My
Facebook feed has been abuzz with political news again this week. This is
almost never a welcome sight. I grow weary of seeing my friends (conservative
and liberal) share heavily biased news articles and misleading memes from
Facebook pages like “Trump is the New Sauron” or “Clinton Deserves Death.” I
see this as one of the fastest way to spread misinformation and lose friends.
Even posts from my fellow conservatives have this effect on me. But the latest
political debacle struck a chord that few news stories do. This controversy, I
believe, hits at the heart of free speech and what it means to be a celebrity
and have influence. When it comes to this case, I find myself at odds with many
of those who vote similarly.
In
case you have been under a political rock for the last few days, actress Meryl
Streep is in hot water for using her acceptance speech at the Golden Globes as
an opportunity to comment on the importance of diversity in Hollywood, the
press, and the dangers of mockery as a political tool. While I believe that
some of Streep’s claims were overly sweeping, I overall find myself agreeing
with what she had to say.
Any storytelling
medium has an important role to play in empathy. It has the unique ability to
enable us to step outside of our ordinary life and walk a mile in a stranger’s
shoes. Books like Night, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and To Kill a Mockingbird have done
this to great effect. Films like Schindler's List, X-Men, and even Star Wars
have captured audiences hearts by honestly portraying the Holocaust,
symbolically representing the disastrous effects of prejudice, and powerfully
presenting the hero’s journey. Hollywood has only been strengthened by
diversity. Foreign directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang come to mind.
The answer to Hollywood is not to ban diversity but to enter the filmmaking
community. If you dislike the films being produced today, make better films or
support those who do. Censorship is not the answer. By the way, I don’t believe
that it is fair to characterize President elect Trump as wishing to exile all
immigrants nor would the American film industry implode even if he somehow
managed to do just that (though, I believe that it would be a shell of what it
is today.) Streep’s characterization of Trump’s policies were somewhat unfair
but her underlying point remains. Hollywood (and the arts community at large)
is benefitted by diversity.
In addition, I
agree with Streep’s thoughts on the press. The press plays a key role in
holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions and bringing
corruption to light. (Whether or not the press effectively does this is another
question entirely.) Freedom of the press is a very important element of the
American democracy and a freedom that our Founding Fathers protected it by name
in the Bill of Rights. Limiting the press by censorship or intimidation can
only hurt a nation. If you disagree with a position a news source purports,
argue against it. Form a well-reasoned response and object to it publically. There’s
a great deal to be said for the dialectic. Again, if you dislike how the press
operates today, get involved. Write op-eds. Become a journalist. Support the
news sources that are relatively unbiased or, at the very least, fair in their
reporting. Contribute to the discussion. Don’t degrade yourself and the
conversation by resorting to mockery. Again, whether or not Trump engaged in
this type of mockery may still be up for debate and I don’t care to publically
take a side. However, there is something to be learned from his response to
Streep. His Tweet could be characterized as an ad hominem attack. Poor move,
Mr. President elect. Again, object with an argument, not an attack.
Now
that I have established why I agree with most of what Streep had to say, I want
to address two major objections I’ve seen against her speech. I have seen it
argued that she should not have delivered her speech because the Golden Globes
was the wrong venue or that celebrities should not comment on politics.
The Wrong Venue
I
consider this to be the stronger of the two objections and it has some merit.
The Golden Globes is an award ceremony for entertainers. Politics has little
place there. Setting aside the fact that Streep’s speech tied into two key
parts of the media (the press and film industries), I believe that this
objection falls through. There is a long tradition of speeches given at what
could be considered an inappropriate venue changing history.
Athenian leader Pericles
used a
funeral speech to spur his native Athens to keep fighting Sparta in the war
that resulted in the very deaths he was commemorating. Abolitionist Frederick
Douglass used an event commemorating the signing of the Declaration of
Independence to shine a light on the plight of slaves in his powerful speech “
TheMeaning of July Fourth for the Negro.” In a case that parallels Streep in many
areas, author William Faulkner used his 1950
Nobel Prize acceptance speech to
dramatically illuminate the changes that resulted from a post-nuclear era. In a
case of, perhaps, a genuine misuse of a platform, Pastor John Peter Gabriel
Muhlenberg in January of 1776 delivered a
stirring sermon concluding with him
removing his clerical robes to reveal a Colonial uniform, inspiring many of his
congregation to enlist.
My point is this:
some of the most influential speeches have been delivered at venues that could
be seen as inappropriate. If one is to condemn Streep for her use of her speech
at The Golden Globes, it would seem that one must also condemn these speeches
and many others. While there is certainly a discussion to be had as to what the
proper venue is for speeches on certain topics, I would be hesitant to condemn
Streep’s speech on this ground alone. While her speech certainly had much to do
with politics, it tied into the media in many places and included numerous
references to those attending the Golden Globes. In my opinion, Streep’s speech
seemed to be decently well suited to the venue. In fact, her speech was far
better suited to the Golden Globes than many of the speeches listed above.
If one wishes to
condemn Streep on the grounds that her speech was inappropriate to the venue,
one must first show where specifically it was inappropriate and either condemn
the speeches above as equally inappropriate or show how her speech is
significantly different.
Celebrities Shouldn’t Talk Politics
Another objection
to Streep’s speech is that celebrities shouldn’t speak out about their
political views. While not as strong as the previous objection, I believe that
this objection has some grave implications that cut at the heart of free speech.
The reasoning for
this objection seems to go a few ways.
1. Celebrities
should not share their political views because of how many gullible people they
have influence over.
2. Celebrities
should not share their political views because it’s not their place in society.
3. Celebrities are
too out of touch with the everyman to share their political views.
4. Their comments
don’t have any real impact so they shouldn’t share their political views.
I would like to
address each of these arguments in turn but first let me share why I have a
problem with all of them. Every objection seems to limit political free speech
to a certain group (only those who have the role of political commentary or
have a small circle of influence or understand the everyman, etc.) Free speech
is a right guaranteed to all US citizens by the Bill of Rights. Like Freedom of
the Press, Freedom of Speech is a right so key to this nation that it is
protected by name in the constitution. Yes, this right has limits (violence and
indecent material are not protected by this right). However, the decent, nonviolent
voicing of positions (even very strong positions) is protected under free
speech.
Once we begin to limit
this right, we put ourselves at risk to be silenced. There are some positions I
find vile (anti-Semitism, abortion, governmental registration of religious
groups) however, I will fight to my last breath to protect the right to voice
these positions. I want these positions openly voiced and discussed. With these
positions available for discussion, anyone can object to and argue against
these positions. That is how ideas are silenced, not by censorship but by making
their abominable nature so evident that they are no longer relevant to society.
As soon as we limit free speech to a specific group, our ability to combat bad
ideas or even spread good ideas comes into jeopardy. This is why I want Meryl
Streep and other celebrities to be able to spread their positions. I want to be
able to argue for or against them (as I am doing in this article). Moreover, if
I am ever in a position of influence on the scale of Streep, I want to be able
to voice my positions freely. Free speech is no longer free if it becomes limited
to a specific group.
Now to respond to
these arguments in turn:
1. Celebrities should not share
their political views because of how many gullible people they have influence
over.
This version of
the argument is particularly dangerous. Who decides what a celebrity is? Am I a
celebrity because I have 500 Facebook friends (some of them probably likely to
at least consider a position because I hold it)? When do we silence someone?
When they have 500 followers? 1000? 10,000? Yes, people are gullible but free
speech assumes an informed public able to weigh ideas. I would like to think
that the general public, when educated, could appropriately evaluate ideas.
This, however, is not a question of the influence of speakers but quality
education. I want Streep to be able to spread her ideas regardless of her
influence.
2. Celebrities should not share
their political views because it’s not their place in society.
Again, says who?
Who decides what one’s role is in society? This objection seems to be most
often lobbed against celebrities who use concerts or performances to spread
their political ideas. If the public has a problem with this there is an easy
solution, stop attending their events. Make it clear that one doesn’t
appreciate the use of converts to spread ideas. This isn’t censorship, it’s the
free market at work. Celebrities can still share their positions but not at
concerts because tickets to those concerts won’t sell. I don’t believe this
type of pressure negates free speech. Instead, it appears to be a kind of
protest.
3. Celebrities are too out of touch
with the everyman to share their political views.
This
objection and the next one comes from a quote from
Mark Wahlberg commenting on the
Meryl Streep debacle. Again, who decides whether or not celebrities are in
touch with the general public? If a celebrity is out of touch with the general
public, they shouldn’t be silenced. Instead, they should be informed that they
are out of touch and helped to get back in touch with the general public. Or
they could just stay out of touch. I’m probably pretty out of touch with most
of my generation. I don’t want this disconnect to stop me from being able to
share my positions.
4. Their comments don’t have any
real impact so they shouldn’t share their political views.
This
objection borders on absurdity. Lots of people’s positions and best speeches
and articles probably have little impact on others. Why does this mean they shouldn’t
be free to share their positions? Since when has influence been a requirement
for speaking? In addition, this objection in the case of Streep is ridiculous.
Streep has caused a huge stir with her speech. Obviously, people are listening
and she is having an impact.
Each
of these objections implodes. They all seem based on variations on the
following phrase, “Political free speech should be open all except celebrities
because_______.” This “except” is the root of the problem. Free speech is free
to all. There is no “except” in the constitution. Applying an “except” to any
form of free speech (with the exception of violence or indecent material as
reflected by previous government rulings) has the potential to backfire. Free
speech is no longer free with an “except.” I want celebrities to be able to
speak freely because I want everyone to be able to express any idea. If you
have a problem with an idea, use your free speech rights and object to it,
don’t try to limit the ability of your opponent to speak freely. Again, there
is a great deal to be said for the dialectic.
Conclusion
When
I watched Meryl Streep deliver her speech, I noticed that she was visibly
shaking as she began. Clearly, this was a difficult speech to deliver. Clearly,
she was nervous to deliver. I admire her willingness to share her position reasonably
and eloquently. I admire the fact that she refocused the dialogue on the
importance of the media and the press. While I doubt I would agree to Streep’s
political opinions, I agree with much of what she had to say at the Golden
Globes. I don’t believe that it was an inappropriate venue for her speech and,
in fact, see it in the lineage of many influential speeches. I don’t believe
that she shouldn’t talk about politics merely because she is a celebrity. I
believe that any argument that limits her ability to speak on politics merely
because she is a celebrity edges dangerously closely to damaging free speech,
one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill or Rights.
Perhaps
I’m an idealist to believe that reasonable dialogue is still possible in this
generation. Perhaps I’m too much of an academic to see that free speech and
open discussion is impossible. I have to believe that we are still capable of
honoring the hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers reflected in the Bill or
Rights. I have to believe that even celebrities can and should share their
beliefs and we can and should carefully respond to them. Streep’s speech is a
prime example of free speech used right. She was respectful and eloquent. Even
if you disagree with her position, you owe it to her to respect her right to
free speech and respond in kind. In her speech Streep said, “Disrespect invites
disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position
to bully others we all lose.” I believe that it’s right. I have to also hope
that reason invites reason and open discussion incites open discussion. For the
sake of those rights we hold most dear, we cannot resort to fallacious objections
and foolish attacks. We must model the principles of free speech modeled in the
Bill of Rights. I encourage you to watch Ms. Streep’s speech and carefully
consider what she’s saying. If you disagree, by all means object, but do so
with reason. I would like to hope that this article models exactly the kind of
reasoned dialogue for which I am pleading.
I
conclude with a quote that has transcended it’s initial use and sums up the
idea I’m attempting to communicate, “I do not agree with what you have to say,
but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall