Enjoy the Silence
In 1990 Depeche Mode released Enjoy the Silence on their album Violator, and it has some pretty haunting lyrics that I think apply to the world we find ourselves in today:
Words are like violence - break the silence - come crashing into my little world.
Painful to me- Pierce right through me - Can’t you understand?
If a person perceives a world/situation with an understand of “X” and then situation “Y” occurs, the person’s reaction is likely to react contrary to “Y” (at least in view of those that accurately perceive the “Y’s”). If I was to equate this with the words of the song, if a person is believing in a narrative (political/religious/other) and verbiage contrary to that narrative is provided (right/wrong/hateful) , this causes pain - and as they say, “words matter”. The issue with this is that with how we are all connected through social media, subject to our cliques which have moved more and more online due to the ongoing pandemic, and the truths we perceive or interpret through these mediums (based on reality or not) causes us to over-react to the slightest of behaviors outside our perception.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as “free speech”. The first amendment states (among other things) that Congress shall not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. Since Congress cannot pass a law regarding what persons can say or write it falls to the independent actors to censor behaviors. Elizabeth Purdy defines Censors as those who seek to limit freedom of thought and expression by restricting spoken words, printed matter, symbolic messages, freedom of association, books, art, music, movies, television programs, and Internet sites. When the government engages in censorship, First Amendment freedoms are implicated. The Courts have several tests associated with the First Amendment to determine if an action is protected speech:
The Bad Tendency Test - A Court could distinguish between language intended to discredit the form of the government and language intended to result in action against the institutions of government. According to the linked article, the Courts have moved against enforcing this test against the 1st Amendment.
The Clear and Present Danger Test - Where the bad tendency test provides that when the facts of a case indicate that the communicator intended a result that the state has prohibited, Clear and Present Danger allows the court may reasonably assume that the communication has a tendency to produce that result. This was replaced in the 1960s by the:
Imminent Laws and Action Test, which the Supreme Court cases upheld restrictions on speech believed to be subversive have relied on the idea that such speech is forbidden because it incites, or is likely to lead to, violence or illegal actions. This test is still being evaluated even today, but the results can be seen in school/work codes where “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” to shield students/workers from speech that might be disturbing or offensive. One vulnerability of such codes is that they typically affect speech that does not rise to legal standard of incitement. (I suspect that this is something to look forward to in Criminal Complaints against Former President Trump)
Fighting Words, which is used by the Supreme Court to allows government to limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words. Other terms, such as “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and insulting or ‘fighting’ words” — categories of speech that failed to possess any social value or contributed to the expression of ideas — government could restrict its expression to prevent disruptions. The limitations the Court placed on this is that such speech must produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance.
What we learn here is that “free speech isn’t necessarily free”, and has tests associated with it. The problem when individuals take censorship into the own hands is where inconsistency of applying the above tests occurs, and without an ability to redress the comments, the Cancel Culture steps in. Cancel culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles - either online on social media, in the real world, or both.
A recent opinion article by Jayson Bradley for the Liberal Christian site Patheos attempted to debunk the existence of the Cancel Culture when it comes to Christian Conservative statements. On long reflection, I think that his article hits the nail on the head for the following reasons :
1. “The Left” is not unique in wielding the Cancel Culture, Christians/Conservatives do also. I remember in my youth how the Catholic Standard would rally its base to not recommend a movie based on its depiction of anti-Biblical statements. This is satirized in Father Ted, The Passion of Saint Tibulus (S1 EP3) . I believe the issue is one of the “bully pulpit”, dissenters within the congregation can “vote with their feet” -not subscribe to the voice of the Church or its publications and move on.
2. Offenses are not unique to Conservatism or Christianity. Too true, as offenses are built upon perception of those offended , not necessarily applied to the above tests. However, when you think that the average reader reads on the 7th-8th grade level , the interpretation of these “offenses” may stray beyond inconvenience or annoyance - not meeting the fighting words test and resulting in a non-commensurate effect.
3. The results are based on whether you believe in the free market or not. The end result of “cancellation” cannot be complained about if there needs to be a punishment to meet the offense.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at the case of Gina Carano (noting here that this is an Opinion Piece - and not condoning the below quote). Jayson Bradley’s article provided a partial of the quote, the actual Tweet was:
Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views ?
Does this meet the “fighting words test” ? In my opinion, what Carano attempted to do is equate the events as a predecessor to the Holocaust with the current political divide in America, conflating (at least) two disparate concepts to basically accuse the Left of driving neighbor against neighbor. There are many other examples she could have used that (to me) would have gotten this idea across. Beyond my enjoyment of her as an actress in the Mandalorian (I really didn’t, but I did like her in Deadpool) , I didn’t think this at the time worthy of more than a passing glance. While I thought the words and parallelism were badly chosen, assuming no ill-intent, I see this as a mere annoyance. Given some of “the Left’s” comments regarding re-education camps at the time (PBS lawyer who was fired for this, David Atkins, CA activist, Deprograming with Katie Couric) , I can see where some parallel thoughts could be conflated.
To Disney, however, it did meet the intent of the test and is the reason they stated she was subsequently fired. Disney stated her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable. When it comes to a business such as Disney, where it has a public identity to maintain for its family friendly network, Firing actors/actresses for coming cross-wise with its philosophy is nothing new. Carano, according to Disney, has a long list of social media posts which run the gambit from being insensitive to supporting far-right (extremist ?) unfounded statements. The counter-argument is, of course, Pedro Pascal’s (star of the Mandalorian) tweets in the vein of similarly forwarding a false narrative (i.e. comparing Trump supporters to Nazis or Confederates, the fact he Doxxed Ted Cruz after Capitol Riots). To date, no adverse action has been taken, publicly, on Pascal which (in my opinion) demonstrates an inconsistency in the public use of the tests. It is, however, being cited as the trend in cancelling Disney Plus (to Jayson Bradley’s point).
Thomas Friedman pointed out in The World is Flat that the adoption of the Internet essentially flattened communication mediums across the world and subsequently turned everyone into self-made authors. I believe he didn’t go farther in saying that it didn’t go farther into the need for fact-checking and criteria for censorship within these self-made communities, nor did he abjectly point out that those reading such communications would be doing so at (for Americans) at least the 8th grade level; which would mean that the average literary interpretation process is that of a 10-12 year old. No wonder Twitter is a go-to platform for publication in this age, how much literary significance could be found in 280 characters ? Given the attention span of this age group, how much thought process could be anticipated in researching facts ? The benefit of using this platform is easily to capitalize on this deficiency - to enable a narrative that is trendy at the moment. Anyone taking to this platform to provide commentary that relies on in-depth understanding or empathy for a complex subject is foolish at best - especially if they are delving into hot-button topics; Unless they are looking to capitalize on how many “likes” in return. A risky prospect. Some may consider such comments fighting words.
Friedman did elucidate on the issue of these self-made authors that felt the “need” to provide a narrative, whether it was necessary or not. So why do celebrities provide such commentary ? I believe, much like ourselves, social media serves as a valediction to actions and thoughts (yes, noting that this is a blog). Liam Glen writes that celebrities have sought such platforms since 1868, and as early as 1934 Hollywood producers used mass media to forward their Socialist agenda as it turned more Liberal in nature. The difference is in how we react and accept these narratives as “truth”. Sometimes, it may just be best to keep these narratives to ourselves as we determine what risk we are willing to take. Kinda like writing the letter you want to send before you actually reply to someone, or counting to three before verbally responding.
Thumper said it best. “If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.”
Words are very unnecessary - They can only do harm
Five Miles Downrange:
In the television show Dr. Who, the Silence is a race of genetically modified priests who would recieve confessions and then allowed penitents to forget the confessions after giving them. In an effort to stop a galactic (Time) war, the Silence was sent to prevent the Doctor from re-initiating hostilities through many interactions. The Silence are perceived only while being viewed; they are instantly forgotten once a viewer looks away.
When we viscerally respond to social media posts, not applying the free speech tests, we should keep the Silence in mind. Not advocating forgetting the behavior, but looking away until our knee-jerk reaction to condemn passes and we can apply the tests without bias.
