Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democracy's Paradox
Wanna hear a good Holocaust joke? Or a rib-tickler about lynching? How about starving Ethiopians? You’ll bust a gut.
I spent an eerie couple of hours recently on the wrong side of the sicko line, checking out hate sites and hate jokes. What’s the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead . . .
I won’t go on, but we have to think about this. Hate crimes and hate speech are, you could say, democracy’s paradox. Let’s start with a definition: An “ordinary crime” (as though there could ever be anything ordinary about, say, murder) morphs into a “hate crime” when it’s primary or, perhaps, entire point is to amplify speech, perfectly legal in and of itself, that targets and dehumanizes a particular group. Indeed, a hate crime is a perverted form of altruism in that it isn’t generally committed for personal gain, but rather, for social intimidation and control.
I would add that hate crimes also reflect values that are socially marginal. James von Brunn, who had once blogged that Hitler’s worst mistake was that he didn’t gas the Jews, walks into Washington, D.C.’s Holocaust Memorial Museum with a rifle and opens fire, killing a security guard. The judgment against him is instant and visceral: He’s a violent loner nut. Look at his eyes. He’s not there. His humanity has been replaced with an ideology of hate. And this judgment begins to generate both fear and counter-hatred.
I confess to those emotions, especially as I wandered through some of the sites that would have stoked von Brunn’s fires, like, oh, tightrope.cc, with a logo that proclaims, “It’s not illegal to be White . . . yet” and flaunts an illustration of a hand holding a noose.
Click on “n-jokes” and you’ll find the humor equivalent of snuff porn or graphic photos of dead Iraqis: a hundred or so short jokes, which I took the trouble to categorize. The biggest bunch of them, a good 30 percent, could be called “murder is funny” jokes, celebrating lynching, gas ovens, starvation and he-men, a la von Brunn, shooting off their rifles. The second largest category, about 25 percent, sucked humor out of the gross dehumanization of the target subjects (African-Americans, Africans, Jews, Latinos and Chinese). A small group of jokes extolled the joys of slave ownership, with the rest of them resurrecting various long-dead ethnic and racial stereotypes.
Ah, free speech. Stoke your paranoia here, boys! Lots of adjectives spring to mind to describe this collection (choose your own). The site’s purpose is to defy and taunt the political correctness police and clear a safe place for life’s biggest losers to blame others for their troubles.
It’s also a holding tank, keeping hate alive. One of these days it’ll be back in fashion, with politicians’ blessings. After all, the two primary targets of these jokes — blacks and Jews — were within living memory the targets, literally, not of marginalized nutjobs but the social mainstream. These jokes are not “what if” fantasies, but memories of the good old days of the Klan and the Nazis. It wasn’t hate speech then; it was the righteous truth.
All of which leads me to the concept of hate crime legislation, which von Brunn’s shooting spree and other high-profile recent crimes, such as the killing of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, at his church in Wichita last month, have thrust into the forefront of public debate.
For instance, Attorney General Eric Holder, according to AP, said that these recent killings “show the need for a tougher hate crimes law to stop ‘violence masquerading as political activism.’” And congressional Democrats are rallying behind passage of the Matthew Shepard Act, which would make violence against gays, lesbians and the disabled potential hate crimes.
Fine, except that laws do not stop crime. That’s the problem. Yes, there is a terrible, simmering evil here— a deep national, indeed, human psychosis — that we need to address, and to the extent that pending and existing anti-hate crime laws affirm national values and proclaim them on the marquee of government, they have, I think, immense value. In terms of the Old South, slavery and Jim Crow, for instance, we must declare as publicly as possible: Never again.
But the best a law can do is define a crime and punish it after the fact. The worst it can do is set off a “Prohibition effect” and wind up fanning its own flagrant violation. If we tried to ban hate speech of the sort I just described, that’s certainly what would happen. It’s what censorship usually accomplishes.
The looming horror of the hate that abides on society’s margins — the von Brunn psychosis — is that it will link again one day with the political center, and hunting season will be officially open. Laws alone won’t stop this. They may be necessary, but we dare not stop short of social transformation.
This means rethinking every policy we have that dehumanizes people, with or without — especially without — accompanying hatred, and turns them into collateral damage. It means stopping our current wars. It means demilitarizing.
- Posted in
17 Comments so far
Show AllGood article. But the answer is; Raising kids who have respect. Nothing more, nothing less. All crimes are hate crimes. Drop the hate part and let's move on to improving our failed courts and criminal justice system.
All I saw when, listening to an interview with the son of the shooter and his story that his father was consumed with hate and they flashed a photo of the grizzled old face up on the screen, was a little boy some seventy years ago and a father or mother, or relative and friend forcing upon him the hate that they carried inside of themselves. That innocent little boy, open to the world with a big loving heart, had one of the worst crimes known to mankind forced upon him. His very soul was put into a stranglehold and the torturing of his heart began. Have pity upon such suffering as that man truly has suffered and do not add to the hate with your misunderstanding of what drives such a soul, what consumes and eats at them from within. Only with that understanding can we learn how to reach such people, rehabilitate them if possible or contain them in the most peaceful and loving way we can if not. For it is not hate or evil that is hidden deeply within that persons being, but love, love that was allowed no other expression except hate.
But where does "free speech" end and inciting hatred begin? What is "free speech"? Why is this concept defined the way it is? Can it be defined another way?
Allowing media consolodation and de-regulation, and flooding the airwaves with the likes of Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al. is defined as free speech.
Defining big-money and control of what we see and hear is defined as "free speech"
Sioux Rose
SOCIALIST: You made the point I intended to, and well. Thank you. There is a proliferation of HATE in media, and it's fed by a media sexed up in violent images and entertainment. Plus there are too many guns on the street in civilian possession, added to those produced by the MIC, in addition to those that accompany the uniforms so many police, sheriff, highway patrol officers, DEA officials, and marine patrol officials wear. What percentage of our domestic population is not armed and/or dangerous?
I happen to see "hate speech" as a function of pornography, particularly the sort being generated as it essentially turns women into animals that exist merely to be degraded, soiled, and denigrated. This media promotes ENORMOUS violence to women both in America and around the world. In my mind, the way the male treats his partner, or fails to see her AS an equal partner, sets all the other prejudices into motion. Once the basic equality of genders breaks down, the die is cast for all sorts of power-based hierarchies and the prejudicial hatreds these rely upon and fuel. The only antidote for hate is love, and it begins with mutual respect between He and She, Yang and Yin. Anything else undermines the HOLY template.
good points, we as Americans are routinely and frequently exposed to the glorification of violence from very early ages; the medieval power hierarchies continue to this day. It seems it benefits business interests to maintain this aspect of the status quo as well.
Was it Justice Black who said about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."? We can all say the same thing about hate speech. And we are all a little too quick to defend the hater's right to free speech. We individually have to do the same thing about hate speech as we do about pornography--let the other person know that I or you will simply not tolerate such statements. Only a fool keeps talking when the audience walks out.
Sioux Rose
PPETERS: While I see an analogy between hate speech and pornography, I found your analogy to be somewhat shallow. If you are not a woman, allow me to share my skirt here for a minute, figuratively.
If I get into a crowded elevator with a man and he looks at me strangely I have to wonder if he's one of the MILLIONS consuming porn, and what images he may be projecting at me. There is a likelihood he will not attack me, but it is NOT a 100% certainty. I believe I read that 50% of women would be attacked or abused during the course of their lifetimes. Several of my friends have been raped, and I have had 3 attempted rapes. I managed to get out of every one of them. Hello good lungs! (The better to scream with, my dear.)
I feel this way if I have to deal with a man in "law enforcement." What images of women does he "consume" in his free time that influence the way he will view me, as "generic female." I also see an analogy between porn and a number of the torture tactics that were recently brought to life in Guantanimo. Sexual repression (twisted sexuality) also factored heavily into all those scandals involving Catholic priests and the molesting of young children.
OURS is not a healthy society, thus what is tossed around as "freedom" is a lot like randomly lighting matches close to huge piles of dry leaves.
"This means rethinking every policy..." No, it means removing the US versus THEM mentality that underlies so many policies and underlies so many societal myths. And the most obvious source of the US versus THEM mentality is religion, especially organized religion. In most religions, from day 1 kids are raised to believe US = good, THEM = bad.
Sioux Rose
KANE: I also think the premise of sin, particularly as related to natural human sexuality is a HUGE factor in the formation of personality dysfunctions that can become extremely violent and sociopathic. There has to be a CONCEPT of evil before it can be projected across the "us versus them" divide. Wilhelm Reich understood a few inordinately powerful things that too many today fail to notice, learn about, or respect.
Wayout is correct, the answer is education. We already have too many laws.
Sioux Rose
NOBODY KNOWN: Are you familiar with the premise of the "Emotional I.Q"? I offer this to suggest that there are some VERY well-educated persons who can act from an absolute dearth of empathy like Ted Bundy. Nothing in a logic-based education necessarily brings forth that humanitarian realization that tends to be resonant with feelings, the inner spirit, and the creative aspect of the self. This creative portion is often sublimated because it's given short shrift in our modern business-driven world, while also meriting little in the way of funding when it comes to school budgets and approved-upon curricula. Until society as a whole nurtures the WHOLE self, we will see the most wounded act out their wounds.
LEEA: I do agree with you in part about the child brought up with hatred. Having seen evidence of astrology's influence (over the course of several decades of research and practice), I would NOT agree that the child enters as an entirely blank slate. Each of us is like the acorn that possesses the blueprint for its long-term development. Factors in the world, and in family life, may support or thwart the intended trajectory of "that oak tree." Ultimately most fulfill their natal chart's prophecy.
"Education" as mentioned in my note, does not necessarily mean gaining informative data. When I was in grade school (early 50's) we played games with ALL students involved at recess. The teachers made sure that nobody was left out or picked on. Later when we had to go the the front of the class to read (this was not just an exercise in 'reading' but helped to teach citizenship and the ability to speak in front of others), if the child at the head of the class made a mistake and another student snickered or laughted, THAT student was kept in from recess. At a very young age we were taught to include everybody in the group and to accept that not everybody had the same abilities, but were still equals. I probably would have used Condi Rice instead of Bundy as an example. Ted Bundy had a 'type' that he targeted, where as Ms Rice has shown that she was amoral (IMHO), and cared not who fell by the wayside, so long as her side was victorious. As Mark Twain said, 'Young Man, never allow your schooling to interfere with your education.' I do agree that being lettered has nothing to do with emotional development and that was not what I was trying to convey. Sorry for any mis-understanding. Laws do not make for a safer, saner society.
Thank you for expanding on this issue.
I have begun to view "Hate crimes laws", including the Mathew Shephard law, as a bad development, which poses real threats to speech. I don't think there should be a separate legal rubric for crimes partially or completely motivated by "hate" as defined in these laws or in hate speech policies.
I don't know why judges and prosecutors cannot use evidence of "hate" or membership in a "hate" organization, however, in the sentencing phase. In many crimes, judges have a range of sentencing options. With remorse, no priors, mitigating factors, etc., judges can impose minimum sentences or divert the convicted to prison alternatives and restitution, etc. With no remorse, gang membership, evidence of callous disregard, judges can impose the maximum. Why can't substantial evidence of "hate" function the same way? Why do we need federal "hate crime" laws to impose sentencing mandates on judges and provide easy political "big wins" for prosecutors?
To Sioux Rose---
I cannot recall any other time when you have sought to dominate a discussion as you have on this thread. I have also noticed that in earlier postings you seem to have a slightly judgmental approach to "pornography." You seem to equate pornography with "hate speech" or you come close to it. Perhaps a little more reflection is in order here, of which I know you are sublimely capable on most other issues.
Do you have the slightest idea how most male American teenagers learn about sex? Let alone as it relates to love and affection?
Let alone during a time of WAR or its "AFTERMATH"? I have been married 4 times. (There you go, NSA, but you already knew that...) The 4th produced a daughter who produced a son.
(Otherwise known as "the fourth of the three...")
I learned about sex in a small midwestern college town where I observed college students, er, copulating in the grass on a sunny summer day. (Later, I ended up doing the same!)
I made love with an old lover in a creek of silted water and she loved it. Til the Farmer who came along on his Tractor threatened us. Certainly we were doing him no harm.
Back in the late 50s I had a cousin who had been in Korea and Japan for a few years and then worked for a global travel agency putting together cruises and then working on the boat. At every port he bought "porn," and collected it in suitcases and smuggled it to the U.S. I got to see that collection when I was in high school, and it helped a lot. Much of it turned out to be photographic ART. Would that it not been destroyed by the Thought Police. Mainly my mother! Where my cousin's collection should have gone was to the Library of Congress or perhaps The Smithsonian. Instead, it went to the local dump.
Mars is not now the Male Force we need today, so what alternative would you suggest? Artificial insemination?
In my experience, I know ART when I see it. I loved too many women and did not understand them, but I do not hate myself for trying. You are a very difficult Species!
Beware your female Mars.
-30-
Sioux Rose
OLE MAN: Please read Robert Jensen's book, "Getting Off" and then get back to me. As for dominating? There are some threads that I get involved in, and some I don't resonate with. In certain instances I am more inclined to respond to other posters. No male in this nation is in a position to lecture a woman on porn, as it is NOT yesterday's depiction of sex. I can understand some deviations, like sex with 2 persons at a time, or a man liking to see two women together, but we are talking about incredibly SICK SICK SICK stuff and the fact that it's proliferating has a NET impact on society. Since ours is already sick, and that sickness shows itself in making torture into another banality of evil, and making health CARE a distant dream when there are never enough BOMBS... PULEASE. I may get back to you again on this. I have an appointment this morning and my time is short.
Murder is murder, no? Is it really a lesser crime when someone is murdered for completely fickle reasons rather than because of race, religion, or sexual orientation? I guess there's no lobby against fickle reasons per se, but they tend to be randomly distributed instead of focused on an identifiable group. Thus, no lobby.