Talk Talk, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

January 18, 2014 Martha Thomases 7 Comments

There are two interesting free speech cases in today’s newspaper.  And by “interesting,” I mean I can argue myself around in circles on both of them.

First, and maybe simplest, is a new law in Israel making it illegal to call someone a Nazi or otherwise throw around thoughtless references to the Holocaust.

It’s simpler because Israel’s constitution is not ours, and a therefore they are not bound by our interpretation of the First Amendment.  Different countries have different laws.  There are some that are so horrible that perhaps it is our business (African countries that make homosexuality a crime punishable by death, for example, or China’s laws prohibiting families from having more than one child): this is not that serious.  It seems to me to be more like Britain’s libel laws, which are different from ours but don’t seem to cause more or less inhibition on free speech.

I’m not in favor or randomly calling people Nazis, or calling every indignity a Holocaust.  Words lose their meaning when overused, and we should not forget the horrors caused by real Nazis and real Holocausts.

However …

Banning something can also give it too much power.  Israel doesn’t need to have its own N-word.  I know I’m sick of Americans who complain that they get criticism when we use our own national N-word, and Israel doesn’t need any more victims.

Here at home, the Supreme Court just heard arguments about a Massachusetts law that prohibits demonstrations within 35 feet of medical facilities that perform abortions.  The laws were passed years ago, in the wake of shootings and other acts of violence by anti-abortion protesters at the time.  Today’s protesters say they are not violent, and only want to speak to women going to the clinic.  They say their right to free speech is threatened by the law.

As I said above, I find this more complicated.  Certainly, I would prefer that the abortion issue to be settled through persuasion and conversation instead of laws.  I don’t think any woman should be pressured into or out of an abortion.  It’s a complicated decision, and one would hope that each of us would consider all aspects of the choice before making a decision.  It is, however, insulting to women to assume that they don’t understand the consequences of their actions and need strangers to tell them on the street.

At the same time, not every woman who goes into a place where abortions are performed is going there to get an abortion.  There are all kinds of procedures, including fertility testing and pap smears.  I know that if someone had come at me with pictures of a bloody fetus when I was trying to get pregnant, I would have felt emotionally assaulted.

Conversation is not assault, and I’m not saying that it is.  As a citizen, I have no right not to be offended or disgusted by public speech.   If you have a racist t-shirt on, you can walk down my street.  You’ll get sneered at, but you won’t get arrested.  It is your right to be an asshole, and I kind of appreciate you wearing the t-shirt so I have some warning.

So I imagine that non-violent protesters can approach people on the street.  The question is whether or not that final 35 feet is so important that they must be allowed all the way to the door.  How much more can they say in that last ten or twenty steps?

I’m also disturbed at their assumption that they have the right to have a conversation with anyone.  I mean, I think they do have a right to approach a person, there’s no question about that.  I, myself, gave out leaflets to strangers on the streets of Manhattan all summer, urging them to vote for Bill deBlasio for mayor.  Many people didn’t want to stop and talk to me, nor take a leaflet, but they didn’t call the cops.  At the same time, once someone indicated they didn’t want to talk to me, I left that person alone.  Similarly once I tell someone I don’t want to be talked, do I have the right to be left alone?

Continuing to badger a person going to a medical facility seems to me to be similar to the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, who insist on protesting at the funerals of soldiers, at the San Diego Comic Convention, at any place they can find a camera crew.  They think they are doing the Lord’s work, but most people find them offensive, and a few places have considered passing laws to prevent some of their more tasteless actions.

I don’t think we can do that.  I also don’t think it’s effective.  The best way to deal with the Phelps family is to counter-protest, or ignore them.  The best way for pro-choice activists and clinic professionals to deal with anti-abortion protesters is to counter-protest.  The best way to counter the over-use of facile Hitler comparisons is through education.  The best way to settle all of this is through respectful, rational conversation.

Which we will have while riding unicorns and eating cheesecake that makes us thin.

Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, would also like the telephone solicitors to stop, but it is her punishment for donating to Democrats.