The Tension Between Free Speech, Hate Speech, and Comedy: The Rush Limbaugh Controversy
The recent controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh highlights the blurry lines separating free speech and hate speech. As outlined in an article in New York Times the United States stands alone among other nations in the developed world for having no laws on the books that make hate speech illegal. The United States does have are laws in place that prohibit obscene and indecent speech, defamation of character. Germany, Ireland, Finland and many other nations as well all have that make hate speech an illegal and punishable offense. Germany, because of its past, has led the way. Germany’s Sedition Law (Volksverhetzung) makes slurring, defaming or inciting violence against a group or person a punishable offense that can lead to five years in prison. Hate speech in Iceland can result in two years imprisonment. The common definition of hate speech is speech – oral, gestures, written speech – that intentionally attacks or criticizes a group based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or religion.
Limbaugh’s comments are drawing lots of attention and criticism primarily for two reasons; (1) He is a huge radio personality with a large body of faithful listeners among the conservative wing of the Republican Party. (2) The Republican Party has a serious image problem among women voters and Limbaugh’s misogynist remarks have only served to make the troubled waters even more troubled.
Limbaugh has been forced to issue a half hearted apology due to the fact advertisers are quickly removing his financial support and an anti-Limbaugh boycott is being organized on the internet. On the other hand, the Republican leadership – especially the candidates in the Republican primary – has, for the most part, refrained from condemning Limbaugh. The Sunday morning news shows were full of political pundits – Republicans and Democrats – weighing in on the Limbaugh controversy. The one Republican political commentator who has spoken out the most forcefully against Limbaugh and the Republican leadership is George Will. On the ABC Sunday morning news program “This Week” news show Will remarked that the Republican leadership wants to go to war with Iran, but they are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.” One of Will’s other colleagues on the show referred to Limbaugh as a clown and a buffoon.
There are at least two important issues in regards to the Limbaugh controversy. (1) Is Limbaugh a serious political commentator or simply a right wing comedian? (2) Do Limbaugh’s comments qualify as hate speech? The answers to both questions are ambiguous. On the one hand, what constitutes “hate speech” is far from clear. The general definition is any speech that disparages a person or group based on a characteristic such as race, color, gender, sexual orientation and so forth. On the surface, calling a woman a slut and prostitute in a public forum would seem to easily fit the definition. On the other hand, the intention behind the remarks has to be considered as well. In his half -hearted apology Limbaugh made two points; the attack wasn’t personal, and it was intended as a bit of radio humor.
This is where the issue becomes troubling – if the line between free speech and hate speech is fuzzy; the dividing line between comedy and hate speech is even more so.The bread and butter of many comedians are insults, innuendo, and off-color remarks about race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Don Rickles’ whole comedic career was based on telling offensive jokes.
Although Rickles’ sense of humor was outrageous during his day in the 1960s and ’70s it seems pretty mild compared to the comedians that followed him in the 1970s. There’s a video online titled “Hate Speech Was Funny In the 80s” that feature a number of comedians telling racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes that keeps the well-dressed nightclub audience rolling with laughter. The “roasting” tradition initiated by Dean Martin in which celebrities are made fun of and put down by their colleagues and friends is making a television comeback. Glen Beck, another quasi-political commentator, has defended some of his more offensive remarks – wanting to Nancy Pelosi and beat Charle Rangel to death with a shovel – simply as comedy.
On the one hand, finding the dividing line between free speech and hate speech is ambiguous and difficult. Distinguishing between hate speech – motivated by serious intent – and pseudo hate speech, intended for comedic affect is even more difficult. On the other hand, perhaps the distinction between genuine hate speech and hate speech clothed in humor needs to be reconsidered. In other words, why are jokes that put down and ridicule others funny?
