 305). The relevant portion for today's rant is (and I'm ellipsisising the parts not relevant), "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
In the U.S. people (I'm not using the word "citizen" intentionally) have the right to say things without the government's restraining them. This, of course, has exception. There are categories of speech that are subject to prior restrain -- laws can be made that stop the speech from coming in to the world. Hate speech is still protected, though. So are lies. If I choose to stand on the street and spout vicious lies and hateful comments, I cannot be stopped.
So one might think that, knowing this, Macklemore, Miss Rachel and so many others are within their rights to say what they feel. And you would be right, sort of.
Back in the day, I was an ardent civil libertarian. I believed that the truth would set us all free so if the IHR wanted to speak at a college, that would be fine but I would encourage the school and its students to provide the opportunity for pre-education and rebuttal. The open marketplace of ideas has to include all the ideas, right? The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights (including of speech) of the minority. Even unpopular statements can be expressed. This is freedom, right? Again, sort of.
Thing is, when people throw around the term "freedom of speech" and support it by invoking the 1st Amendment (henceforth to be abbreviated as "the 1st Amendment") they are usually in error. There is very little in what has been on the news which is subject to any laws. Removing someone from a job, a role or some other context is a consequence, not a legal estopping of any estatements. Is that unfair? maybe, but it is a consequence in the same marketplace of ideas. If you work for me and you say something hateful, I can fire you because your presence will affect my bottom line since people might buy my product or service from someone else if I am associated with hate. So I say "you are poison for my business. Go away" and I make sure the public knows that those views aren't mine. Buy my stuff, please.
So first point -- you don't have freedom from consequence, and if this isn't about laws being passed to gag you before you speak, this isn't about the 1st Amendment. This is about capitalism -- I want to make money by convincing you to spend it. If I am not a persuasive salesman because I am seen with haters and the marketplace isn't into hate and its standing-byproducts, then I lose money. I am allowed to choose my friends an spokespeople. That's my freedom.
Next, speech is not protected in all places or at all times. If you step into my house and say "I hate you and you are evil" I have the right to say "I hear that, now get out" and you get no yummy brownies that I just made. [full disclosure, I made them last night and then ate the whole pan so let's put this in the theoretical pile until I make more] I can protect my space and my reputation by telling you to leave. Let's take that a step further. Certain kinds of speech are not appropriate for all ages. We have ratings which establish age cut offs. In that vein, I would suggest that going into a school and using certain language or discussing certain subjects in front of the class would be wrong. Do kindergartners need to be read to from Penthouse Letters? Personally, I don't think so. But hey, I never thought it would happen to me but...
And remember, lies are protected so when a news outlet says something it knows to be untrue (or hasn't done a good job of checking) it is within its rights. Damn the canons, full speed ahead. Do we champion that right to lie?
Now, as to what constitutes the kind of speech that some want want to react to. The answer is "any." We put the power in the hands of the hearers, or more precisely, their ears. If I am offended by something you say, you can put your hands over your ears and refuse to listen, and then you can choose not to buy the product or service of people who espouse that position or affiliate with the person who champions it. So we have a "my house, my rules" and a "you can't do that on television" mixed in with "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." If you don't like that a comedian makes a joke about balloons because a balloon raped your cattle and stampeded your village, then you walk out and you call the owner of The Chuckle Patch (who by the way is playing with trademark infringement) and say "my friends and I won't be coming back because you put a guy on stage who triggered us." If the owner hears from one person, he might ignore it. If he hears from a thousand paying customers, he might listen and tell balloon-boy to take his jokes elsewhere. That's the free market at work. The comedian says what he wants and the market decides if his opinions should be rewarded. Or if a venue that hosts him is a place in which customers will laugh or not. I can always go the He Guffaws right down the street and drink my minimum there.
The owner can also walk over to the comedian and say "your material is great but the balloon thing isn't playing for my audience -- if you want to play again, remove the stuff that my audience hates." The comedian can change, walk away, or do what he wants and face consequences. This isn't a matter of law, but of the owner's control over his place of business. He can get on stage in a fake nose and side-locks until someone tells him not to. He can do his entire routine in blackface until someone tells him not to. He stand on stage and do nothing but read Tropic of Cancer until someone tells him not to. And if no one tells him not to, because the act is selling and receiving no negative backlash, then so be it.
People attend events for the event. I used to go to concerts and when I did, it was because I wanted to hear music. I don't care what my favorite band thinks about immigration, fracking or space based weapons. When a performer uses a bully pulpit to profess ideas I find abhorrent I am offended not by the ideas, but by the misuse of the spotlight. Honestly, why do I assume that the opinions of a Hollywood actor are any more valid or informed than those of more personally prepared or invested parties? I don't. I look at the ignorant and say "stay in your lane -- do what you did to become famous and don't mix in other stuff." The fact that Mel Gibson (maybe) is an antisemite doesn't interest me. Don't ask, don't tell. I still want to see him in movies. He's dreamy. But when he signs a letter with 300 of his friends accusing Jews of controlling the weather, I'll get irritated. The abuse of the microphone to mix messages into an intersectional symphony isn't why I paid too much for this ticket. A linguist's opinion on world events is as useful as my opinion on the great vowel shift, so I keep my mouth shut about it when people come to my house to discuss baked ziti. And, yes -- they do.
And we also have to consider how consistent we want to be in the application of the marketplace's strength. Are we offended when someone uses the middle of an Ibsen play to stop and lecture the audience about the perils of processed foods (unless it is Hedda Gabler*...interrupt that one as much as you want)? Do we want our money to go to someone whose cooking show is about the best preparation of fugu for the home cook, as explained by a twenty-year old who is blind? Is it a problem if the brass section of the Boston Philharmonic gets up on stage in the middle of some rondeau to wave a Confederate Flag and yell "the south shall rise again!"? Can Macklemore do his set in blackface? Can he shout "I just want you all to know that 9/11 never happened -- the twin towers never actually existed and all those people didn't die, they were all just crisis actors, paid by the Protestant mafia" and expect no response? What is offensive to whom and are we equally offended by all things? More importantly, do we protect anyone else's right to be offended even when we aren't?
If Miss Rachel chose to teach young children "The Dalai Lama is the devil incarnate" would we let our kids keep watching? And if we knew she posted this sentiment on social media would we still think her fit to teach our children ANYTHING? Again, this isn't about the freedom of speech, but about the freedom to respond to speech.
So the take aways? Invoking the 1st Amendment is generally inappropriate unless you are talking about particular laws in particular contexts. Freedom to speak your mind isn't guaranteed in places you or the government doesn't own, or at times when the audience is wrong. Expressing your opinion doesn't shield you from the consequences of expressing your opinion.
And if you find yourself offended that there are certain consequences when someone in the public sphere says something you agree with, imagine if that someone had said the opposite. Would you be equally as offended if a band at Burning Man held up a Russian flag and sang the Russian anthem as a Ukrainian flag and sang its anthem? [Do they have bands at Burning Man? I have no idea. If not, not. My B] What if someone used his position at the center of 50,000 adoring fans to say "All Hindus need to be removed" or "Left-handedness is sinister and left-handed people are baby killers!" Or if a black politician makes public statements wearing a dǒulì using pidgin, wearing Coolie Attire and sporting a clipped on queue.
If your outrage is selective then maybe you aren't all about freedom of speech.
--------------------
*I have never read Hedda Gabler but I had to choose an Ibsen and that was the third one I thought of.