Over
the last several months there’s been much commotion over the idea of parody or
satire and their connection to western views
on the freedom of speech. I could
easily discuss the events surrounding the satirical Charlie Hebdo, Hollywood’s The
Interview, and John Oliver’s take on Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, for
example. I don’t normally have a
problem with people saying what they believe. After all, I was raised in America and I am very much a
believer in the principles that underlie the Bill of Rights and our
Constitution while also acknowledging their imperfections. I accept the belief that we have an
inalienable right to say what we want, to assemble, and to protest. What I’m having trouble with, however, is
understanding the role of satire in a society where I am encountering
increasingly more ignorant people who can’t tell the difference between what’s
real and what’s false because they simply aren’t familiar with the world around
them.
Among
politically, historically or culturally aware audiences, I believe that satire
can work quite well. These readers
or viewers can grasp the nuances of the humor involved or see the obvious
contradictions in the fabricated stories being passed off as real in sources
such as The Onion. But, in the digital age of the 21st
century and at a time when people read fewer books and articles and more news
blurbs and unfettered internet postings I am starting to see the dangers of
putting satire out in the world for everyone to read. I’ve had people tell me about how Pope Benedict has come out
of the closet. I’ve read articles
that claim that Busch Gardens has built a 9,600-mile long roller coaster. I’ve had colleagues tell me that California
was purchased by Japan. And, I’ve
had friends talk about how Kanye West interrupted the Grammys yet again (oh
wait, that one’s real?). These all
have the potential to be funny.
But, for whom?
The
problem with satire or parody is two-fold as far as I see it. First, I try to live by the maxim “if
you have nothing good to say, then don’t say anything.” I really don’t see how poking fun at
someone’s religious beliefs or trying to trivialize their “sacred cows” does
anyone any good. I am not talking
about the things people do. What I refer to is the dogma and belief
systems on which people depend to live out their lives as best they can as good
people. It would never cross my
mind to make fun of someone’s genuine idea of salvation even if I think it
odd. I wouldn’t urinate on a cross
in front of a Christian. Nor,
would I kill a cow in the presence of a Hindu. Maybe, it’s me, but I think they deserve that respect. It’s my acknowledgment of their
spiritual essence as people, as human beings, as beings with souls. The academic in me, however, is willing
to inquire about those beliefs and is willing to understand them. After all, I probably believe in a few
things that are very odd to others.
Second,
I actually like some of the articles in Charlie
Hebdo or The Onion, but I tend to
know and understand what is real and what isn’t. I don’t necessarily respect Bill Maher’s sense of humor, though
I believe he has a right to say what he wants. And therein lies my predicament. When a satirist, however, rights a story that is supposed to
read as parody, how many people can honestly see it as just satire? People
aren’t as news savvy as we think.
People are gullible and they seem to want to believe anything that’s
told to them, especially if it’s negative. This is where the danger lies. It creates false beliefs and often gives people hope where
there is none. In the case of
religion, it causes people to be unsure about their own beliefs or
practices. In the case of
politics, it can intensify prejudices or incite riots. These are just some problems I can
think of off the cuff, but all equally detestable I think.
So,
how do we balance the right to free speech with the right to dignity and
respect? In short, how do we prevent the bullying
of people’s ideas and beliefs in a world where we are taught to treat others
with respect? I don’t know. I honestly don’t. Is it a matter of simple behavioral
changes? Does it require cultural
sensitivity training? Is it as
easy as following our instincts to do right, to quote C.S. Lewis once again? I acknowledge the right that you have
to say what you want about me, but I also acknowledge that I can’t take it
personally (especially if I’m in the public arena) in the way that President
Correa reacted to Oliver’s comments. At what point should my right to say what
I believe interfere with your right to live your life peacefully and
non-judgmentally? People are going
to say what they’re going to say., but how I react to it is a different story
and, I believe, has been a basic issue in all human communities across time.