In chapter 15 of our textbook, Tedford and Herbeck explore Haiman's communication context theory and the four areas of speech he theorizes about. These areas include speech about other people, speech directed to other people, speech within the marketplace of ideas, and government participation in the communication marketplace. Haiman takes a position throughout these areas that's predominantly pro free-speech, as he repeatedly circles back to the notion of introducing more speech into the marketplace of ideas when conflict arises. When discussing the area of speech directed towards other people, he also takes a somewhat unconventional position at odds with current law in favor of the speaker. He writes: "...individuals in a free society are responsible for their own behavior. They are not objects which can be triggered into action by symbolic stimuli but human beings who decide how they will respond to the communication they see and hear." Reading this reminded me of the widespread debate around Nazi punching and whether or not it should be viewed as acceptable, and I believe some of the arguments being made by Haiman are comparable to those being made by those taking an anti-punching position.
Most people are probably aware of how this debate originated, but for those who aren't, here are the details: On inauguration day earlier this year, Richard Spencer, a prominent white supremacist, was speaking to a camera when an unidentified protester punched him in the side of the head. The clip went viral, and it sparked an expansive online debate as to whether or not punching white supremacists was acceptable. If Haiman's rationale is applied, it isn't - he asserts that people are responsible for the actions they choose to perpetrate, and he also argues that someone espousing their believes under their first amendment rights should not be responsible for what might occur as a result of them doing so. I take issue with this logic for a few reasons, however, with the main one being the following: absolving a speaker from whatever responsibility they have over how others react to their speech sets a precedent for entirely excusing someone of the consequences of their actions. Following Haiman's logic to the extreme would conclude that a speaker calling for violent action against an individual or group is acquitted from whatever physical consequences that might result from such speech - in fact, many would argue that neo-Nazis are doing this exact same thing.
While I take issue with Haiman's argument on a philosophical level, I believe there are a number of more pragmatic arguments that can be made that go against the idea of Nazi punching. In my opinion, I believe punching Nazis inadvertently leads to their attempt to claim some sort of victimhood status while also further obfuscating their overarching ideology to try to appeal to more vulnerable individuals. After the Charlottesville protests and the terrorist attack that resulted in the death of Heather Hayer, the New York Times published a "glossary" in which they cataloged various definitions for extremist rhetoric. One part of this glossary delved into Antifa, and under this definition was the following segment: "Members of the 'alt-right' broadly portray protesters who oppose them as 'antifa,' or the 'alt-left,' and say they bear some responsibility for any violence that ensues — a claim made by Mr. Trump on Tuesday." The piece then goes on to make it clear that any comparison between the alt-right and Antifa is a false equivalence, but I don't believe vulnerable individuals susceptible to this ideology (namely young, white men with political grievances) are inclined to understand this nuance. White supremacist rhetorical tactics are tailored to appeal to these individuals, and people pushing these beliefs often prioritize the promulgation of specific phrases and strategies in exchange for downplaying their less palatable end goals. They do this to try to appeal to as many people as possible, and these tactics are well-documented among those who study them. To come full circle, one such tactic that's used is the same false equivalency made between the alt-right and "alt-left" that was mentioned previously: the assertion that there's violence on "both sides" and that the actions of specific members of Antifa are somehow comparable to those of white supremacists. Overall, I think the concept of Nazi punching does more to empower the alt-right than help anti-fascists because of the way it's ultimately framed by the former.
Sources:
Kreiss, Daniel, and Kelsey Mason. “Analysis | Here’s What White Supremacy Looks and Sounds like Now. (It’s Not Your Grandfather’s KKK.).” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Aug. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/17/heres-what-white-supremacy-looks-and-sounds-like-now-its-not-your-grandfathers-kkk/?utm_term=.052d4697ecd7.
Stack, Liam. “Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
“White Nationalist Richard Spencer Punched in the Face Camera While Doing Interview.” YouTube, YouTube, 20 Jan. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI.
Most people are probably aware of how this debate originated, but for those who aren't, here are the details: On inauguration day earlier this year, Richard Spencer, a prominent white supremacist, was speaking to a camera when an unidentified protester punched him in the side of the head. The clip went viral, and it sparked an expansive online debate as to whether or not punching white supremacists was acceptable. If Haiman's rationale is applied, it isn't - he asserts that people are responsible for the actions they choose to perpetrate, and he also argues that someone espousing their believes under their first amendment rights should not be responsible for what might occur as a result of them doing so. I take issue with this logic for a few reasons, however, with the main one being the following: absolving a speaker from whatever responsibility they have over how others react to their speech sets a precedent for entirely excusing someone of the consequences of their actions. Following Haiman's logic to the extreme would conclude that a speaker calling for violent action against an individual or group is acquitted from whatever physical consequences that might result from such speech - in fact, many would argue that neo-Nazis are doing this exact same thing.
While I take issue with Haiman's argument on a philosophical level, I believe there are a number of more pragmatic arguments that can be made that go against the idea of Nazi punching. In my opinion, I believe punching Nazis inadvertently leads to their attempt to claim some sort of victimhood status while also further obfuscating their overarching ideology to try to appeal to more vulnerable individuals. After the Charlottesville protests and the terrorist attack that resulted in the death of Heather Hayer, the New York Times published a "glossary" in which they cataloged various definitions for extremist rhetoric. One part of this glossary delved into Antifa, and under this definition was the following segment: "Members of the 'alt-right' broadly portray protesters who oppose them as 'antifa,' or the 'alt-left,' and say they bear some responsibility for any violence that ensues — a claim made by Mr. Trump on Tuesday." The piece then goes on to make it clear that any comparison between the alt-right and Antifa is a false equivalence, but I don't believe vulnerable individuals susceptible to this ideology (namely young, white men with political grievances) are inclined to understand this nuance. White supremacist rhetorical tactics are tailored to appeal to these individuals, and people pushing these beliefs often prioritize the promulgation of specific phrases and strategies in exchange for downplaying their less palatable end goals. They do this to try to appeal to as many people as possible, and these tactics are well-documented among those who study them. To come full circle, one such tactic that's used is the same false equivalency made between the alt-right and "alt-left" that was mentioned previously: the assertion that there's violence on "both sides" and that the actions of specific members of Antifa are somehow comparable to those of white supremacists. Overall, I think the concept of Nazi punching does more to empower the alt-right than help anti-fascists because of the way it's ultimately framed by the former.
Sources:
Kreiss, Daniel, and Kelsey Mason. “Analysis | Here’s What White Supremacy Looks and Sounds like Now. (It’s Not Your Grandfather’s KKK.).” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Aug. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/17/heres-what-white-supremacy-looks-and-sounds-like-now-its-not-your-grandfathers-kkk/?utm_term=.052d4697ecd7.
Stack, Liam. “Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
“White Nationalist Richard Spencer Punched in the Face Camera While Doing Interview.” YouTube, YouTube, 20 Jan. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI.
Although Haiman’s Communication Context Theory is an interesting approach towards the idea of free speech, I agree with your assessment that the rationale behind it is flawed. In particular, I disagree with Haiman’s argument that, “…individuals in a free society are responsible for their own behavior. They are…human beings who decide how they will respond to the communication they see and hear.” (Tedford and Herbeck 435). As you state in your post, this line of logic suggests that speakers shouldn’t be held liable for anything that results from their speech. The main reason you put forth as to why you disagree with this sentiment is that “…absolving a speaker from whatever responsibility they have over how others react to their speech sets a precedent for entirely excusing someone of the consequences of their actions.” A dangerous precedent in my opinion, for if Haiman’s approach to free speech was legally adopted in the United States, then hate speech would prosper even more than it does now.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I believe that Haiman’s rationale is flawed because it suggests that speech and action are two distinct and separate entities when in actuality they are greatly interconnected. Speech can be a mechanism to promote action, and action can be a mechanism to express speech. People don’t just speak because they can—they often speak because they want to spread a message and convince others to take action. Under this logic, I consider some forms of speech to be action. It is for this reason that I argue Haiman is supporting a contradictory notion when he asserts that speakers should be absolved of all guilt while those who respond to another’s speech through physical means are responsible for their actions. Personally, I agree with the moral that one must be held accountable for their actions. However, I disagree with how Haiman has segmented this idea so that those who only use verbal expression are completely exempted from this accountability. In the justification of his theory, Haiman directly states that, “…individuals in a free society are responsible for their own behavior.” (Tedford and Herbeck 435). However, how can this statement be supporting his theory when behavior consists of both action and speech? In my opinion, it can’t, which is why I also disagree with Haiman’s Communication Context Theory on a philosophical level.
As far as the idea of Nazi punching, I concur with the conclusion you put forth. By instigating violence against Nazis, those who oppose them are inadvertently helping these Nazis portray themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. This in turn promotes their cause of recruiting new members, especially those who are vulnerable and easily influenced. Furthermore, I would also agree that neo-Nazis are using the rationale behind Haiman’s theory to justify why their speech is protected and why they shouldn’t have to face any consequences for their calls to violence against others; another reason that shows the flaws in Communication Context Theory. All in all, I believe that Haiman’s theory is an interesting interpretation of the Freedom of Speech, but would never work in a less than ideal world. Its main flaw is that it almost completely immunizes speakers, while holding those who utilize physical means to express themselves to a high standard. A better theory would be to hold everyone to the same high standard, regardless of whether their expression is verbal or physical.
Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the Unites States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.