thedrifter
02-24-09, 07:49 AM
Hate Speech, Political Cartoons & Talk Radio
by Lynn Woolley (more by this author)
Posted 02/24/2009 ET
Hate speech is not a pretty thing. It’s not pretty when it’s real -- such as Jessie Jackson’s famous “Hymietown” remark. And it’s not pretty when someone attempts to destroy a person or an institution with false charges of hate speech. Such is the case with the Rev. Al Sharpton’s ridiculous attack on the New York Post for a political cartoon.
The intent of the cartoon seemed obvious: an out-of-control chimp that had been making headlines was used to make a point about an out-of-control stimulus bill. But Al Sharpton and others like him saw racism. Even Juan Williams, a usually cool head about such things, saw it because of a history of racist stereotypes, coupled with the fact that the President is African American.
Still, it’s a stretch. President Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did. But why let facts get in the way if you’re an outdated civil rights agitator and an opportunity like this hadn’t surfaced since the Don Imus incident?
So the Post apologized and New York Gov. David Paterson accepted on behalf of the outraged residents of his state. Then he said, “It might be time to open up a dialogue on just where that line is, where good clean fun and degradation are.” Excuse me? Political satire, protected by the Constitution and consistently upheld by the courts is not intended to be “good clean fun.” It’s intended to shoot an arrow into the heart of political stupidity and hypocrisy. If its targets are not offended, it likely didn’t do its job.
Meanwhile the Post’s apology is unfortunate. Because while others are expecting the Obama administration to return to the Fairness Doctrine using either the “imbalance” of conservative versus liberal programming on the AM dial -- or the idea of “localism boards” to force stations to drop syndicated shows, I contend that the hammer they will use is hate speech.
Look at what happened to Imus. It wasn’t “imbalance” that got him fired from WFAN and MSNBC; it was a charge of hate speech.
The term “hate radio” has been around for while, but it came into its own in the days following the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City. Shortly after that event, President Clinton gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said the nation’s airwaves are too often used “to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us upset with each other. [Such people] spread hate, that leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable… It is time we all stood up and spoke out against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.”
Clinton was talking about Rush Limbaugh, though he never mentioned him by name. In Clinton’s estimation, it was really right-wing talk radio that created the climate for such hatred. Rush wrote a column for Newsweek entitled “Why I’m Not to Blame.”
Even before this, G. Gordon Liddy had come under vicious attack for on-air comments about shooting federal agents if they ever came to confiscate your guns. Liddy was discussing a hypothetical instance in which agents burst into a private home, unannounced, guns blazing. No matter; his words were easy to twist.
Similarly, the Left has attacked Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, John Gibson and dozens of others for being purveyors of hate radio. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has demanded to know why none of the “racist right” has been fired as Imus was.
Like Olbermann, liberals smell blood -- even in the most innocent slip-of-the tongue, an off-the-cuff comment that a host might wish to take back, or a biting political parody. The Left will characterize it as hate speech, and along with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, it is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in a newspaper like the New York Post, or on the radio.
Mr. Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 weeknights at 8 p.m. Visit him at www.BeLogical.com.
Ellie
by Lynn Woolley (more by this author)
Posted 02/24/2009 ET
Hate speech is not a pretty thing. It’s not pretty when it’s real -- such as Jessie Jackson’s famous “Hymietown” remark. And it’s not pretty when someone attempts to destroy a person or an institution with false charges of hate speech. Such is the case with the Rev. Al Sharpton’s ridiculous attack on the New York Post for a political cartoon.
The intent of the cartoon seemed obvious: an out-of-control chimp that had been making headlines was used to make a point about an out-of-control stimulus bill. But Al Sharpton and others like him saw racism. Even Juan Williams, a usually cool head about such things, saw it because of a history of racist stereotypes, coupled with the fact that the President is African American.
Still, it’s a stretch. President Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did. But why let facts get in the way if you’re an outdated civil rights agitator and an opportunity like this hadn’t surfaced since the Don Imus incident?
So the Post apologized and New York Gov. David Paterson accepted on behalf of the outraged residents of his state. Then he said, “It might be time to open up a dialogue on just where that line is, where good clean fun and degradation are.” Excuse me? Political satire, protected by the Constitution and consistently upheld by the courts is not intended to be “good clean fun.” It’s intended to shoot an arrow into the heart of political stupidity and hypocrisy. If its targets are not offended, it likely didn’t do its job.
Meanwhile the Post’s apology is unfortunate. Because while others are expecting the Obama administration to return to the Fairness Doctrine using either the “imbalance” of conservative versus liberal programming on the AM dial -- or the idea of “localism boards” to force stations to drop syndicated shows, I contend that the hammer they will use is hate speech.
Look at what happened to Imus. It wasn’t “imbalance” that got him fired from WFAN and MSNBC; it was a charge of hate speech.
The term “hate radio” has been around for while, but it came into its own in the days following the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City. Shortly after that event, President Clinton gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said the nation’s airwaves are too often used “to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us upset with each other. [Such people] spread hate, that leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable… It is time we all stood up and spoke out against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.”
Clinton was talking about Rush Limbaugh, though he never mentioned him by name. In Clinton’s estimation, it was really right-wing talk radio that created the climate for such hatred. Rush wrote a column for Newsweek entitled “Why I’m Not to Blame.”
Even before this, G. Gordon Liddy had come under vicious attack for on-air comments about shooting federal agents if they ever came to confiscate your guns. Liddy was discussing a hypothetical instance in which agents burst into a private home, unannounced, guns blazing. No matter; his words were easy to twist.
Similarly, the Left has attacked Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, John Gibson and dozens of others for being purveyors of hate radio. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has demanded to know why none of the “racist right” has been fired as Imus was.
Like Olbermann, liberals smell blood -- even in the most innocent slip-of-the tongue, an off-the-cuff comment that a host might wish to take back, or a biting political parody. The Left will characterize it as hate speech, and along with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, it is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in a newspaper like the New York Post, or on the radio.
Mr. Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 weeknights at 8 p.m. Visit him at www.BeLogical.com.
Ellie