Freedoms of Hate?

As of late I have been wondering about the nature of the First Amendment, and over the past couple of decades the trend in the excercise of this constitutional right has been inverted in a rather sinister fashion. For instance, one could argue that violent talk shows, pornography, softcore pop TV (that illustrates surreal sexual models), video games that circumvent other regulation of content to minors, etc., and tobacco ads to children have all been argued at one point or another as protected by this right. And except in a couple cases in which threat speech is linked to the (in)direct harm of others, such as the juvenile tobacco marketing, most of this has a strong basis in fact.

But the above is a somewhat digressive in which is a bit of what seems to be the stated inclusivity inherent in the 1st Amendment. For example, in the 1990s there was a bit of a neo-conservative backlash in terms of a reaction to the "political correctness," or so certain groups, of the 1980s, call it. This backlash continues into the 00s.

Much of the anti-PC backlash is seen through the neo-conservative Right through media personalities such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannerty, and echoed by Fox News and statements of many in the Republican Party, although such polemics are not limited to Conservatives or Republicans.

However, from the aforementioned group, and after three paragraphs the crux of my point, is that a largely conservative demographic, including the new trendy Republican Youth (obviously nostalgic for Michael J. Fox in Family Ties), and writers such as Ann Coulter have taken to use the 1st Amendment as a shield for rebellion against civility through the creation of vitriolic insults to nearly everyone outside of this ideological base.

The response to the call to diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion has been for a polarization of society through lenses of religion, nationalism, homophobia, and racism. One example is best seen in the dictum of Duya suggesting that if one is not against the terrorism that one, by default, is then a de facto terrorist. Being that such a polemic sets up a wholly unacceptable argument in the first place, excluding any semblance of debate, the argument then acts as a shield for the hate speech of groups such as Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

To take only one example, am I suggesting that Ann Coulter is the same as a Klansman? I was going to say no, but actually not too far off. But then, many on the Left are sounding close to that of the Weathermen, but they are currently far less visible now, and thus less germane to the discussion. What is "relevant," if I dare use that word anymore after the Second Gulf War, is that writers such as Coulter are taking a stance so arrogant as to call her "opposing camp" as lying, sniveling, treasonous weasels who she has even hinted at wishing their demise. And, the response when challenged for the strength of the remarks is a, "Oh please, lighten up!," as if hate speech were some sort of sharp comedy.

What is problematic is that in such an atmosphere, there is less and less room for compromise, civility, or agreement in discussion, which suggests a possible coming time of confrontation, which is alluded to in the recent Texas Democratic Secession of 2003.

The problem is the range of debate of what is permissible by law versus what defines a healthy democracy or society for that matter. Can it be said that although law protects the vehement polarization and ìextremeî rhetoric, what does it accomplish? How is it productive or destructive towards society, and what responsibility are those using that form of rhetoric taking for their share of power in that society? I think you can see where my bias might lie, but what I would wish for is a rise of the 'moderate majority' who claim to be sick of hearing the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides, but seem ineffectual in taking any action against it.

Currently, I have no solution, as the parameters for resistance seem to polarize themselves into action and apathy, which are frustrating in themselves. Perhaps in this age, a measure of Jamesonian self-reflexiveness, in that those of us fighting the polemic understand that it might have to be engaged in, but at tangential angles in order to change the shape of the discussion. At least that's what I'm trying to do.

And for one, I am getting tired of being asked to be part of the solution or part of the problem. I believe that Bartleby had it right when he stated that he would 'prefer not to' be part of the process, but create his own process that has a profound impact on others, although atypical.

But to wrap up with another slightly tangential statement, I'm tired of engaging in behaviors merely in that they are lawful that exhibit equally repugnant behavior to those which they oppose. Much like the argument in Jurassic Park, being able to do something lacks the foresight to understand that it is beneficial to do so. Personally, I've been tired of many kinds of determinism, and I have added rhetorical determinism to the list.

I hope that we can work to eliminate the desire for the immense hatred in American society today, because I'm tired of it.