By Eric Wessan (Free Speech) - Taking a strong stand against the forces of oppression, a
group of writers at the online magazines Jezebel and Slate have decided to join
forces. After the outcry lasting the
whole year, some writers at sports news websites ESPN and Grantland have
decided to follow suit, with the Washington Post Editorial Board joining soon
after. What is this issue that has
raised the ire of so many and such disparate forces of journalists? It is none other than the current name of
Washington, D.C.’s football team, the Redskins.
Redskins
is a term with origins of questionable pejorative character. What is not questionable is that the term is
not for use in polite company today. It
is for this reason that people have been calling for the team’s owner Dan
Snyder to change the name.
It is my firm belief that they have every
right to make such calls, to organize, and to try to rally people to get behind
their cause. That is one aspect of the
beauty of the United States’ dedication to freedom of speech. No one can stop this group of like-minded
civic leaders from calling for change.
Just as importantly though, as long as
Mr. Snyder is not calling for or inciting violence, he has every right to keep
the name the same. No matter how angry
the protesters get, they cannot legally force him to change the name. And they should not be able to. Both sides on
this issue have their view, are passionate about it, and they have to respect
the right of their opponents to continue acting.
Even liberal democracies in Western
Europe have lower standards for what can be protected as speech. Congressmen in Belgium were arrested for
spreading pamphlets that called for reduced immigration. Germany does not allow certain political
parties to organize. Greece prevents the
press from insulting the President. The United Kingdom, a country with many
similar values to the United States, actually barred the democratically elected
Member of Parliament and party leader of nearby Netherlands from entering the
country because he made remarks that the British Home Minister found
offensive.
All of these countries have embarked on a
path away from freedom and towards censorship.
The more limits on speech that are allowed or acceptable, the more power
censors have to limit those that oppose them.
While groups in the USA like the ACLU may
call for Snyder to change the name of the Redskins, they also advocate on
behalf of his right to decide not to.
People may be offended by the name; it seems apparent that some people at the very least clearly
are. But the understanding of free
speech as a fundamental right in the United States does not offer freedom from
offense.
The acceptance of that fact, or rejection
of it, is a great cause of tension, leading to ideas including political
correctness. Placing social limits on
acceptable speech is a perfectly valid goal, it is only when the coercive force
of government starts to back these relatively arbitrary lines that issues start
to arise.
Believing offensive and hateful words to
be the cause of greater social ills, the well meaning have tried to seek to
place more limits than already exist on speech.
I would hope that these sorts of limits and policies are well
considered. Unintended consequences are
often only admitted after the fact, when a policy has been put in place and the
damage has been done. Oftentimes, a
little common-sense can be the difference between those consequences and their
avoidance.
The status quo tends to protect the
speaker at the expense of those who are listening and unhappy about what they
hear. Placing stringent limits on speech will definitely shift the calculus of
winners and losers on the issue. A shift
towards Europe or even further towards censorship will definitely make those
who fear free speech happy.
The current system may very well not be
perfect but the only reason that the current policies can be challenged is
because of the right to freedom of speech that guarantees it. Perhaps those who seek to limit some speech
now should think deeply about that before they work to pass laws that could
hamstring their successors.
Good stuff and I agree. One wrinkle that you might think about (I haven't thought it through!) is that the NFL and other major sports leagues have special anti-trust exemptions from the federal government. In this sense, they are government-protected industries and maybe from this lens, they shouldn't have the right to keep their name as whatever they want. After all, the forces of the market that might put pressure on a company to change their name doesn't exist for Washington Professional Football Team to the same extent as it does for non-protected companies. Regardless, good post!
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting point! That aspect of it would give more credence to pressure from politicians. That being said I think that while the NFL itself is a protected industry, the team itself does not have many of the same protections and pressure against any non-systemic (or simply team) issue should be effective enough. Thanks for the comment!
DeleteWow, you really blew the lid off of people's right to be racist (something that, quite frankly, wasn't ever in question). Responding to criticisms against the Redskins with "you have a right to protest, they have a right to keep it the same" is the worst straw man you could use to avoid actually engaging with the substance of their critiques. Of course they can keep the name--no one was arguing that they didn't have some sort of legal right to be offensive--but that doesn't mean that they should.
ReplyDeleteMaybe instead of harping on about illusory threats to freedom of speech, you'd be better served weighing in on whether the name is actually something that fans ought support. All of this makes me curious what you think of the "questionable pejorative character" of the name. Were you the owner--if you knew that your brand grew out of the bloodshed of a marginalized group of people--would you keep it?
Is it not perhaps possible, however, that a clear interest exists in this particular case, which could justify censorship. For a major sports franchise to essentially be named for a racial epithet, seems on some level to make normative prejudicial attitudes toward American Indians. Now you could argue that prejudice is bad, but not a sufficient condition to warrant government intervention--unintended consequences and all--but the problem of bigotry toward American Indians is one that goes well beyond simple ugliness, and into that world of "fire in a crowded room" in which real legal precedent for censorship exists. Though American Indians, make up only about 1% of the population, they are the victims of twice that percentage of hate crimes. One in ten American Native Americans have been the victim of violent assault--that's twice the comparable statistic for blacks, and 250% of that for whites. And fully, 70% of violence against American Indians is reported to have been committed by non-Indians. Making them the most likely among American racial demographics to be the victim of interracial, or racially motivated violence. In light of these data, It would seem that a real danger is presented by the permitted continued proliferation of anti-Indian bigotry. It would not be hard to look through history for incendiary rhetoric and symbolism the suppression of which could have presented violence against a particular racial group. If all that's required for evil is good people to do nothing, it would truly be a shame for good people to stand by while one of the most visible institutions in the United States actively propounds a racist caricature of a disadvantaged minority; one which undoubtedly nurtures a prejudice attitude, and contributes to the appalling rates of violence to which Native American's are victim.
ReplyDelete