To Speak or Not To Speak

What does it mean to have Freedom of Speech? In researching for this post, I found out that Freedom of Speech has been broadened to cover a wide variety of different forms of speech. However, there are exceptions to what is protected and what is not. The jurisdiction of Congress or the courts over the protection of speech or the outlawing of speech is not totally clear. Someone speaking falsely or deliberately misleading in their words could be sued for libel or defamation. Also, words which incite violence or criminal behavior could fall under restricted speech. In determining whether said speech does indeed incite violence or criminal acts relies heavily on the intent of the speaker. For years, the lyrics of rap songs have come under fire for explicit wording involving cop killing and the raping of women. After strong debate from both sides, it is now common for such lyrics to not be aired, however, there have been cases where the courts have stepped in and punished those for going too far. The wife of a Vice President even mounted a campaign to urge production companies to voluntarily label their product with a rating system which warned the consumer about the products content.

My quandary for this post stems from politicians, journalists, or any person in the public eye exorcising their right to Free Speech in a reckless manner. How and when do we determine which words spoken in the public arena could be defined as those which could incite violence or worse, criminal behavior? Specifically, my bone of contention lies with politicians who passionately convey their message through scripture or other forms of religious diatribe. To keep this post on track, matters of religion will be addressed in a later post. For now, I want to concentrate on two examples of reckless speech, both espoused by politicians.

The first comes from Sally Kern. Sally Kern is a State Representative from Oklahoma. In a dialogue caught on tape unbeknownst to Sally, she expresses her views of homosexuality as the biggest threat to our National security. In fact, she states terrorism and Islam, while also threats, are not as great as Homosexuality. To show the outrageousness of this claim, she first states that any nation that totally embraced homosexuality lasted no more than a few decades. A few DECADES? I would really like to see the historical data backing up this claim.

The second example of reckless speech by a politician comes from Scott Renfroe, a Colorado State Senator. Here we have a very passionate and God fearing man extolling the dangers of Homosexuality while acting in his role as an elected official. He quotes the oft recited verses from the Bible which condemns the practice of Homosexuality. He then proceeds to liken Homosexuality as a sin on par with murder. His analogy of course brings him to the conclusion that since murder is illegal, then so should homosexuality be illegal. In keeping with the Bible theme, he recites a verse which calls for the revealing of the wrath of God including putting to death homosexuals.

Both of these examples illustrate, in my opinion, words which could incite violence or criminal behavior. I think it grossly irresponsible for these politicians to use such inflammatory language while operating in the role of an elected official. While Sally Kerns was speaking technically off the record, her carelessness in making sure her words be kept private were negligent. Furthermore, she not only confirmed the fact she said these things; she offered no remorse or retraction from her message. Religious arguments aside, Scott Renfroe acted irresponsible as well. To use religion on top of comparing homosexuality to murder and calling for the wrath of God to be carried out on Homosexuals is horrific and inexcusable. It would stand to reason, that any mentally stable person would not take these words as an invitation to seek out and kill anyone who is gay. But how can we be sure that this message was not mistakenly conveyed to someone who is not mentally stable? I am sure Sally and Scott did not intend to promote a message authorizing the killing of innocent people. However, can we be sure that these words, in their basic definition, are not misconstrued? I say we cannot.

In furthering my point, I want to tell you about two individuals who died because someone thought homosexuality was wrong. They are Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King.

Matthew Shepard was 21 when he was robbed, pistol whipped, tied to a post and left to die. His attackers would claim many motives throughout the course of their trial. These motives included: robbing a gay man, for what, is still unclear, although drugs entered the equation at one point then denied later on, as well as teaching Matthew Shepard a lesson. That lesson was for Matthew Shepard not to hit on a straight guy. We will never know the true motive because Matthew Shepard is dead and cannot give any incite as to what actually happened that night. The convicted killers have changed their story so many times; they can no longer be trusted in telling the truth. Because of the national coverage of Matthew’s death, Hate Crime laws with the inclusion of sexual orientation have been enacted in several states. Just recently, a bill was introduced in Congress which would define a crime motivated by a person’s sexual orientation as a hate crime. It is expected to be signed into law on a national level by President Obama. Sad to say, the killers could not be tried as committing a hate crime because sexual orientation was not included as part of the definition yet.

Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy, came out to his family and schoolmates as being gay. He had no problem with who he was or expressing himself through fashion or other avenues. Typical eighth grade classmates teased him and even harassed him, but this was thought to be just normal. On February 12, 2008, Lawrence King was in the computer lab at school when Brandon McInerney, a classmate, walked in with a gun, pointed it at Lawrence Kings head and pulled the trigger. The motive behind this shooting is still unclear but many think it stems from a crush King had for Brandon. Feeling humiliated by King’s crush, Brandon executed him. Fortunately, this time, the killer has been charged as committing a hate crime.

While these sad and horrific acts were not directly linked to the words spoken by Sally Kerns or Scott Renfroe, it is logical to think that their words could provoke similar acts of violence and criminal behavior. For a person to be killed simply because they came on to another person or developed a crush on someone is beyond my comprehension. For a fifteen year old child to harbor such hatred and humiliation towards an innocent school yard crush begs society to examine more closely how this cold blooded and calculated murder came about.

In closing, I want to highlight another murder motivated by a humiliating crush; a same sex crush, only this time, the crush was revealed not in a school yard but on national television. In 1999, The Jenny Jones show taped an episode with the topic “Revealing Secrets.” A young man was flown out and told he had a secret admirer. He was also told the admirer could be either male or female. The identity of the admirer was revealed to be a man the guest already knew. After the show, they flew home together and even went shopping together. Later, the humiliated guest shot his admirer and killed him. The parents and family of the slain man sued The Jenny Jones show saying the producers and the host herself should have anticipated the outcome. I mean seriously, how can you not see that by revealing a same sex admirer to a straight man that it would result in murder? Imagine the humiliation, the shame. Imagine that EVERYONE knowing about a gay man’s crush on YOU. Sends chills up your spine doesn’t it? Incredulously, the jury awarded the plaintiff a twenty five million dollar settlement. Jenny Jones practically shot the man herself it seemed by the overwhelming victory. Finally, sanity prevailed and the judgment was thrown out.

To speak or not to speak. When do we start taking responsibility for the actions caused by the words we say? When do we start taking responsibility for the acts committed in response to messages condoning violence? When do we stop preaching hate and humility and start preaching love and acceptance? I am not saying that anyone who kills someone under the excuse well so and so said is not responsible, but I am saying you should be a little more careful in the words you choose to express yourself. I understand the argument of Free Speech, but with that freedom comes accountability. Certainly, you have the right to say whatever you like, just expect that maybe someone, somewhere will actually believe you.