Years ago, over something that I’m sure at the time was earth-shattering, some politician made a comment and was summarily attacked (online, not physically). Threats were even made against his family (online, not in person).
A former co-worker of mine posted a response (and later, an editorial) saying that while the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the government can’t punish you for your words, it does not absolve you of the consequences.
So I’ve been thinking a lot about consequences, and whether such things are justifiable in the realm of political debate.
The death of Charlie Kirk has stirred a lot of passion on all sides of the political spectrum, probably even more so than his life and political and personal beliefs.
You have people screaming about his purported fascism, racism, and even hate speech. You have other people saying that both sides are guilty of vocal guerilla warfare (even something as simple as running for office is couched in terms like “fight” and “war” and the like).
Recently, U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi came out saying that there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, as if speech can be delineated in such a manner, and that hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected speech (which oddly enough is diametrically opposed to Kirk’s stance on the subject).
Just last week, ABC’s late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended, claiming that Kirk’s killer was a Trump supporter. This was described as blood libel, and even spurred the fine folks at the Federal Communications Commission to “step up” and “ensure that broadcasters are serving the public interest.”
(Since the government somehow “owns” the airwaves on which radio and television are broadcast, that means they are the boss of networks and such.)
Teachers, pundits, regular nametag workers, all have been fired for celebrating Kirk’s death.
I’ve been in the newspaper business for upwards of 40 years, and I feel that all speech — hateful, ignorant, political, etc. — is only that. Speech. Everything from “neener neener” to “God bless” are words, regardless of the intended meaning.
The problem with labeling something hate speech is that there isn’t a specific definition of what it is. (It’s the same with “hate crime,” but that’s a completely different column.) Sure, it would start out as simple protection, but then it would grow completely out of control, since anyone at any time could be offended by something.
You need only to look at the trans movement and the need to make people use the proper pronouns as an example; commentators (such as Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan) are castigated and even threatened with violence for mislabeling people.
To limit or completely ban the use of something — like speech or guns — will not accomplish the sought-after goals (plenty of evidence on that front), and lead to such interesting bumper stickers that say “When words are outlawed, only outlaws will use words,” and then the snowball starts rolling downhill. Post a bad Yelp review on a restaurant? Arrested. Tell an off-color joke that someone overhears and gets offended by? End up in language gulag. Dislike the latest romance novel because it killed off a character you liked? While that may seem far-fetched, people have shown themselves to not only get offended by the minutest of things, and the pearl-clutching masses will descend in righteous vocabulary indignation.
One of the things Charlie Kirk was extremely passionate about was open dialogue and had said on numerous occasions that when we stop talking, we start fighting. It was in that vein that he would go on his college tours and debate anyone. He wanted a full and open exchange of ideas, and I’d bet he learned as much from the people he spoke with as they learned from him.
Talk is good, and as long as we don’t latch on to ideas as anchors and retain open minds, we can move mountains. My addition to all of this is we also have to stop being so thin-skinned, and maybe we’ll find that when we listen without prejudice, we grow, and then there will be no hate.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
