“If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!”
This is a quote from a USA Today editorial from this morning’s edition by Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. And if only it were true!
Unfortunately, the editorial from which this quote comes was written in defense of her comments on Twitter yesterday (the link is to a conservative political website that recorded the tweets because Butler’s Twitter account is now locked) stating that the U.S. should jail Sam Bacile, the alleged person who is allegedly behind the (truly bizarre) film “Innocence of Muslims.” The film, which is highly critical of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, is said to have inflamed the attackers who killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three others, as well as the protesters who stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and tore down the American flag.
The proverbial “first rule of holes” states that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Unfortunately, Butler seems to have forgotten that rule and instead hired the biggest available backhoe to get herself in further. You really have to read the whole editorial to appreciate it, but let me highlight this part:
So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The “free speech” in Bacile’s film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith’s founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film’s actors say they were duped.
Bacile’s movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously. The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel.
Let’s address a couple of these points. First, Butler says “the ‘free speech’ in Bacile’s film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam.” It isn’t? It’s not even clear that Bacile is a real person, but assuming he is, how does Butler know this isn’t his actual opinion? And why is “free speech” in scare quotes? Presumably, it’s because Butler does not think that this particular expression of opinion should be protected by the Constitution. So who’s going to make the determination of what is protected and what isn’t? (Later in the column, Butler actually suggests that the military might be the right people to decide! I am not making this up.)
Second, Butler correctly points out that this movie is neither the first nor the last film that denigrates a religious figure. She then distinguishes the film from The Last Temptation of Christ (which depicts Jesus as, among many other things, having a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene—something many Christians, and likely many Muslims, found highly offensive) by saying that “[t]he difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel.”
A clearer endorsement of the “heckler’s veto” cannot be imagined. The “heckler’s veto” is a First Amendment term for when the government limits someone’s freedom of speech because the audience either has or is likely to have an angry reaction to the speech. What it means in practice is that speech that is unpopular with people who are willing to use violence to react to speech is to be censored, while speech unpopular with people unwilling to use violence is to be tolerated.
It should surprise no one (except perhaps Professor Butler) that the Supreme Court has roundly and repeatedly rejected this in extremely clear terms. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court held that “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” And more recently, in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), the Court wrote that “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”
As far as I can discern, Butler is asking for exactly what the Supreme Court in Forsyth County prohibits: that speech be punished because it did in fact offend a hostile mob, and not even one in the United States. By this logic, speakers are liable for punishment if their speech is blamed for violence anywhere in the entire world!
We’ve had this argument before, with the famous Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy. At the time, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work) was in the forefront of protecting those on campus who were censored or punished for posting or printing the cartoons.
Likewise, we were there to blow the whistle on Yale University when it shamefully distinguished itself by censoring the cartoons from a book its press published about the effect of the cartoons. It’s only been two days since this film became a known issue, and we’ve yet to see any reports of it being censored on campus. But Professor Butler’s shocking column has to be seen as a truly ominous warning of what might be in store on our nation’s college campuses. In fact, it might already be on the way.
Robert Shibley, an attorney, is Senior Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, thefire.org).
Comments
Ridiculous
A vague comment. But if you want to see ridiculous (aka, ‘fascist,’), take a look at this, from The Volokh Conspiracy:
“[National Hispanic Media Coalition] Renews Call for Federal Government to Study Hate Speech in Media”
Eugene Volokh • September 13, 2012 1:50 pm
So says a Coalition press release. Some excerpts:
Tomorrow the NHMC will file letters with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), sharing this new poll data and renewing unanswered requests that NHMC made back in 2009 for the agencies to study the impacts of hate speech in media.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., Alex Nogales, President and CEO of NHMC, presented the poll findings alongside Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and fellow civil rights activists from the NAACP, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA)….
Neither the press release nor the underlying report defines “hate speech,” but it does talk about some things it disapproves of, including, for instance (emphasis added):
People exposed to negative entertainment or news narratives about Latinos and/or immigrants hold the most unfavorable and hostile views about both groups….
In discussing those in this country without documentation, the term commonly employed by some media outlets, “illegal aliens,” elicits much more negatives feelings than the term “undocumented immigrants.”
Non-Latinos report seeing Latinos in stereotypically negative or subordinate roles (gardeners, maids, dropouts, and criminals) in television and film.
Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) was unable to attend the press conference, but issued the following statement in support of NHMC’s work: “We get calls in my office from angry and outraged talk radio listeners several times a week filled with misconceptions and negative stereotypes. The reality is that when you strip away the anger, underneath there is a lot of consensus among Democrats, Republicans, and independents on the immigration issue and how to get things back on a legal footing. Solutions are within reach. Talk radio is an obstacle to reforming immigration but not an insurmountable one.”
Now if people want to study how media affects people’s perceptions of Hispanics, Southerners, Muslims, evangelical Christians, gays, conservatives, or whomever else, that’s just fine, and can indeed be quite interesting. The media, and the formation of public opinion, are eminently reasonable topics for research.
But when (1) not just an advocacy group but Congressmen as well (2) ask the federal government entity that has the power to give and withdraw licenses, including based on media content, (3) to “study” “hate speech,” (4) with no definition but with examples broad enough to cover a vast range of commentary (express and implied), that strikes me as especially dangerous. And it ties in to leading international law scholars’ views about how restrictions on “hate speech” could be justified using international law norms (see the posts about the views of Prof. Peter Spiro and Dean Harold Koh).
http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/national-hispanic-media-coalition-renews-call-for-federal-government-to-study-hate-speech-in-media/?ModPagespeed=noscript
[…] Robert Shibley has a new post for College Insurrection addressing recent comments made by University of Pennsylvania professor […]
End tenure. Then, end her career.