I was stunned that in the midst of all the kerfuffle surrounding Joe Wilson's now-infamous outburst that no one mentioned "slander." Lion's somewhat tounge-in-cheek comment to Sol's post on the matter holds real water - the words said more than "that statement is a lie "or "your current action is lying." Wilson said Obama is "one who lies." I applaud him for leaving aside any further notes about the inflammability of the president's knickers. I guess he was trying to be civil.
The debate about "civility" itself seems to channel conversation away from traditional defamation, or at least serves to illuminate who may decry it. A short Google search for "Joe Wilson" and "slander" yields a stream of bloggers and forum-writers coming to the defense of Joe Wilson against people slandering him. Of course, it also brings up an article slandering him.
The problem with refocusing the debate on "civility," as Dave rightly points out, is that civility has nothing to do with the content or factual basis of a given proposition (or outburst). No one, from Obama himself to the blogosphere, asked Joe Wilson to prove that Obama would support healthcare for illegal immigrants. If people did want to make him look like a douchebag in a productive way, they would force him to demonstrate the merit of his point, which would undoubtedly shed a bright light on Obama's health care plan. And if the glow from that light were disproportionate to the importance of the point that Wilson contested, well that's what you get, fibber.
Much more worrisome than the extremely public outbursts like Wilson's are smaller episodes of more ridiculous behavior. Since 1964 (NY Times vs. Sullivan), the laws against slander of public figures have required stringent proof of "actual malice," and because of reasonable accommodations for parody, persons like the President are likely almost incapable of pursuing legal suit, even setting aside the myriad practical reasons against it. However, I naively maintain that such a damning word as "slander," if uttered with gravity and with reason by the president, could strike some more violent public offenders into a willingness to temper their words. Therefore, I hoped for a reaction when I read a short AP feed in The Philadelphia Inquirer today reporting that a representative of Representative Trent Franks (R, Arizona of "birthers" fame) attempted to clarify his claim that President Obama was an "enemy of humanity" by remarking that the statement referred particularly to "unborn humanity," i.e. abortion. The president has shown grace in the face of his more outrageous opponents, and indeed, even Bush usually fumbled out of these sorts of situations without blowing up. One could easily say that the president must, that he can't sweat the small stuff. However, if there is a hope of moving towards a more cerebral debate in this country, to correspond with a president who considers his words, perhaps this is worth some sweat. Only by bringing slander back into the national debate and outing those on both sides who use it as a substitute for criticism will we ensure a truly civil debate - one that is concerned with nation more than image, and policy more than persona.
Sometimes it takes the old guns to change deeply ingrained habits. In fact, a mayor in Vineland, NJ, a retired policeman, took his piece to a press conference yesterday to stand up to the NRA. The NRA have launched a “smear campaign” against Mayors Against Illegal Handguns, who support legislation prosecuting individuals who do not report lost or stolen handguns. However, it wasn’t the “smear” that rang out, but the saliency of the issue. The mayor of Ellport Borough in western PA said to an Inquirer columnist.
" 'Please don't take this the wrong way…but we don't want our small community to end up like Philadelphia...Then I got this postcard saying I'd joined an elite antigun group," a still-disgusted [Joe] Cisco said. "It just slandered us up and down.’ ” (Full story)
And if I do take that the wrong way, Mr. Cisco, will it be pistols at dawn?
In fact, the mayor visited houses of people who disagreed with him, and explained his position. Bang.
Posts
The problem with trying to do away with the civility argument is that, thanks to the rise of viral media and online campaign fundraising, getting outraged about what someone said, or getting outraged about what someone said about someone who said something is a great way to move the debate into a more tangibly advantageous world of hard cash. Both Joe Wilson and his 2010 democratic opponent have raised somewhere near 1 million dollars each since he expressed his idiotic self. Calling out the incivility of the other side, even in a non-election year, is increasingly becoming a viable way to fill your coffers, so I have a feeling it won't go away for a while.
ReplyDeleteAlso, awesome that you posted.
ReplyDeleteSo you think you can just waltz in late 9 months late to the blog party, bringing with you your fancy new font and your fancy new harem of Jewess fiances. And not only that, but you start sticking my tongue in Lion's cheek, giving him credit for my ingenious comment. You, sir, are an enemy of humanity and I challenge you to a duel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with Dave that it is sweet that you are writing for the best blog in town now.
I remember watching the non-state of the union state of the union-ish health care speech with my mom. As soon as Joe Wilson shouted out, she started screaming at the TV, "if you were really smart," "you" being "that one," Obama, "you would halt the speech and call the fucker out and turn the speech around to make it about how much the other side is full of shit." I don't see Obama doing anything like that ever, but I agree with her that that would be awesome and a righteous thing to do.
What they need is more Barney Franks. If they could replace the whole Democratic side of the House of Representatives with him, and then drown the Senate in acid, I think we might get somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dan, thank you. I did say an awesome thing that Ben said.