Under certain circumstances, First
Amendment protection of expression is not
absolute. For example, causing a panic by uttering the false
claim of fire in a theater. Such incendiary acts are disallowed
precisely because they endanger public
safety. In our contentious political realm, the social fabric of
our culture is under equivalent
attack by anti-American forces.
Naturally, that number does not include
peaceful
protesters. That assumes the MSM could bother to find any. For
years now their spotlight has been exclusively trained on Black
Lives Matter and/or other divisive
figures detrimental to the healthy functioning of our democracy.
In that regard, disagreement doesn't entitle anyone the latitude to
threaten members of the Electoral College, the president, his wife or
the White House itself.
Some fifty days into the Trump
presidency all of the above has now occurred. In fact, the
drumbeat
of sedition started well before The Donald even assumed office.
Recall that GOP electors in the Electoral College were hounded—even
receiving death threats—if they cast their ballots for him! (Of
the 270 required, Trump ultimately prevailed with 304, but lost two
votes due to a pair of faithless electors.) To that end, anti-Trump
Hollywood celebrities encouraged them to go rogue (via a viral
video). Still, the gauntlet was really thrown down one day after the
Inauguration. At the Washington's Women's March, singer
Madonna announced she had “thought an awful lot about blowing
up the White House”.
Today another attention seeking rapper,
Snoop Dogg, has followed the Material Girl's lead. In a music video
called “Lavender”, he shoots “Clown-In-Chief Ronald Klump”: a
Donald Trump look-alike in clownface. (His weapon is a Joker-style
prop gun with a 'BANG' flag so “President Klump” is unharmed, but
the message of metaphorical
assassination is clear.) True to form, an understandably miffed
Trump tweeted, “Can you imagine what the outcry would be if
@SnoopDogg, failing career and
all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!”
That's actually an astute observation despite its surface meaning.
For starters, it's highly unlikely his predecessor would have been
the subject of such a stunt. After all, can one imagine Snoop Dogg
having the temerity to shoot a clownish caricature of Barack
Obama?
To that end, Mr. Obama habitually
employed methods to silence
dissenters. That's why on January 2, 2014 CNN's Jake Tapper
stated, “the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act [the
draconian 1917 law] to go after whistle-blowers who leaked to
journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined.”
That law, coupled with others, was used to obtain the email and phone
records of Fox News's James Rosen. Even a New York Times
reporter, James Risen, was not immune. He fought a successful
seven-year battle to protect a confidential government source with a
potential jail sentence hanging precariously over his head. Still
think Snoop Dogg would have dared to cross Obama as he did Trump?
Unlike with the last guy, public
figures' lips are flapping with unfiltered abandon. The difference
with past generations is political dissent was generally principled
and civil, not based on a cultish
devotion to a set of ideas, or automatically demonizing
the other side. To make a political point for today's objectors,
is it right that their messages be so acidic and deliberately
personal? As bad as Snoop Dogg's video is, his nephew Shad Moss
(a.k.a. Bow Wow, formerly 'Lil') took things to a new low with a
salvo directed unfairly at Melania Trump: “Ayo @realDonaldTrump
shut your punk ass up talking shit about my uncle @SnoopDogg before
we pimp your wife and make her work for us.” Certainly,
such a throwback
attitude has no place in our evolved 21st century
sensibilities. That means mutual respect between the sexes, not
objectification.
Contrary to Bow Wow's demeaning view,
all first
ladies are apolitical symbols of American grace. Thus, these
types of malevolent
statements are completely beyond the pail. Would such misogyny
be tolerated if it had been directed at Michelle rather than Melania?
Where's the feminist outcry in Mrs. Trump's defense? This is yet
more maliciousness from a growing list of wacky
Hollywood entertainers. A disturbing trend already tiresome in
the fledgling Trump era.
The selective
outrage was on full display only when it came to defending Mrs.
Obama. Recall the firestorm when Pamela Ramsey Taylor, director of
West Virginia's nonprofit Clay County Development Corp., posted this
unkind comment to Facebook, “It will be refreshing to have a
classy, beautiful, dignified first lady [Melania Trump] in the White
House. I'm tired of seeing a[n] Ape in heels”. In this instance,
First Amendment freedoms—which are supposed to protect unpopular,
even offense
speech—did not shield Ms. Taylor from being fired from her job.
(Amazingly, the fallout didn't end there. Local mayor Beverly
Whaling also resigned over the controversy for posting a supportive
reply, “Just made my day, Pam”.) So much for freedom of speech
when it comes at the expense of a Democrat.
By any objective measure, isn't Bow
Wow's first lady tweet targeting Melania as cruel as what was said of
Michelle? Thus, the larger question looms: why the deafening silence
in March of 2017 to the same
venom that provoked fury in December of 2016?
Ah, the difference a presidential
transition and a few months make; a tectonic
cultural shift! Still, the underlying answer is that anti-First
Amendment political
correctness was weaponized during the Obama
years. Then, for any reason under the sun—legitimate or not—no
one could publicly criticize the Obamas without being absurdly
labeled as a “racist”.
From the fawning
press to the eyes closed court of public opinion, virtually
everyone treated the Obamas with kid gloves. This dynamic is further
borne out by the fact that both remain widely popular despite his
disastrous
presidency and her
coddled sense of entitlement (read: Air
Force One travel, designer duds and 5-star White House living
weren't enough for the missus. Michelle wanted to be paid
to be first lady).
Unfairly, the Trumps have received
extremely rough treatment compared to their indulged predecessors. I
can recall no personal attacks leveled at Mr. Obama during his
job-killing, government-expanding, debt-exploding tenure. While his
gargantuan
mistakes (read: Iran, Benghazi, Bergdahl, criminal aliens/porous
border et cetera) and massive
scandals (read: ObamaCare's broken promises, IRS targeting,
Snowden's leaks and CIA spying et cetera) were repeatedly downplayed
with the MSM's
softest language. What should have been months-long newspaper
filling Nixonian exposés were reported as one day stories, quickly
dropped. Contrast that to the daily slings directed at Donald Trump.
He's even denied the presidential tradition of a
honeymoon! Beyond that, his administration, unlike Obama's, is
under the media's microscope that wildly exaggerates the slightest
missteps.
Rough treatment includes real or
fictional threats of harm. That includes Snoop Dogg's character
assassination of Trump—and his nephew's carnal call to engage Mrs.
Trump in the world's oldest profession. Neither affront should be
excused as a byproduct of our age's lack
of civility. Likewise, Madonna's anarchist
desire to incinerate the presidential residence should not get a
pass.
Why should these lawless
agitators enjoy First Amendment protection simply because they
are geographically separated from their targets? A call to destroy
the people's house. A veiled threat to the president's life
presented as an artistic farce. A disrespectful tirade that
belittles the presidential couple, threatening her with servitude.
All are tantamount to yelling “fire” in that theater. Indeed,
all statements strike at the heart of American's foundations that
promote order and peace. Specifically, such anti-social
communication incites violence by broadcasting alienation and
mistrust. That, in turn, preys upon the
impressionable to do wrong. The end result makes everyone less
safe, keeps our society perpetually
fractured.
For proof, one only need look to a U.S.
president who was actually assassinated by a Hollywood actor. Today,
that leader, Abraham
Lincoln, is revered because he held the Union together despite
the forces of chaos arrayed against him. His now famous words are
ones all future rabble-rousers should heed: “A house divided
against itself cannot stand.”
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002
No comments:
Post a Comment