Patriotism and the Prison of Dissent

On the same day that Barack Obama begins his nationalistic patriotism tour in Independence, Missouri, the authorities-that-be announced that protesters will be fenced in by chain-length
or chicken-wire during the Democratic National Convention. While the Democratic presidential candidate wags on about a love of country and the importance of sacrifice to the nation-state, the Federal Court approves the creation of "Free Speech Zones," or the sectioning off of areas where Freedom of Speech can be granted within a metal cage.

What Obama, the Federal Government, the City of Denver, Secret Service, and Homeland Security are forgetting is that to demonstrate a commitment to the best of "American" ideals, basic constitutional rights must be protected by any means necessary. Rather than addressing the ever-increasing totalitarianism of the United States Police State, Obama glibly blabs patriotic pap as police continue harassing communities of color, queer people, poor people, and people who dare criticize the corporate state this country has become.

The cage protesters will be confined in will be a visual reminder of the 2 million plus people incarcerated in the United States, the legacy of slavery that U.S. corporations continue to profit from, the Japanese Internment Camps, and the incarceration of queer people.

When Obama yaks about patriotism, it is imperative to remember what pro-Americanism supports--genocide masked by the right to life, slavery masked by the right to liberty, and the planned poverty, sickness, and misery of millions masked by the right to the pursuit of happiness.

American patriotism is the naturalization of racism and in claiming this project of white supremacy, Obama's claims of patriotism become a tool for white power.

The U.S. Protects Hate Speech But Not Cursing

Adam Liptak's June 12th, 2008 New York Times article "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Hate Speech" discusses the United States decision to protect hate speech within the first amendment and compares U.S. policies to a number of European nations that have decided that hate speech, holocaust denial, and Islamophobic language are a crime. What's particularly pernicious about Liptak's article is that he fails to acknowledge the millions of people silenced by U.S. bombs, police, and prisons. He fails to mention that the media is dominated by five corporations that protect state and ruling class interests and deny the public a legitimate voice. He fails to discuss the role of the Federal Communications Commission in regulating what language and ideas get aired on television.

From the FCC website:
It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. (See definitions}. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. In addition, violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.

The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In 2004 alone, the FCC took action in 12 cases, involving hundreds of thousands of complaints, assessing penalties and voluntary payments totaling approximately $8,000,000. The Commission has also toughened its enforcement penalties by proposing monetary penalties based on each indecent utterance in a broadcast, rather than proposing a single monetary penalty for the entire broadcast. At the same time, however, the Commission is careful of First Amendment protections and the prohibitions on censorship and interference with broadcasters' freedom of speech. The FCC has denied complaints in cases in which we determined the broadcast was not indecent based on the overall context of the programming. Regardless of the outcome, the FCC strives to address every complaint within 9 months of its receipt.

Instead of acknowleding the diverse censorial roles our government engages in, Liptak indicates that the only time the government can censor is when a speech act threatens imminent violence. As indicated in the above FCC quote, the government is setting the standards for what it determines is indecent. This flagrant violation of the spirit of the First Amendment demonstrates that the government is perhaps more concerned with protecting hate speech than the indecencies of banal conversation.

I am a strong advocate for Freedom of Expression. Nonetheless, I do not believe that government can grant this right. The attempt of any hierarchy to protect any freedom also implies its rightful ability to take the right away.

Hate mongers must be confronted for the violence of their language outside a legal apparatus. The government must be confronted for the violence of its acts outside a legal apparatus. In the words of George Orwell, as relayed to me probably inaccurately a few years ago, "I'd rather shoot a man than take away his Freedom of Speech."