The Difference is Intent

This is kind of a followup to my last post. Kind of.

Couple of days ago I defended Betsy Perry for the unlawful and out of proportion hate she was getting for simply saying things about Mexico in her blog. Strangely enough, something similar actually happened in Boston recently with talk radio personality Jay Severin, who "said things about Mexico" during a broadcast and is getting in a little bit of trouble. But the two cases are very different. Perry used sarcasm, exaggeration, and other humorous techniques in her post and was labeled ignorant for it. Jay Severin has also gotten hate for simply saying things, and has been suspended from WTKK-FM radio for his comments. He's also been called racist, and ignorant, and all in all bad person. Here's a bit of what he said:

"So now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico - women with mustaches and VD - now we have swine flu."

"It's millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you and, with it, they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America."

Now here comes the dilemma. I support freedom of speech in all of it's forms, whether or not it is the most hateful bullshit ever uttered. I will defend hateful speech. That's bad, I know, but it's necessary. But in the case of Jay over here, I understand why he's been suspended. I understand why people are angry.

People could then say to me, well, dude, why don't you understand why people are angry at Betsy Perry? If you read her blog post (linked in my previous post) you'll get why. The difference is intent. I will not empathize with people who are upset because they've misinterpreted a rather insignificant rant. One that came to no heart-felt conclusions and pushed no agenda.

I understand anger at deliberate hate. At intentional generalization, and close minded words that actually represent the speaker's point of view. What Jay said is what he thought, he can think what he thinks, but he better understand why people are angry. The man can say what he wants, but in the context of his radio program he was showing a great deal of ignorance. He wasn't mocking the hate, he wasn't being satirical, he was simply saying mean things about an entire country.

Now, whether you agree with Mr. Severin or not doesn't really matter. There is nothing wrong with being very anti-illegal immigration, or even anti-Mexico, that is simply Jay's opinion. Where the issue arises is in how he dealt with the presentation of his opinion. He could stand on a soap box, be very preachy and use scary, angry words like "leeches" or "primitives" but he did it on someone's radio station. He shouldn've thought twice. Granted, he had balls, he risked saying something that could be interpreted as very inappropriate, but what he said wasn't entirely necessary. If he had thought twice he would've realized "you know, if I make my claims like that I'll come off as kind of ignorant and dumb and maybe racist. I honestly am very upset at illegal immigrants, and since I'm passionate about this I will be very serious and deliberate in my commentary on the issue."

So, defending Severin has nothing to do with his ideas. Rather, it's his methodology, and WTKK doesn't seem to be forced by some oppressive censoring agenda to get rid of him. He's being punished because WTKK wants to uphold it's image. The company has it's own agenda. If Severin wants to comment on the issues in his own special way, he might have to go to another radio station because obviously WTKK didn't approve of that methodology.

But words are fine, depending on intent. Depending on the anger that's behind them. I don't feel bad by saying "All my Mexican lady friends have moustaches and VD." Because I don't believe it. It's an unreasonable thing to believe. But it's funny to say, because it makes little sense. Severin could probably be really funny, if he wasn't serious. So sorry you got in trouble, Jay, but that's WTKK's choice, and by not being sophisticated enough in your approach it's kinda your bad.

So the difference is intent, right? The difference between Jay and Betsy in their comments about Mexico.

Well, now let's look at the difference between this and this. Recently some Gay-rights activists have expressed concern about the content of the upcoming film by Sacha Baron Cohen, Bruno:

"Several liberal groups claimed this week that Bruno's behaviour and image – he has bleached hair, wears copious amounts of make-up, and appears to strip-wax his legs, buttocks and chest – will actually end up promoting rather than undermining homophobia."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-lobby-doesnt-get-the-bruno-joke-1704817.html

In the movie Cohen embodies the character of a gay Austrian fashion reporter, and through interactions with Americans exposes ignorance and idiocy in the funniest of ways. But apparently some groups think this means people might see Cohen's gay character as a bad person and begin to believe the stereotypes he portrays. With this claim comes the request that the movie should get some kind of warning label:

"Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay lobbying organisation in the US, has even called for filmgoers to be instructed about the "message" they should draw from the film."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Comedy, art, literature, creativity does not require a warning label. They're not cigarettes. Simply seeing an individual character embody a stereotype does not generate hate. Intelligent people do not base their interpretations of people on the exaggerated images they see in the media. Obviously, what these activist groups are doing is calling most of America stupid. Alright. They can do that. And maybe all these movie goers are dumb. But if someone doesn't understand Bruno it's not Sacha Baron Cohen's fault.

And of all things, he is not encouraging homophobia! He is not saying gay people are evil and are hurting our freedoms! Considering the fact that one of the main opposing arguments against gay marriage (a stupid argument, honestly) is that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedoms of citizens, and thus their freedom of speech, an over-zealous gay-rights group moderating film content is more likely to encourage homophobia than Bruno is.

The difference is intent. And the intent can speak for itself. Bruno is not an undercover movement against gay-rights, it has no intention of hurting gay people. Nobody put a warning label on Huckleberry Finn saying "though Twain may appear to fall short in his humanization of Jim and black Americans, this book is trying to attack racism." And banning Huckleberry Finn is so 1885.

"The Concord (Mass.) Public Library committee has decided to exclude Mark Twain's latest book from the library. One member of the committee says that, while he does not wish to call it immoral, he thinks it contains but little humor, and that of a very coarse type. He regards it as the veriest trash. The library and the other members of the committee entertain similar views, characterizing it as rough, coarse, and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people." - 1885
http://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&pg=RA1-PA116&lpg=RA1-PA116&dq=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&source=web&ots=BIzUvlS8O2&sig=tFc7B8esmZs6DT0gLwx-0uxRgxY#PRA1-PA119-IA5,M1

Wait, what? Huckleberry Finn was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 90's? The 1990's? Well. I guess we haven't learned anything.

Most importantly, Bruno hasn't even been released, and people should hold judgment until it actually comes out.

That is all. Simout!