While America is widely known for our allowance of all types of speech, there are important limits to freedom of expression established within American law. We don’t allow people to yell “fire” (when there isn’t one) on a plane, for example. And we don’t allow defamation in certain contexts, or invasions of privacy in others. But what about words that cause others to commit harmful acts?
Interestingly, when laws limiting hate speech were established, the issues were mainly centered on the potential of power of the Ku Klux Klan to incite violence via in person rallies. The well-known “clear and present danger” or “immanent lawless action” tests were an outgrowth of the famous Brandenburg v. Ohio case, which defended a KKK leader’s right to hateful, but general and vague, speech. Speech that vaguely advocates violence is not limited in American law, though speech that creates an immanent threat is.
Nevertheless, over the last two weeks, with a doctor, performing lawful duties, murdered while attending church and an African-American guard killed defending the Holocaust Museum, the limit of free speech has been called into question on an ethical level. The mainstream news media has contextualized the issue within partisan politics, placing much of the moral responsibility for the violence at the feet of the Republican media “hate machine”. Widespread acceptance of the idea that the media has a power to contribute to violence by creating an environment of hate underlies this conversation.
But, what is the basis of this power? Could it be a certain subtle change to our perception of space? The proximity of a speaker seems to influence the power of the speech. Being in the physical presence of hate at a KKK rally is agreed to have the power to influence, for there is a physicality to the space of a rally. What about the physicality of the space created by the television set? Virtually, every American home has a television, and we all experience the power of a speaker coming into our living rooms. Unlike the microphone or megaphone at the heart of a rally, the television creates a presence even more intimate. The television creates an environment within a home whereby we feel close (emotionally and physically) to a distant speaker.
Could it be that the speech of an O’Reilly or Limbaugh has significantly greater power because of the television technology that creates a special space for their speech to be delivered into? Does the technology itself change the power of ideas? And if so, how do we protect ourselves in a technologically new world in which some of the old provisions may no longer be as effective. I’m not sure of the answer, but I do think that these are important questions to ask in our mediated world.
