Duck Homophobia: Lessons Learnt Part III

I am using the controversy surrounding the homophobic comments make by Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to look at free speech and to point out a number of confusions that surround this conception. I have, in my first two blogs on this subject, tried to argue that:

1. Support for equality and respect of difference is now so strong that homophobes try to defend their "right" to make comments with recourse to "free speech." What is important is that in the past they would not have needed this recourse. They simply could have made the homophobic comments and no one would have questioned them.

2. Those who would easily condemn A & E for suspending Robertson might want to look at the facts of the case. No one wants to defend infringements on free speech. Whether or not this is the case in this situation, however, is another matter. Robertson's ability to get his anti-gay message out has not in any way been infringed. Indeed, he has garnered an unusual amount of news coverage.

But, more than that, there is a real question in my mind about whether or not A & E is required to provide a forum for rich individuals (which is, to be clear, what Robertson is) to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Is that free speech? This is the subject I want to address in this blog. A & E is not a public broadcaster. It is a privately owned company. Does a privately owned company have any rights in this situation? This is not the same question as "was Robertson's right to 'free speech' infringed?" but the other side of the coin. Instead of asking what rights Robertson has, I am asking what rights A &E has.

This is important because I don't doubt that Robertson can walk down the street saying whatever he wants to whomever will listen to him, sending emails to whomever will read them, etc. He can make YouTube videos that speak to whomever wants to hear what he has to say. That is not the question and we should not confuse it because no one is denying that right. What we are asking about is the rights of the owner of the medium. Reading some of the defenses of Robertson, you would think that A & E has no rights whatsoever, but is that the case?

This is a tricky question, for sure. In the past, I have argued that private institutions do have the right to regulate the actions of people entering those institutions. This is all within reasonable boundaries, of course, and we might want to think about what constitutes "reasonable" but for now the principle that I am articulating is the following: private interest are under a different burden than public interests. Private businesses, for instance, have a right to insist that employees dress a certain way; private schools can legally and constitutionally impose dress codes (even though dress codes are self-evidently a violation of freedom of expression and are, in fact, intended to be so). Privately owned movie theatres (we have one here in Sackville) can pick and choose what they want to show. They are not required to put any particular movie on the screen. Private networks, in the same way, are not required to broadcast anyone's views that they do not want to broadcast because they are private. For instance, if CTV wanted its news anchors to dress a certain way, they have every right to say "you will dress this way." There are clearly complications (and, the devil might really be in the details on this one) but the point I am making is this: yes private institutions can -- within limits -- regulate expression.

In making this case, we need to understand that private institutions make rules regarding expression for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, as in the case of Robertson and A & E, the reasons were political. Robertson articulated a political view with which the owners of the network disagreed and vehemently. They own the network; not him. They can decide whether or not he is an employee and they decided that he was ... well not, at least for a while. But, private institutions may make rules regarding expression for all sorts of reasons and this, too, is something that is important to understand before we condemn them for doing so. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with politics. For instance, some minor hockey associations limit the expression of fans at games (at least some of the signs I have see suggest this). They urge parents to be supportive, to not insult the referee or other players, and provide a good role model for their children. Some of the signs I have seen back this up with an implicit threat: if you violate these rules, we will ban you from the rink.

Here is situation where expression is clearly being violated but that violation has nothing to do with limiting free speech for any political reason (such as supporting equality for GLBT). Instead, minor hockey associations create limits in order to maintain order, encourage children to learn the game, and prevent potentially dangerous situations from getting out of hand. They are, in other words, not being political but focusing on public order and good manners (what we call sometimes sportsmanship). Those people who are arguing that Robertson's right to free speech has been violated would find themselves also opposed to sportsmanship and manners in minor hockey rinks. They may not like this equation but that is the logic of their positions.

Likewise, imagine that own a coffee shop. There are, in fact, a couple of nice coffee shops here in Sackville. Imagine, as well, that someone comes in and says "I want to play a set on Wednesday night." I say, "no, you can't do that." Have i infringed this person's freedom of speech. Technically, yes. I have stopped them from singing in my shop on Wednesday night. But, is that infringement without reason. Imagine that I stopped him from singing because I don't want to have live shows in my coffee shop because of the nature of my clientele? Do I have the right - as the owner - to make that decision? Again, the defense of Robertson people say "no." Anyone who walks up and wants to play can start doing it. I can do nothing about them or I infringe their free speech. Imagine, just to continue my example, that my coffee shop is a small business that is not opened on Wednesday nights because I cannot afford to pay staff (I hope to in the future, but have not yet built up enough of a business to do so right now). Am I required to open so that this person can sing?

The point I want to make is not to say that the owners of private interests have absolute right to do whatever they want. I hope that is clear because the logic of the argument I am trying to make is that those types of blanket statements really are to be avoided. I am trying to suggest that private institutions do have rights and so A & E did nothing inherently wrong in suspending Robertson.

To put this in other words, the suspension of Robertson -- however much it might grate some people - is not evidence in and of itself that Robertson's right to free speech has been violated. A & E -- as a corporate body -- retain rights. I think that those rights are not absolute -- and I'll get to those in another blog -- but for now I am suggesting that it private institutions can limit Robertson's (or, my) right to say things without necessarily violating constitutional protections of free speech.

Duck Homophobia (What we learn from) Part II

I will confess that I have watched Duck Dynasty. I can't claim that I did not find the show amusing and I pay enough attention to it, it turns out, that this new story caught my eye: Duck Dynasty's Phil-Robertson Suspended for Anti-gay Comments. In reading over the story, it struck me that this incident allows us to think about how we can and/or should respond to homophobia and how we can/should think about free speech. I stared to do that with my last blog. I'll continue with this one. In particular, I am interested in what we might learn from what I am calling "Duck homophobia." In my last blog I argued that we learnt something valuable: that homophobes generally don't want to be counted as homophobes. Instead, they want to be seen as defenders of free speech. I speculated that that was because they realized that the best before date on prejudice was coming due. Sure, there will always be bigots, but the day and age of easy prejudice with regard to GLBT is drawing to a close ... more rapidly in Canada than the US but even in the US -- judging from the defenses of duck homophobia -- those people who harbour prejudices understand that they can no longer just cast aspersions and have these accepted. They need to find some principle (free speech, in this case) to hide behind. Otherwise, I think they understand, they cannot carry the day and end up looking like a bunch of old rednecks.

A second thing we learn is that some people don't understand what free speech is all about, why we have it, and what it means. According to the news article cited above, some people are saying that Robertson's freedom of speech is threatened because A & E - -the Network that owns the rights to his TV show -- suspended him from the show. Is this an infringement of free speech? Perhaps ... but that is not a decision we can make without looking at the issue and we need to look at this issue. Robertson (the individual in question) likes to portray himself as a "redneck" and in his personal taste he might be. I don't actually know precisely what he means but if being a redneck signifies a fondness for hunting and wearing pseudo army gear, he qualifies. But, let us be honest. He is not. He is, in fact, a wealthy individual, one of the stars of a hit TV show whose family owns a company with multinational sales. In other words, this is not a case of a big bad network picking on a "little guy." This is a case where a rich and powerful individual used a platform afforded him by his celebrity to make prejudiced comments that were intended to marginalize a group of people who already suffer from prejudice (including violence). If he did not intend to marginalized LGBT ... why did he make those comments?

This is one of the things that we can learn that does not seem to be understood. Commentary on this issue -- particularly from American conservatives -- seems to have confused a character in a television show (a just plain rural hick with his homespun wisdom, a sort of Jed Clampett in army gear) with reality. The reality is that no one -- certainly not A & E -- is trying to stop Jed Clampett from stating his case to whomever wants to hear it. Whether or not A & E is required to provide a forum to rich celebrities who act like Jed Clampett because they make a lot of money from it and then use their celebrity to condemn marginalized groups ... well surely that is another question altogether, is it not? Disagree with me? Robertson himself has not been as blunt as I have been (the benefit of a blog) but he actually said almost as much. He has, for instance, pointed out that he is not a backwoods hick but a university educated and learned man

But, there is something else we should consider as well. The point I am making is that an easy condemnation of A & E is not so easy when we start to investigate the situation. The other thing we need to ask is whether or not Robertson's right to free speech has actually been infringed? I suspect Robertson can saying anything he wants and there would be host of reporters there to cover what he had to say. In other words, I don't think his ability to express his views and reach a very large audience has been in anyway infringed. To argue that it has, for instance, (and this is a point I have made before) one would need to argue that censorship was effective. The test of free speech is not, and never has been, the right to say anything, anywhere, any place, anytime. It is whether or not infringements on the right to say what one wants have been effective. Has A & E prevented Robertson from "getting his message out." The answer is: not at all and when that is the case, how can one argue that there is a violation of free speech? I suspect, in fact, that A & E's suspension of Robertson has nothing to do with trying to limit his right to say what he wants to say. I suspect that other considerations were at stake (and, perhaps, more on this in a future blog).

Thus, what we learn by looking at this issue is that there is some confusion and this confusion is important. What we have is rich individuals claiming that their right to free speech has been violated (or, others making that claim on their behalf) when, in fact, it has not. What has been infringed is their right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. And, that is something different from free speech. Indeed, what I find confusing is how people can confuse the two? What makes rich people think that a fundamental right has been infringed just because they cannot do whatever they want whenever they want.  The rest of us -- the 99% who enjoy no such privileges of wealth or access to media (GQ has never asked me for an interview) -- might pause to wonder about this because we live with a different reality.

Myths of Free Speech or Duck Homophobia

A little while ago I wrote a series of blogs about the "myths of  capitalism." It struck me that it might be a good time to write another series but not about capitalism. Instead, what I thought I'd do is draw together a series of thoughts I've offered over the years about free speech, what it means, what it entails, why it is needed, and its limits. In part, I thought I'd do this in response to something that happened in the United States that related to what I'll call "Duck Homophobia." If you have not been following the news, this story -- Duck Dynasty Star ...  is the trigger to these blogs. According to news reports, a cast member of the "reality" tv show "Duck Dynasty" has been suspended for making homophobic comments. The question that animates this series of blogs is this: What does this tell us about homophobia and free speech? In response to the suspension of this "star" from the show, notable American commentators -- such as Sarah Palin -- have argued that A & E, the network that shows "Duck Dynasty," is infringing free speech. Is it?

There are, I think, a number of things that we can learn form this minor cause celebre. Because there are a number of things to learn, a single blog (which I started to write last night) would end up being too long. So, instead, I'll offer a series of blogs. As always ... comments (but not flames) are welcome.

The first thing that we learn is that it is no longer OK to make homophobic comments. While there are a lot of people who view gays and lesbians as "sinners" and who cite passages from The Bible to justify their views, the field of force of culture has moved on. And, this is an important thing. It is, for instance, notable that people defend homophobic comments not on the basis of their accuracy but on the basis of "free speech." This shift might go unnoticed but it is important. What it indicates is that even those who hold negative views of GLBT people no longer feel that they have a "winning" hand in simply slagging them. Instead, they recognize that they need to find a moral high ground. This indicates that they understand on some level that the "gays are bad" approach has a limited -- and I would argue increasingly limited -- "play." Outside of its core constituency (who are, unfortunately, self-identify evangelical Christians), virtually no one subscribes to the old stereotypes of GLBT. Indeed, the only thing that these old stereotypes do is make those who hold them look like dinosaurs or rednecks.  Thus, the shift to free speech as a defence of homophobia is actually a good thing for those of us who support equality and want to end the marginalization of GLBT people. It show that a culture shift is already well under way and one that can only be considered positive. This is more true in Canada than the US but even in the US, evidence of increased respect for diversity, a willingness to accept the idea that believing in equality means supporting equality, and a shedding of stereotypes is underway.

Can it be reversed? This is another question but the fact that anti-gay people are responding to increased equality with such determination means that they feel (a) it can be but (b) they need to take action now. I don't believe society can function necessarily well on auto-pilot. I argue that those of us who support equality need to continue to do so and do so in the public fora. But, I also believe that time is now on the side of equality. The changes have gone far enough -- not far enough but ... well, there have been enough cultural changes  (I hope that is clear) -- that reversing them and returning to a day and age when discrimination and bigotry were easily accepted is going to be very difficult. Indeed, the very fact that the supporters of homophobia don't really want to argue for homophobia but instead argue for it by stealth is a good sign.