Monday, November 25, 2013

Guy Fawkes and the Eternal Smile

This past weekend at work I had an interesting discussion having to do with the supreme court case featuring a christian wedding photographer versus a lesbian couple. I would detail for you exactly what was said, but this New York Times article outlines both points far more intelligently than I think I could. I have always believed that both sides in any debate between discrimination vs freedom of speech could provide me with a compelling enough argument on each side to leave me with an utter lack of opinion. Prime example: the Westboro Baptist Church, the most sinister example of a (physically) non-violent western religion. They are most known their "God Hates Fags" message and for being so absurdly infamous that their official webpage has a whopping 1.7 stars on Google review. I do not agree with what they are saying in any way shape or form, but I can't disagree with their right to say it. The simple reason being that I would not want anyone to be able to take the right away from a gay advocate group, it should only stand that the opposite must hold true. However, I have such a disdain for hate speech that even acknowledging this truth is such a difficult task that I would rather not discuss the matter at all. Too many times have I felt entirely too helpless to move. This debate and my inability to respond to it has manifested itself many times in my life in the form of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache:


The picture seems to be primarily used by young activist members of the LaRouche political group. They believe Obama to be a murderer requiring immediate impeachment. Let's get one thing straight, I am an Obama fan, so the picture offends me, but it is offensive to see a Hitler Mustache on any American president. Hitler analogies should not be cheapened with every drastic political view and our president, like him or not, is definitely not deserving of such a gross overstatement. In addition to that he is of mixed race and I believe the offense goes without explanation. If you don't believe this to be offensive I find that strange, but I ask you to bare with me none the less.

I remember the first time I ever saw this sign. I was visiting my dad in Seattle and we were just walking to our car after a really pleasant afternoon. A man carrying one of these signs and a clip board for signatures approached the two of us. My dad, whom I have the most respect for, who never looses his cool and who probably did not vote for Obama looked this man straight in the face and said "if you come any closer to me with that sign I will kill you.." Apparently this is how most of Seattle reacts to the political group. I remember thinking that this was the appropriate response, that we, as individual American citizens, have a duty to make these people feel as uncomfortable as they make us feel. As a disclaimer, my dad would not have killed that guy, he is a very smart man.

When I returned to college after that summer, I was absolutely furious to see that this group was grass-rooting right in the middle of our campus with that sign. This was absolutely appalling to me so naturally, several other students and I all separately declared war. I walked straight out of class and began to argue with these people right away, but knowing nothing of their political philosophy I was quickly at a loss of what to say. The next time they were on campus I began arguing with them about the logical fallacy that the sign presented, but it was obvious they didn't care and one of the men had me reeling when he said "don't you get metaphors man?". Ouch. 

Other students on campus didn't have much luck either. Some took the hands on approach. I once saw a student snatch the sign and run clear across the campus with it, only to find two on display the next day. One female student got the police called on her for dashing her coffee into the face of a guy asking for her signature. Still they kept coming. One day I watched as a student mobilized what seemed to be the entire smoking community on campus to simply crowd around the table and laugh. The political group simply laughed abjectly back. The best result seemed to be when an extremely brave group of students decided to use their right to free speech against that of LaRouche's. They made t-shirts with Obama wearing a halo over his head, made signs that simply said "NO HE ISN'T" and took to standing approximately 15 feet away shouting "OBAMA IS NOT HITLER!" This stroke of genius caused such an amazingly huge stir on a small campus that inevitably the campus police were called. Everyone cheered when we observed one officer tell the group it might not be a good idea for the group to show up on campus anymore and, in order to preserve safety, they needed to pack up and go.

And for while it worked. I practically forgot about LaRouche and the Obama sign altogether. Then the next year they were back. There were more of them and there were way more signs. One dude was even wearing a card board cut out. Online they've made the picture their quintessential image:


That's when I realized there was never any war, just a platform. We were not fighting the image we were empowering it. The LaRouche political group was not exercising its freedom of speech, it was exercising ours. We were helping their cause reach the masses even more. It was then that I realized exactly how important free speech was. I had failed the way countless oppressors have failed before, I tried to silence a group, revoke their right to say what was on their mind and instead made what they were saying so much more powerful.

In some ways this ends the debate for me. The more we try to stop the Westboro Church from saying "God Hates Fags", the more it becomes their mantra, the more it becomes their battle cry. If we force a New Mexico wedding photographer to limit her free speech in taking pictures she doesn't want to take, we are making her the poster child victim of limited free speech when the real victim is the lesbian couple who was denied wedding photography services. In some ways though, I'm left with this feeling of discontent. My helplessness is not subsided, if anything else I feel more helpless. Am I supposed to smile in the very face of what offends me? Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone. 



Thanks for Listening,
Kyle

2 comments:

  1. Interesting you primarily chose Larouche. Though offensive their materials are, I don't find their presence as effective as other orgs. If a person's freedom of speech decreases another person's feeling of safety, how does that change things?

    Are you saying people have a right to hate? If so, should hate crimes be categorized as regular crimes because each person has a right to hate?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh hey there Russ!

    I do think a people have a right to hate, unfortunately. But I don't think people have the right to manifest that hate into a crime against others. Therefore I think hate crimes should receive more punishment than others.

    Your first question is tricky, but I would first like to draw out the potential line between a person feeling unsafe and someone feeling uncomfortable. If someone feels unsafe due to verbal threats, then I believe freedom of speech should be limited. But if someone is uncomfortable because someone holds a negative opinion towards their identity, I would argue that they are safe and that speech should not be infringed upon. Just because someone does not like you, does not mean you are unsafe.

    ReplyDelete