Right-wing hate speech: Tasteless? Yes. Illegal? Doubt it.

[alp227]

I wrote a blog entry responding to Al Sharpton's December 6 interview on MSNBC's The Ed Show (I have the video embedded on my blog). Also, on my blog I have the links to sources for certain claims; on DU they're suppressed cuz I don't wanna re-link everything here.

Now, I hate hate hate HATE Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the second biggest ignorant doofus on the radio next to Glenn Beck. I like to be informed about current events and politics and hell maybe have a bit of humour or irreverency along with it...but c'mon, Rush Limbaugh's non-stop use of racial metaphors like "reparations" to describe the Obama administration and its programmes such as settlements for black farmers accusing the US Dept of Agriculture of discrimination is just...stupid.

<...> Now, there's no doubt that sensible people would be offended (intellectually and sensibly) by Limbaugh's non-stop politically incorrect rhetoric. But to have the FCC police racist speech on the airwaves...I don't know if that'll ever stand First Amendment muster.

Federal law currently makes obscene speech illegal to broadcast: (emphasis mine)

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

So that's part of why The Howard Stern Show had to leave FM airwaves after 2005. By that time Stern had signed a contract with a satellite radio company.

The FCC's current indecency policy explains why some of your favourite songs (especially rap and rock music) need to be edited for the radio. Especially all those N-words in rap songs. Before you call Sharpton a hypocrite for targeting Rush Limbaugh instead of Lil Wayne: yes, Rev. Sharpton has spoken out against misogyny and vulgarity in hip hop multiple times...for example at a rally in 2007 after the Don Imus controversy, and in a 2002 editorial "The Hip Hop Generation" (included in Davey D's newsletter from 12 December 2002). In this case however, I don't know if Sharpton also wants urban radio stations to stop playing music that reinforces negative stereotypes about black Americans (such as illiteracy, sexuality, criminality, etc.) Examples of rap songs that create negative stereotypes of blacks:
- Sex: "Every Girl" by Young Money, "What's Your Fantasy?" by Ludacris, "Bojangles" by Pitbull, "Lollipop" by Lil Wayne, "Get Low" by Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz, "Hot in Herre" by Nelly, ooh the list goes on and on and on!!!!
- Crime: "The Boss" by Rick Ross, "What U Gon Do" by Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz, pretty much any song by any rapper who wears bling bling/refers to "rocks"/"blunts"/drugs/etc. and any song that promotes gang fights and stuff like that
- Illiteracy: "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" by Soulja Boy, "Country Grammar" by Nelly, and pretty much any over-popular rap song that uses overly simplistic lyrics and especially Bay Area hyphy rap with all that "go dumb" stuff.

While it is noble for Rev. Sharpton and others to speak out against the hateful rhetoric of right-wing bloviators like Limbaugh, making such speech unlawful on public airwaves won't really help much. Limbaugh might as well just move to Sirius Satellite Radio or XM; in fact, disgraced radio host Laura Schlessinger plans on making a comeback on XM next year. Schlessinger, known as "Dr Laura" (even though her doctorate is in physiology she frequently gave relationship advice on her radio show), infamously repeatedly used the N-word towards a black woman caller; Dr Laura apologised and resigned. Former terrestrial radio hosts who moved to satellite, such as Howard Stern, still have substantial followings in their new mediums. Furthermore, the Internet also provides a highly accessible forum for any wannabe Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

While the Supreme Court upheld the FCC indecency policy in the much-appealed 2009 FCC v. Fox case regarding accidental obscene language in live broadcasts (but got overturned by a fed appeals court the next year), the court has ruled variously on hate speech:

Those cases about hate speech are summarized on the Exploring Constitutional Conflicts website on the University of Missouri Kansas City Law School website.

Bottom line is: Hate speech may be repugnant, offensive, tasteless, disturbing, insert negative adjective here. But illegal? I doubt that the FCC would be as focused on shutting down Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage as much as hunting for Janet Jackson's next wardrobe malfunction or the next F-word accidentally uttered during an awards show. And c'mon, there's a reason why the US can't have a law criminalizing Holocaust denial or a law against blasphemy: THE FIRST AMENDMENT! I'll defend inciting mere hatred as free speech, but I'll never defend inciting violence against other people as free speech. For example, someone who walks into a taqueria and announces on a loudspeaker: "Mexicans are lazy" should not go to jail for offending most of the patrons but can be subject to legal action once he says something like "You stole my jobs...I have a gun and will shut you all down!"

Oh wait, it's been over 15 years since G. Gordon Liddy encouraged listeners to shoot ATF agents on his radio show. Liddy, who served time over Watergate, has yet to spend a second in jail over that violent speech.

[1VaDem]

1. I hear you but...

Yes indeed "hate speech" IS "repugnant, offensive, tasteless, disturbing", and many other negative adjectives, but it is also "incitement" and can beyond doubt, goad, or cause someone to act out and hurt others. THAT is when it crosses from abhorrent thought and malevolent ideology into illegality IMO. Allowing the hate of Westboro or Limbaugh to hide behind the sanctity of our Civil Rights is an affront to decency and security they do not deserve.

[alp227]

2. So what kind of hate speech do you think should be banned?

Burning Qurans? "God Hates Fags" signs? Stealing the PA system in a store and telling black customers to leave? ANYTHING that perpetuates hatred/stereotypes? As I pointed out also certain rap songs perpetuate negative stereotypes about black people; should those songs be banned? What about any song that implies domestic violence or sexual domination? Would that be banned for glorifying the abuse of women?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

3. There's also a difference . . .

. . . between "hate speech," (a VERY grey area) and "incitement." I have argued that we've all but taken incitement out of the legal lexicon. If we had not, we would have long ago seen Beck in the dock for incitement or, more closely on point, that Qu'ran-burning goober in Florida.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. In our society, dirty words and sexy talk

are much more offensive than denigrating minorities or talk of violence. Also, banning hate speech would trample on other rights, according to some. For instance, if the FCC were to ban hate speech against GLBT people, some would say that their religion was being repressed because, after all, the most important mission of some religions is to point out the 'sins' of others and get them to repent so that they might be 'saved.' I guess the FCC, with all its faults, is doing the job most Americans want done -- banning certain dirty words and graphic sexual discussions for the sake of the children.