Free Speech vs. Responsibility

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Those are powerful words and words for which I am always grateful. I owe every word I ever submitted to the editors of the Broader View Weekly to a single paragraph that provides for a broad range of liberty. It is because of the foresight of the crafters of the Bill of Rights that my brother Gordon and I are able to raise our distinct voices in protest – not just in hushed tones or personal e-mails but loudly and for public distribution.

So I cherish the freedom of speech and would never seek to inhibit or regulate it. I don’t believe that President Barack Obama would either, any more than I believe President George W. Bush sought to limit free speech when he said, of the Dixie Chicks, “…They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out…” (or when his former press secretary Ari Fleischer said, of the press after 9/11, that they should “watch what they say”).

However, there are certain personalities who see every criticism of their opinions, influence or tactics as either a return to the Fairness Doctrine (which sought to balance the broadcast of opposing views) or a desire to limit the free speech of a chosen few through some sort of targeted attack. Even before Obama took office, Limbaugh used his radio talk show to ramp up fury over his speculation that the administration would bring back the Fairness Doctrine; in fact, that it was at the top of Obama’s agenda. As recently as last week, Glenn Beck claimed, in his own radio show, that the administration had targeted him in a coordinated attack as an enemy of the president. Beck claims that people close to the White House have called for a boycott of his television show and that the president himself is trying to silence him.

Of course, this is all part of the personae of these two personalities: one moment they claim to be inconsequential to public, the next they are so self important that they can barely contain themselves. They claim to be the only purveyors of the truth and feign paranoia that the “liberal” media and the government are trying to shut them up. This contradictory self-image may be part of the ego necessary to spend three hours each day on talk radio, but it also serves a certain tactical role. Faithful listeners begin to think they are privy to a rare source of information (which they perceive to be factual and accurate). They also begin to relate to the hosts in a way that is endearing. The fate of the radio personality becomes entwined with the fates of the listeners, and not just implicitly. Last week, Beck told his listeners that the administration had come for him and, in no uncertain terms, that they were coming “for you”.

Fear and rage are a big part of the package for Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk (such as Sean Hannity and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly). Every perceived threat is exaggerated. On, March 22, after the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, Rush opened his show with the words “Today America is hanging by a thread. Today, freedom is under attack.” Glenn Beck’s constant assertions that he has never seen such abuses or overreaching has built a following that parallels the Tea Party movement. Beck uses his show to whip his “9/12” minions into a frenzy and draw them to his website and events.

None of the major players in talk radio are subtle about where rage and fear should be focused. Limbaugh talks about the evil liberals and continually claims they are liars bent on the destruction of America and her way of life. Beck demonizes progressives and attaches a religious component that amounts to righteous indignation. They each provide specific targets of collective anger. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are blamed for many of the nation’s troubles, but the prime enemy of conservatism is President Obama. Sean Hannity refers to him as the “Anointed One” implying that he was illegitimately elected (apparently because the press couldn’t stop fawning over him). Rush Limbaugh affects a sneering, whining, and mocking tone every time he mentions the president. Glenn Beck describes him as pure evil.

The First Amendment guarantees these men the right to voice their opinions, however critical, of the president. In his column, Gordon implies that Obama sees those voices as so “troublesome” that their rights should be suspended. I think the implication is wrong, but I find the intensity and nature of the discourse “troubling”.

The arena of public opinion is currently a tinderbox of anger. The hurting economy, jobless rates and other hardships leave Americans searching for answers and leave many looking for scapegoats. If talk radio is effective at anything it is providing scapegoats. Hosts like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are providing fuel to the growing flames of discontent.

It is difficult to deny the influence and power that these men wield. But with great power comes great responsibility, and that these radio personalities attempt to deny that responsibility is troubling as well. In light of recent vandalism and threats of violence by the Tea Party crowd, many conservatives are trying to distance themselves. It is interesting to hear these folks try to maintain a level of fear and rage that keeps the faithful tuned in, while trying to appear conscientious.

Not all conservatives have taken the same tack. Bill Bennett, whose views I don’t share, responded to an audience member who criticized him for not hating Obama enough by quoting former President Richard Nixon (also no hero of mine). In his farewell speech, Nixon said “Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” Instead of exacerbating the turmoil, Bennett turned a lens of reason on the situation and encouraged his audience to do the same.

We should treasure the freedoms we share and respect the rights of others. But when it comes to our freedom of speech we should bear in mind the power of words and use them responsibly.