How to Respond to the Election?

After the dismaying election season and the heartbreaking election results, my first response was that I needed to start planning to leave the US.  The country is broken in so many ways.  The rage unleashed by Trump against Latinos and Muslims is scary.  As is his contempt of women and the “elite,” meaning educated liberals.  Given the darkness of his campaign, I saw things could easily move in an even more unpleasant direction.  

And incoming reports confirm my fears; just since the election, hate crimes are on the rise, committed by people often invoking his name.  And the FBI just reported that hate crimes were up 6% this past year.

During a morning meditation though I asked myself what a spiritual person should do.  What did spiritual, good people do in other situations where people were persecuted?  And I thought of the people who at great risk hid Jews or helped them escape from the Nazis.  I thought of the Danish citizens who marched with yellow stars on their coats.  I thought of churches here who offer sanctuary to undocumented aliens.  I thought of what Pastor Niemöller said in Nazi Germany, “First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing,  Then they came for the Jews, and I did nothing.  Now they have come for me, and it is too late.”  I knew I had to do something.

At the same time, I was aware that millions of Trump supporters have been suffering terribly for decades as a result of jobs lost overseas and wage stagnation, their middle class world shattered.  That they rightfully felt neglected by the political establishment, and their anger was a reflection of that suffering.  They need help as well.

Each of us, in ways small and large, can act to let those being attacked as well as those who have suffered know that they are not alone.  

As for myself, I realized that this disaster presents a once in a lifetime, perhaps once in history, opportunity for America to get past its internal problems of racism and all forms of bigotry and inequality.  And so I came up with the idea of starting a nonprofit, American Solidarity, which would, in concert with other national organizations, organize mass non-violent rallies across this country for people to stand in solidarity with Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, LGBT people, and women, as well as the white displaced worker.  To show that you can’t rebuild America physically while leaving its social fabric frayed.  Go to www.american-solidarity.weebly.com.  

I purposely am not calling these gatherings “protests” because that’s not the spirit I want to project.  Why?  One has to understand a basic fact regarding Trump: if you criticize him in any way, he will respond with vitriol and disdain.  And so all the ranting protests, regardless how large, will not move him an inch and actually be counter-productive.  He feels victimized by the establishment, by moderates and liberals, and so this type of protest will only feed that perception and strengthen his resolve to go his own way, supported by the alt right.   

Instead, I want these rallies to be dignified statements of solidarity with all those being attacked as well as the millions of blue collar workers who have been suffering terribly.  

What we need is a Gandhi/MLK moment.  This is a time for all 63,000,000 of us who voted for Hillary as well as millions who voted for Trump out of economic despair, not hatred, to come together and say to Trump, “yes, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, create jobs, but be, as you pledged, the president of all Americans.”

Hate Speech - The TIme Has Come to Regulate It

Hate speech is defined as “speech that attacks and is an incitement to hatred of a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”  Hate speech is not a rational discussion of the pros and cons of a group’s values or actions.  It is targeted solely at the listener’s emotions.

There has always been a lot of hate speech in this country, but over the past few decades, it seems to be getting worse.  As in the past, hate speech is directed against various groups ... gays and lesbians, people of color, immigrants, pro-choice women and their doctors, Muslims ... with the object of either inciting the public to act against these groups, often through legislative action but also often through violence, or just denigrating their value as human beings.

Such speech has been deemed protected by the 1st Amendment’s right of free speech.  While that right is not absolute, the only limitations on speech approved by the U.S. Supreme Court have been incitement that created a clear and present danger of violence or illegal action, libel and slander, obscenity, “gag” orders to insure justice, or protecting consumers from false advertising, for example.

In each of these cases, someone was being harmed in a way that could not be practically countered in the “marketplace of ideas,” which is the function of free speech in a democracy.  While most European countries, and some others, banned hate speech after WWII because of the Nazi experience, the United States has not seen fit to do that.  The reasoning being that unless there was a clear and present danger, the hateful speech could be countered in the marketplace of ideas by other speech.

This reasoning may have had some validity in the pre-internet, pre-cable TV era.  But now it is a specious argument.  We live in an era where many people lead very polarized, insular lives.  Because of the advent of the internet and cable television, people now can and do listen only to news and pundits that agree with their point of view.  If they hear an opposing viewpoint, they dismiss it out of hand as being biased or ill-informed.

We also live in an age where information goes viral, which is to say that like a virus, the information spreads very quickly.  Given these two factors, together with the fact that guns are readily available and there seems to be less inhibition to using them against people, hate speech has a heightened  ability to cause a clear and present danger to the physical or mental well-being of an individual or group of individuals.  And it therefore should be banned.

Interestingly, the loudest opponents of such a law would be liberals, for whom the right of free speech is sacrosanct.  But as discussed, the right is not absolute, and such a law would not be a “slippery slope” leading to further restrictions on free speech.

Regarding those who create hate speech, they should not be able to disingenuously claim the protection of free speech.  The court has made clear that people are to be protected from a clear and present danger of violence.  In the case of much hate speech, it is clearly the intent of the speaker or writer to foment violence against individuals or groups based on an emotional hatred.  That one has no way of knowing whether someone will act on that incitement should not protect such speech.  By the time someone acts, it is too late.

And for those many instances in which hate speech deals with a legislative agenda, it should also be banned.  While there is certainly time for opposing viewpoints to be aired, the marketplace of ideas is not functioning very well in our current polarized internet/cable TV environment.  

But more fundamentally, hate speech has no place in a civilized society.  Just as a society has the right to protect consumers from false advertising and children from obscenity, society has the right and I would say the duty to protect people from hate speech.  Both the haters and those who are the object of hate suffer as a result of such speech.

Hate Speech Has No Redeeming Social Value and Should Be Prohibited

Chief Justice Roberts was right when he wrote in yesterday’s opinion protecting the speech of protestors at a military funeral that “debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open.”   However, the particular speech in this case that he and the seven concurring justices ruled was protected by the 1st Amendment consisted of, “God Hates Fags,”  “God Hates Your Tears,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

As Justice Alito said in his lone dissent, these words are more like fighting words … a “vicious, verbal assault … brutalizing innocent victims.”  For once I agree with Justice Alito.

The United States has a long history of upholding the most heinous forms of speech, so long as that speech does not directly incite violence or otherwise endanger people.  Most of the countries of Europe and Canada, on the other hand, have laws that criminalize hate speech.

Why the difference?  Part of the difference stems from Europe’s experience with the Holocaust.   They understand more clearly the evil that hate speech can bring about.

But mostly the reason lies with the interpretation of our 1^st Amendment, which prohibits any laws that infringe on the freedom of speech.  Absent a “clear and present danger,” the courts have generally held that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected.

So the result, for example, is that while it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, etc., it is not against the law to encourage hatred against African-Americans, Jews, or any other group.

The question that must be asked is, why is discrimination prohibited but hate speech allowed?  There is no rational answer.   The answer is historical … the right of free speech has long been a sacred cow of American constitutional jurisprudence. 

But hate speech does not foster reasoned debate on issues of national import.  Rather it fosters just the opposite.  It fosters at a minimum highly emotional positions that actually hinder reasoned debate, and at worst it fosters an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence.  Additionally, it tears apart our social fabric.  Thus, even absent a “clear and present danger,” there is no reason to protect such speech.

The argument against prohibiting such speech is that it presents a “slippery slope.”  Once you allow for one type of speech to be prohibited, where do you draw the line? 

But the right already is deemed not to be absolute.  Thus the question becomes whether such speech has value … “redeeming social value” in the context of the obscenity cases … to America’s marketplace of ideas, to the furtherance of rational discourse.

The answer is, “no.”  We prohibit discrimination, we prohibit hate crimes, we should prohibit hate speech.  

Islamophobia Has No Place in Our Democratic Society

Life for American Muslims has gotten more difficult in the wake of the Islamophobia that has swept across the land since last August’s “Ground Zero mosque” demonstrations.  Case in point: the Orange County, CA District Attorney recently filed criminal misdemeanor charges against Muslim students for disturbing a public meeting and conspiring to do so.

A year ago at the U. of California, Irvine, several Muslim students – members of the Muslim Student Union – disrupted the Israeli ambassador repeatedly during his speech at the university, shouting protests against Israel.   The students were removed from the hall and the MSU was suspended for a quarter.  The students were not disciplined.

The university’s action was appropriate.  Central to the concept of free speech in our democracy’s marketplace of ideas is the position that various points of view must be allowed to be voiced and heard.  As with most rights, however, there is a concomitant responsibility not to use that right to interfere with its exercise by another. 

By choosing to heckle the ambassador and interrupting his speech, as opposed to, for example, setting up a booth outside the entrance to the hall with banners voicing their feelings, they were attempting to shout him down, to force him to stop speaking, to silence him.  While there is a long tradition of heckling speakers in this country and elsewhere, such action is not the hallmark of a civil society and it is not uncommon for such protesters to be removed from the space by security guards or police.

The MSU was not disciplined for expressing its opinion as it had done frequently in the past without any university action.  It was disciplined for interfering with someone else’s right to be heard.  In the context, I think the suspension was reasonable.

However, the DA’s action is another matter.  It is highly unlikely that when someone disrupts a speech in Orange County and is removed, that person is typically prosecuted.  If my supposition is correct, then there is only one reason why these Muslim students were charged … Islamophobia.

A government official acting against individuals because of their race or creed is a violation of the 14^th Amendment of our Constitution as well as Federal law.  There is no place in our society for toleration of such bias.

Indeed, there is no place in our society for the wave of Islamophobia that we have recently witnessed.  Yes, the United States and its citizens have been subjected to terrorist acts by Islamist militants.  But to take the actions of a violent few and transfer guilt or suspicion to all Muslims and treating them as the enemy is not reasoned action; it is not just action. 

Actually, Islamophobia has in an important sense little to do with 9/11.  During the nine years following that tragedy, while Muslims were clearly viewed more suspiciously by many, there was no public uprising like Islamophobia.   No, that occurred only when right-wing demagogues found a cause they could conflate into a roaring blaze … the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.”

The rage in various parts of the country surrounding Muslim communities wanting to build a mosque is embarrassing.  We have freedom of religion in the United States.  What does that mean, if not the right to build a house of worship for your religious observance. 

Muslim Americans are good Americans.  They as a group are no more a threat than German American citizens were during WWI and Japanese American citizens were during WWII.  That there are undoubtedly isolated radicals among them who wish to harm the United States does not alter that fact any more than the Timothy McVeigh’s and anti-government militias in this country could fairly implicate all white conservative Americans in supporting violent acts against the Federal government.

The demagogues of the right paint a world where an enemy is lurking around every corner, whether it’s an Islamist radical or a socialist liberal.  In former years it was a radical African American or a Communist Jew. 

Unfortunately, the followers who listen to these demagogues have swallowed their emotional diatribes hook, line, and sinker.  That is where the threat to our democracy lies, as well as from any person or group, regardless whether on the right or left, who preaches hate towards fellow Americans.  Hate makes rational discourse impossible, and rational discourse is the lifeblood of our democracy.

When the Word is as Mighty as the Sword

There has been much talk recently about whether people can be held accountable for violence if their words didn’t actually incite the violence, but created a climate of hatred and fear that underpinned the violence.  From a legal perspective, certainly they cannot be held responsible.  However, are they morally responsible?

Two recent cases are on point.  The first concerns the incident in Tucson in which a deranged person with strong anti-government feelings shot and killed or injured twenty people.  Many liberals pointed to Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” map as well as her “reload” language as having some responsibility for the incident.  To which she replied that she abhorred violence and that such an accusation was a blood libel.

But Sarah Palin has a history of fomenting hostility and violence.  The “reload” call and the rifle crosshair map are just more relevant to the current incident.

During the 2008 election campaign and the health care debate, Palin frequently painted Obama as a hostile enemy, not a “real” American, who “palled around with terrorists” and was a socialist.  As a result, her audiences became increasingly hostile, calling out  “terrorist” and “kill him” on numerous occasions.  Not once did Palin repudiate the violence of her audience.

In the second case, a group of Evangelical Christians went to Uganda to press their message that the “homosexual agenda” was evil and that homosexuals sodomize teenage boys.  To put it mildly, they found a receptive audience and the result was a proposed law under which homosexuals would be executed simply for being homosexual. 

While consideration of that bill was put on hold due to international condemnation, a local paper published photos and addresses of key gay activists with an accompanying anti-gay diatribe, after which one was hammered to death in his home.  Here again, the Evangelicals reacted with horror to the crime and said that in no way did they promote or provoke anti-gay violence.

Yes, to paraphrase the NRA, “people kill, not words.”   So Palin cannot be blamed for the Giffords’ shooting and the Evangelicals cannot be blamed for the Uganda murder.  However, their incendiary deceitful words can be blamed for creating an atmosphere of fear and violence towards, on the one hand, Obama and liberal democrats as the enemy, not just opponents, and on the other towards gays as a threatening Satanic force.

A deranged man pulled the trigger and struck the hammer blows, but Palin and the Evangelicals were a force that help point the gun and raise the arm in violence.