My Word's Worth: a weekly column by Marylaine Block

vol.4, #9, September 7, 1998

THE WRONG WORDS

And the wrong words make you listen in this criminal world
David Bowie

I read somewhere that the mark of genius is the ability to fully believe two contradictory ideas at the same time. In which case I guess I must be some sort of genius.

You see, I am a first amendment absolutist. I believe government should make NO laws restricting the free flow of words and ideas.

At the same time, I believe that words are as dangerous as bullets, that in a sense they are the pre-condition for bullets.

When you see a nation that has lived in peace suddenly attacking its neighbors, ethnic groups who have lived side by side peaceably for centuries suddenly killing each other, a nation tearing itself apart in civil war, you may be sure that the wrong words have made too many people listen.

We are brought up with strong injunctions against killing our own kind, so if somebody wants us to start terrorizing people, raping them, and killing them, they have to convince us first that these people are not truly human. The way to do that is with words.

Hitler rose to power by reminding Germans of their suffering during the war and the economic catastrophe that followed it. When he told them to blame the Jews for that suffering, he made it possible for ordinary Germans who considered themselves moral people to beat them up, steal their property, herd them into box cars, and push them into showers of deadly gas.

In Bosnia, in Rwanda, in Ireland throughout its history, the same thing happened. Politicians reminded people insistently about past grievances and outrages committed by the "other" until they created public support for systematic extermination or "ethnic cleansing."

As I wrote this, I started to use the word "destroy" and my fumbling fingers typed "destory." That typo was an inspired bit of inadvertent truth, because what these men have done in their quest for power is replace their country's story with a darker, more twisted version. They left some things out, hyped some others, maybe even invented new stories out of whole cloth, all to prove that certain groups of people were, and always had been, traitors, exploiters, usurpers.

Do you wonder that I get a bit nervous about all the pushers of hate on talk radio now? Their list of enemies is different--"feminazis," liberals, gays, bureaucrats, public school teachers, minorities. But the aim is the same: to dehumanize them, to make them legitimate targets. Already, it seems, the permissible range of ideas on the airwaves, in the press, even on internet bulletin boards, has narrowed. On those rare occasions when anybody puts even a mildly liberal idea into play, the counter-attack is fierce and hostile--how dare you not agree with them. (I've received a fair amount of hate mail since I started writing for Fox--perhaps you didn't know that I am a "slimeball liberal apologist for Bill Clinton?")

How can I nonetheless believe that government should not intervene? Why do I not want to see "hate speech" made illegal?

Because the founders of our constitution knew perfectly well that even if GOVERNMENT passed no laws restricting freedom of expression, there would still be other powerful constraints upon it. A "decent respect for the opinion of mankind" would keep many people from preaching hatred, or from expressing opinions and desires too loathesome for community tolerance. I doubt that in Jefferson's day there could have been a Man-Boy Love Association clamoring to change the age of consent to 8 or 10, because public opinion would have shamed these men into silence.

We have let Jefferson down by failing to use our most powerful weapon--public contempt. We have failed to defend the victims of hate radio's scorn. Bullies will always do whatever they think they can get away with, and when we let them think their victims are powerless and friendless, they will attack with deeds as well as words. It does not surprise me that in the last several years hate crimes have steadily increased.

When hostile bullies take over the airwaves and bulletin boards, more timid types are often offended and driven away. But by walking away from a fight, they reinforce the bullies' notion that they are right and they have won, because the only people they hear from are the dittoheads who echo and amplify their words.

The problem remains the same one that Yeats spoke of in "The Second Coming": "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Those of us who believe in community, in civility, in the meeting of minds in amity to solve common problems, must speak our minds as loudly, as firmly, as passionately as Rush Limbaugh and Bob Grant speak theirs.

If Nazis want to march in our town, if the KKK starts a cable program in our community, if somebody is burning crosses on lawns, we need to write letters, call in to radio programs, hold rallies, and show the haters that the community does not share their views--their right to speech in no way makes their speech right.

We have to teach ourselves and our children to listen carefully to political speech. We need to ask "Sez who?" "Why?" "Does this make sense?" "What are the facts?" "What do other people say about this?" And above all, "WHO WILL BENEFIT if we believe those words?" (Pay attention to the unobtrusive notice at the end of the commercial that says this ad is sponsored by the tobacco industry.)

The men who gave us the first amendment had experienced government that was tyrannical and stupid. Of course they didn't trust government to regulate ideas. They trusted us instead.

Awesome responsibility, isn't it?

So if we value our right to free speech, we need to exercise it a bit more. We need to embrace that contradiction: Words are dangerous, so use more of them. Let them go free, let them fight to the finish, and let the best words win.