The title of this essay are three very different lenses to view the same phenomenon, something that over the last few months have been thrust into the public's consciousness with a vengeance. Since I took a particular stand using one of the lenses, on Sony's "The Interview" other events of the same category have grabbed the worlds attention, most explosively the murders of the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo by Muslim Jihadists.
I expressed my view that "The Interview" were fighting words that are not protected by law, criticizing Sony for allowing a film to be made that showed the murder of a living person, adding the insult of ridicule to the injury of trivializing political assassination. I was more incensed by our Constitutional scholar president casually, without thought of the consequences, threatening cyber attack against North Korea in the name of Freedom of Speech. Yet he of all people should know that the movie fit this unanimous Supreme Court decision:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.It's important to note that while "Fighting words" does mean that such speech may be suppressed by refusal to mail such material or even arrest of one who uses them to provoke, this principle in no way justify violence, much less murder of one who verbally assaults another. I am raising a different issue, whether the exclusion of fighting words from constitutional protection applies to messages that now can be seen by millions on the internet. And this is the larger question, whether producing material that is known to incite violence should be instantly transformed into heroism if the violence results in the producers murder.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Only a year ago a film had been released to the world titled, "The Innocence of Muslims" that caused at least 50 deaths in riots among Muslims, fitting the definition above, "inciting an immediate breach of the peace." Now this film producer is still almost universally condemned in the Western World. Would this perception have changed if the creators of the film had been assassinated in the streets of L.A.? Would his work then be viewed as a bulwark against those who would claim "Blasphemy" to erode our Freedom of Speech? Or is the line between a hero of liberty and a purveyor of hatred simply in the quality of the work, whether it is clever, edgy or even meets social or commercial standards.
Let's explore some of the less obvious variables. In the Sony event, the ridicule was in a film, which is a medium that recently was used for the scurrilous depiction of Muhammad in the above mentioned film that caused world wide riots with the death of of scores of bystanders. In the Charlie Obeh murders the precipitating spark was images on paper, the printed word, a medium that historically has been used for criticism of political personages and movements.
This process of conceptualization is often developed though unrealized connections. Another example of "blasphemy" was Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which resulted in at least one murder by a Japanese editor. There is virtually no one outside of radical Muslims who does not defend this novel and abhor those who attempted to impose capital punishment for the crime of producing it.
The medium is the message" applies to some degree in this discussion. Writing is the medium for desemination of information, expression of ideas and provoking thought, while films are more visceral, usually designed to entertain.
We are embarking on something very different in the world events. Previously, geo-political positions were the province of those who were in control of a country- however attained not important for this discussion. It was such leaders who decided positions vis a vis other countries and cultures. Now, without the need to attain such leadership, at less than the cost of a single military plane, a commercial film company, or a freelance producer can make a movie, or a Pastor can burn a load of Korans, that incites hundreds of millions of people who happen to be part of a culture that takes this as "fighting words" -- with a small sub set of these people eager to exact the most atrocious revenge.
This is truly a clash of cultures that threatens to take on a life of itself. "Hate Speech" as a concept becomes a weapon to be wielded based against ad hoc enemies that are so branded not by their actions, which may have been irresponsible and self serving, but by the reaction of those who are incited. It will take a powerful and courageous voice of reason to combat this turn of affairs, and I don't see such a person among those vying to stoke anger out of self interest or ignorance of what is at stake.
