Policing the Boundaries of Dissent

by Cliopatria

Take a moment. Compare this to this.

Now:

In 2001, the comedian Bill Maher said that the 9/11 attackers weren't cowards. In response, empty-headed White House spokesmodel Ari Fleischer warned darkly that"people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."

In the years after those attacks, protest became a deeply marginal activity. Anti-war voices were"shrill." Coverage of anti-war protests inevitably featured photos of crazy signs and black-masked anarchists.

Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that political speech can be too provocative, suggesting that some dissent moves dangerously far toward the margins of excessive freedom (emphasis added):

"I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words," Pelosi said."We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance...I wish that we all again would curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, with the understanding that some of the ears this is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

Meanwhile, coverage of recent political protests deride critics of the current administration as"teabaggers," foregrounding photos of, as already noted, the"10 Most Outrageous Tea Party Signs."

An American cult of state power has two branches. Each knows that the other is irresponsible for criticizing the Great Leader, depending on which faction holds that seat at the moment. Both wings serve the cause of expansive central authority.

Both make me sick.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

William Hopwood - 9/20/2009

"While I don't pretend to quite know where to put it, I do feel like there needs to be a dividing line between legitimate dissent and the incitement to violence of hate speech..."

"Where to put it" is indeed the problem. Who would be qualified to be the arbiter of this dividing line? One person's legitimate expression of opinion may be the catalyst for a completely illogical and anti-social act by another, but should that possibility be an intelligent (or legal) reason to muzzle the former? Or to punish the former for the expression of thought which resulted in the act of the latter?

And of course there is also the little problem of the First Amendment which the curtailment off the alleged "inciter's freedom of expression would entail.

".... But a lot of the tea party people are taking their talking points from Timothy McVeigh, or are close enough to be worth taking seriously."

"A lot of the tea party people" seems to be an exaggeration--something Chris Matthews might dwell on for days after seeing one nut with a goofy sign.

Most of this is really nothing new. I don't know how old you are but for those of us who can remember the rantings of the "radio priest" of the 30's, Father Coughlin, most of this tea party stuff is mild.

WJH

Chris Bray - 9/19/2009

Yes, but.

Some of the attacks on Obama are plainly racist and hateful, and things like the Drudge Report are a dispatch from asshole-land, these days. But watch how easy it is to turn that attack around.

Anti-war speech = violence against soldiers!

Here's another good one.

Or here's Michelle Malkin doing it in two easy steps.

So there it is. When the crazy Code Pink left-wingers protested against the war, did they realize it would lead to the BOMBING of a government building and the MURDER of a YOUNG SOLDIER!?!?!? Maybe they should have been more CAREFUL about what they said!

There's lots of hateful speech. The problem with the category of "hate speech" is that somebody has to define it. How certain are you that you'll always like the prevailing definition?

Aaron Bady - 9/19/2009

While I don't pretend to quite know where to put it, I do feel like there needs to be a dividing line between legitimate dissent and the incitement to violence of hate speech, and that does seem to be an important difference in these two cases. I take your larger point, of course; I think you're right that Ari Fleischer policed dissent because it served his political movement's purpose to do so, and that we are probably now seeing a sudden enthusiasm for civility on the part of people like Pelosi because it serves their political movement to do so. To that extent, I agree. However, Pelosi went on from the quote you excerpted to talk, very specifically, about "rhetoric [which] created a climate in which violence took place." Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between dissent which is simply aimed at the powerful (for whom it is only a political threat) and dissent which is being translated into implicit (and sometimes explicit) threats of violence (against minorities)? I can't imagine that the most wild and crazy leftist rants about Bush in the wake of 9-11 really had anyone sweating. But a lot of the tea party people are taking their talking points from Timothy McVeigh, or are close enough to be worth taking seriously.