Ashlynne and Ethan are our moderators for this coming week's blog, and they have crafted an engaging topic around Voltaire, satire, and the limits of free speech. Please offer them the best of your thoughts!
This week we are reading sections from Voltaire’s Candide. This work was very controversial at the time of publication because of the themes it discussed. Candide brims with political and religious satire and is often viewed objectionably. An example of religious satire that caused people to object is Voltaire’s portrayal of clergymen, indulging in fleshly desires such as prostitution, as opposed to their assumed celibacy. The Catholic Church and the French government took offense to this kind of satire and had the book banned. They added it to their list known as the Librorum Prohibitorum that contained books they considered heretical.
Similarly, there have been modern satirical pieces that have evoked the same kind of reaction in America. In one case, a Maryland high school student was assigned to write a satirical essay that was similar to Jonathan Swift’s, “A Modest Proposal”. Swift’s work suggested that during the potato famine, poor mothers should sell their children. To put it in today’s terms, the student suggested: “the eradication of all but a few black Americans,” (Reese). This example shows the dangers of satire in skilled and unskilled hands alike. This essay prompted a largely negative reaction by the school staff and ended with the principal meeting with his parents. The principal explained, “I want you to know emphatically that North County High School embraces and supports all students, with no exceptions. Conversations around sensitive topics such as this, however, are critical to our growth as a school and, ultimately, as a society,” (Reese). This example showcases satire’s potential to be reviewed negatively and to cast the author in a bad light.
From the reading “An Introduction to Satire,” we assimilated that satire is a literary device used to bring about issues to prove something is foolishness by making fun of it. The way the satire is received depends on which side of the issue an individual stands. The author/creator uses satire in hopes of bringing change to their issue of foolishness they are concerned about or to prevent it. Although authors/creators of satire ridicule issues, their ultimate goal is to bring attention to the issue.
In Voltaire’s time, the authorities did not value his writings and had the works banned. He was living under censorship laws. The United States censorship laws are not as strict, which can have negative effects and lead to hate speech. For example, comedian Kathy Griffin posed in a picture holding a fake severed head of President Trump. She is using satire to disrespect an authority. Is there a point where someone can go too far? Could satire go so far as to illicit unintended consequences from the audience? Charlie Hebdo, a writer/creator for a French satirical newspaper, was shot and killed by two men that did not agree with what he wrote/created. Considering all of the above, here are some questions:
Hollywood Reporter, 1 June 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kathy-griffins-controversial-trump-photo-featured-new-gop-ad-1009692. Accessed 5 March 2019.
Shapiro, T. Reese. “A Student’s Satirical Essay Calls for Extermination of Black People, Stokes
Racial Tensions.” The Washington Post, 13 Apr. 2016,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/04/13/a-students-satirical-ess
ay-calls-for-extermination-of-black-people-stokes-racial-tensions/?utm_term=.2d673e07
18ce. Accessed 5 March 2019.
Withnall, Adam, and John Lichfield. “Charlie Hebdo Shooting: At Least 12 Killed as Shots Fired
at Satirical Magazine’s Paris Office.” Independent, 7 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-shooting-10-killed-as-shots-fired-at-satirical-magazine-headquarters-according-to-9962337.html. Accessed 5 March 2019.
This week we are reading sections from Voltaire’s Candide. This work was very controversial at the time of publication because of the themes it discussed. Candide brims with political and religious satire and is often viewed objectionably. An example of religious satire that caused people to object is Voltaire’s portrayal of clergymen, indulging in fleshly desires such as prostitution, as opposed to their assumed celibacy. The Catholic Church and the French government took offense to this kind of satire and had the book banned. They added it to their list known as the Librorum Prohibitorum that contained books they considered heretical.
Similarly, there have been modern satirical pieces that have evoked the same kind of reaction in America. In one case, a Maryland high school student was assigned to write a satirical essay that was similar to Jonathan Swift’s, “A Modest Proposal”. Swift’s work suggested that during the potato famine, poor mothers should sell their children. To put it in today’s terms, the student suggested: “the eradication of all but a few black Americans,” (Reese). This example shows the dangers of satire in skilled and unskilled hands alike. This essay prompted a largely negative reaction by the school staff and ended with the principal meeting with his parents. The principal explained, “I want you to know emphatically that North County High School embraces and supports all students, with no exceptions. Conversations around sensitive topics such as this, however, are critical to our growth as a school and, ultimately, as a society,” (Reese). This example showcases satire’s potential to be reviewed negatively and to cast the author in a bad light.
From the reading “An Introduction to Satire,” we assimilated that satire is a literary device used to bring about issues to prove something is foolishness by making fun of it. The way the satire is received depends on which side of the issue an individual stands. The author/creator uses satire in hopes of bringing change to their issue of foolishness they are concerned about or to prevent it. Although authors/creators of satire ridicule issues, their ultimate goal is to bring attention to the issue.
In Voltaire’s time, the authorities did not value his writings and had the works banned. He was living under censorship laws. The United States censorship laws are not as strict, which can have negative effects and lead to hate speech. For example, comedian Kathy Griffin posed in a picture holding a fake severed head of President Trump. She is using satire to disrespect an authority. Is there a point where someone can go too far? Could satire go so far as to illicit unintended consequences from the audience? Charlie Hebdo, a writer/creator for a French satirical newspaper, was shot and killed by two men that did not agree with what he wrote/created. Considering all of the above, here are some questions:
- Should satire be covered under free speech in the first amendment? Why or why not? What, if anything, is too far in terms of satire? (Consider Donald Glover’s This is America and Voltaire’s Candide).
- Consider the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Should laws be written in order to reframe the difference between hate speech and satire? Is the line too close together and blurred or are they two separate things?
- Was Voltaire’s satire important in bringing to light pertinent issues in the 18th century?
- Despite controversies does satire continue to be an important mode of persuasion in 2019?
Works Cited
Huff, Lauren. “Kathy Griffin’s Controversial Trump Photo Featured in New GOP Ad.” TheHollywood Reporter, 1 June 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kathy-griffins-controversial-trump-photo-featured-new-gop-ad-1009692. Accessed 5 March 2019.
Shapiro, T. Reese. “A Student’s Satirical Essay Calls for Extermination of Black People, Stokes
Racial Tensions.” The Washington Post, 13 Apr. 2016,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/04/13/a-students-satirical-ess
ay-calls-for-extermination-of-black-people-stokes-racial-tensions/?utm_term=.2d673e07
18ce. Accessed 5 March 2019.
Withnall, Adam, and John Lichfield. “Charlie Hebdo Shooting: At Least 12 Killed as Shots Fired
at Satirical Magazine’s Paris Office.” Independent, 7 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-shooting-10-killed-as-shots-fired-at-satirical-magazine-headquarters-according-to-9962337.html. Accessed 5 March 2019.
Ashlynne and Ethan, thank you both for this weeks blog prompt. I will be addressing the first question that you two asked.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, it is hard for me to answer whether or not satire should be protected under free speech in the first amendment because I feel as if it should not have to be. Satire is nothing more than a method of expressing one's opinions, and although opinions can be problematic and dangerous (like if someone expresses racist or homophobic views) they overall cannot hurt you if you do not let them. I think that using satire to defame or make fun of someone is very different than physically harming someones well being. With this being said, I personally do not understand why so many people seem to have a problem with the use of satire, especially when it is used in a comedic sense. I see many comics in particular such as the one you mentioned, Kathy Griffin, who have been under fire for using satire recently, although their entire careers have been built around satire and it was never a problem before. My thinking is that satire could be protected by the first amendment so that the use of it could be allowed, or our society could learn from the old expression that was created by the African Methodist Episcopal Church; "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me".
To answer your second question, I do believe that there can be instances in which satire can be taken too far. I believe that the use of satire goes too far when it goes beyond just being a joke. More specifically, it is one thing to make fun of how a person looks or talks, and it is another thing to threaten someones well-being or property. I also think that satire naturally lends itself to teasing. Likewise, I understand that teasing can cause upset to whomever is being teased but I believe that it is important to draw some sort of line between poking fun at someone and intentionally trying to defame someone's character. With this being said, I also understand that Intentions are often times not able to be measured, but when it is obvious that the person never meant any real harm to whomever their satirized, like in Kathy Griffin's case, I do not believe that they should be legally reprimanded for their use of satire.
In terms of Voltaire's Candide, part of me thinks that he might have gone too far. The ways that he portrayed the clergy men in his novel were intentionally nasty and the result of his use of satire ultimately caused many people to abandon the Catholic church. However, I do not believe that he was wrong for satirizing the church especially considering that his portrayals of the clergymen were largely true - many clergymen did break their vows of celibacy like in Candide.
In terms of Donald Glover's, "This is America", I do not believe that the artists went too far. I have read the comments for this song many times and have seen several criticisms from people who were angered by the fact that Glover chose to shine a light on the issue of gun violence and racism in America. I am sure that in their minds Glover went too far. I however endorse Glover's creative vision and admire him for speaking the truth on a topic that has been overly glamorized.
Josh, I agree that despite satire being different from hate speech, there should be a line crossed at some point in order to maintain the separate of the two. For a good time when I was writing my response I thought we were comparing hate crime, and although those two things are significantly different, that thought process gave me a multitude of ideas that I feel are parallel to yours. Satire, as you have stated, is meant for nothing more but a representation of an argument- there is no harm that should follow. I would extend by saying that satire is meant as an argumentative approach to a subject, merely a creative way to debate. When people are debating, it is not through sword and spear but words against words. Satire is designed the same way as to provoke thinking and move people to your side of an argument.
DeleteJosh, I think it is like you said, it is pertinent to understand how satire is used, and what level of satire is being used. You bring up defamation of character as the level of being too far and my question is what other specifics can you think of as an inappropriate level of satire? Another food for thought, is whether the person writing satire has an understanding of teasing that's not like the person they are teasing. So in that case, would satire still be okay or should it not matter what the opposite party think whether they are tolerant of that or not? In the case of Kathy and Donald, is there a line to cross as artists or are they still subject to the line of satire like everyone else?
DeleteJosh, to your point about Kathy Griffin never being "under fire" for her use of satire before, this just shows how much politics has 'blown up' in our society. It is crazy. That aside, however, I agree with your notion that satire goes too far when it is no longer presented in a joking manner. To add on to that, and kind of answer Ethan's first question, I mentioned in my original post the example of when satire is used to joke about something that actually needs to be taken seriously. Moreover, I can see where you are coming from on "This is America". I actually tend to like songs that bring certain issues to light, but am not sure that a reference to gun violence necessarily resonates with me so well. I will concede, though, that it is good on him for speaking up about the issue at all.
DeleteI think that satire could also be seen as a way to lighten the mood on some serious topics. Of course there is a time and place for being completely serous, but at the same time I do not see the harm in it when it is not crossing the hate speech line.
DeleteGreat post Josh! I agree it separating hate speech from satire is difficult because satire can be taken to far and cross over into hate speech. I think another component to consider when talking about satire is context. In cases such as Cathy Griffin and Donald Glover it is important to take into account the message behind them. Hate speech, in my opinion, has no valid message to be considered. Which to me is the one of the major differences between satire and hate speech.
DeleteSatire is a writing prompt that is commonly used in high school and college writing, used not only as a purpose to push an argument, but to agree with a side so much as to call out the contradictory and inconsistency of their case. It is basically another form of argumentative persuasion, putting yourself into the position of the opposite side of the argument, only to dismantle it piece by piece to prove your actual point. Hate speech is specifically designed to not further an intellectual discussion, only to get out what you’re thinking and not even consider the other members of the debate. I do believe, that despite how effective it can be in an intellectual standpoint, satire can also be a double-edged sword. Take for instance, when the French created a drawing displaying Allah, when in the Islamic religion it is strictly forbidden to ever display Allah through imagery. Though they claimed that this was a drawing poised in satire, it can easily be depicted as a hate crime. This is the harm and damage that satire can produce. I think it is moments like this where satire crosses the line of effective to hateful. A good gage for me on this subject is what emotions provoke me when I observe it. if I look at something that is satirical and my only passing thought is “disagree” or “agree”, it is effective in its context, but if even the mention of if brings up the debate of a hate crime, it has crossed the line. In this way, the decision on if satire has violated something to the point of hate speech depends on the individual.
ReplyDeleteI do think that satire is a significant contribution to the society of 2019. Because it is an older and not well-known form of persuasion, I think it is easy for some to mistake is as hate speech. It’s not used often, but when it is I believe it is powerful and eye opening. In consideration to Donald Glover’s This is America, I know a lot of people who applauded this video and the subjects it highlighted. From just watching it a few times, I took it as something relevant for not only the issue he presents but for others as well, a lesson to be learned time over again.
Satire is something that I think should be taken with a gentle hand, but the product should be significant and relevant. I think Voltaire did a great job with that within his book- given the length of the piece he was able to dilute the satire into a compelling story. In that way, he was not just regurgitating his opinion that might upset others (not including the church). With today’s society being fast paced, many people just want to put out an immediate product, despite the flaws and their careless approach. But people who take the development of their piece into consideration, just as Voltaire and Donald Glover did, is where you get an effect satire.
Bryson, you did an excellent job at distinguishing satire from hate speech. Like you said, even though satire may come across as harsh, its ultimate goal is to argue a point. Conversely, hate speech does not take into account the feelings or beliefs of the people or issue affected. You also brought up an interesting point on how people interpret satire. Depending on their “emotional gage” satire may prove its point or could be interpreted as hate speech. A picture or article could be written as merely satirical, but someone who relates personally to the issue could interpret it as hate speech. I think that is why it is sometimes hard to distinguish if satire has gone too far because it will always affect someone. Your thoughts brought me to the realization of just how thin the line can be between the two.
DeleteBryson, I was surprised to see that someone else took the same direction that I did in my response. I expected most people to write about a personal experience where they maybe have used satire or have seen it used in a way that was taken badly. With this being said, I agree with the point you made that there has to be some sort of line between what is hate speech and was is not. I think you perfectly described and expanded on what I was thinking as well. I also agree with your point that it can be very hard to distinguish hate speech from satire because it is impossible to judge what someone else's intentions are. I dig deeper into this notion in my response but I like how you drew a clear line. I am someone who believes that the only way to truly distinguish the two is on a case by case basis, but I also understand that this method is not always feasible.
DeleteBryson, I thought it was perfect how you began your response by outlining the differences between satire and hate speech. I also believe that your concept of an 'emotional gauge' is very helpful in distinguishing between what satire is and what could potentially be more than satire -- thank you for bringing that up. Moreover, I totally see what you mean about the length of Voltaire's piece 'compensating' for his use of satire; he definitely had more leeway to insert it in specific parts rather than having instance after instance after instance of it. I feel like that would quickly become monotonous!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that satire, in general, should be covered under free speech in the 1st Amendment. I say this because I feel it is crucial for us as humans to be able to see something and respond to it critically if it does not resonate with us, lest we be reduced to not having an opinion of it at all. Satire allows for a more ‘humorous’ way of doing so, through, as we discussed in class, irony and sarcasm. Thus, it is indeed a powerful tool for comedy and literature alike. I would say it also works in the news environment, as reporters on both sides use it to ridicule and poke fun at proponents of the opposing side. However, when it comes to the ‘touchy’ subjects of politics and religion, there are definite caveats to keep in mind (hence why I put “in general” at the very beginning of my response). When satire is used to degrade politicians or religious figures, people get strongly offended. This, I feel, is where it can be mistaken as hate speech. I can vividly remember when the Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred; I was in my sophomore year of high school, and a French student (so, I probably learned about it through class). It was initially shocking to me that those individuals would take such great offense over a cartoon, but then I realized that religion (specifically that of Muslims) was involved. To this day, I am very careful to not satirize religion myself, in fear of the consequences that doing so could yield. Attacks like these show us just how far an otherwise simple case of “satire” can go in offending people. That said, I personally believe that satire goes too far when it tries to make a joke out of something that cannot be dealt with jokingly. An example that readily comes to my mind is school shootings. Last year, I was messaging my friends in a group chat when this girl (who I didn’t even really know) wanted to discuss something a little more serious. But when she tried to bring it up, two of my male friends diverted the topic back to Incredibles 2, and she got upset. The group chat was only for “having fun”, they explained. So then, eventually, she somehow got on the topic of “shooting up the school”, and we freaked out because we thought she was serious. Her remark completely crossed the line of “having fun” vs. putting everyone in danger, and we seriously considered deleting her from the chat (we didn’t, ultimately, but the thought crossed our minds). This goes to show that some topics cannot be joked about, and I would venture to say that the 1st Amendment should not protect satire in these forms. To me, it’s the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a room where there is no fire (which, by the way, is not protected by the 1st Amendment).
ReplyDeleteThe second question is very interesting because, as I just discovered maybe a week ago, the Supreme Court, since the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, has basically said that there is no such thing as hate speech. Even speech that could be considered “inflammatory” is still protected under the 1st Amendment. I do feel like that needs to change, because to me, there is a clear line between satire and hate speech. Satire is, basically, just making fun of someone else. Hate speech goes a step further in denigrating the person, and is much more harmful.
Regarding Voltaire’s use of satire, I would say that it was important in bringing up issues of the 18th century. Given the tumultuous climate of the time, I feel that it was almost necessary for him to incorporate some humor (through irony and sarcasm) into his work. While it is true that the Catholic Church ultimately did not approve of said ‘humor’, I believe that it was still a valiant effort on his part.
In my view, satire continues to be relevant and important in 2019. The best example of present-day satire that I can think of is memes. Anytime society makes a meme out of someone (or something), the purpose is purely to ridicule. They can be used for persuasive or comedic purposes, though they more so fulfill the latter.
Satire should definitely be protected under free speech. Once we start regulating free speech, it really just defeats the purpose of free speech all together. You do make a good point about yelling "Fire" though.
DeleteI strongly agree that it is important to listen to opposing views. Educating yourself in all sides will ultimately make you wiser and aware to why other people may think the way they do, perhaps maybe changing your mind.
DeleteI think you bring up a good point of individuals afraid to use a medium such as satire because people interpret it as hate speech. As you said, "To this day, I am very careful to not satirize religion myself, in fear of the consequences that doing so could yield." Many people can be afraid to speak truthfully or satirically on subjects just because of the consequences, and rightly so. It can be dangerous around individuals who interpret it as hate speech. The world is at a weird point where anything people say can and will be used against them in as many different ways possible. It's a tricky place for mediums such as satire and my question would be, if you weren't to use satire, what medium would you use to talk about issues?
DeleteEthan, thank you for your thought-provoking response (and those that you wrote on others' posts)! That is a very good question. When/if I am ever in situations where my stance on certain issues does not align with that of the other person, I normally just try to hear them out. Now, it is easy for me to say that I would not use satire with them, in these instances, when we are face-to-face. However, I think it is good for when we do have similar stances, and we are mocking the opposing view through private messaging. My parents do this all the time with me through Facebook. I do not always have the same view as them, but it is funny to see these memes regardless. So, I guess my "alternative" would just be to not probe too deeply as to why the other person believes that way (?). I wish I had a better answer than that, but I do concede that satire is a powerful medium.
DeleteLizzy, I agree satire should be protected under the first amendment. I agree satire can cross the line, but that shouldn't take away from how powerful satire can be. In my opinion, Satire uses humor to alleviate the tension that comes with serious topics, making the topic easier to discuss. Great post!
DeleteI was going to mention the "Fire!" scenario in my post, but forgot to. Yes, that isn't protected under the first amendment and it is rightfully so. Screaming "Fire!" in a room with no fire can cause a serious uproar, and could result in injury like trampling. If the speech can cause harm like that, or directs harm to any particular group, I do think it should be banned. If not, the person who said the hate speech should face serious consequences (like that politician who just got egged! #EggBoy).
DeleteDespite controversies does satire continue to be an important mode of persuasion in 2019?
ReplyDeleteI believe satire is a very important part of persuasion in the present day. When used correctly, satire can come across as a very clever way of criticizing something you do not agree with or do not condone for a variety of reasons. Even though satire is basically based on the opinions of those who use it as a persuasion technique, the fact that it causes more thinking through a humorous, ironic, or exaggerated way than just blatantly stating your views on that specific topic makes one feel inclined to possibly agree with you.
Satire is heavily used today, and I agree with you that it is an important part of persuasion of the modern day. I was doing some thinking about how we use satire today, a youtube is a huge platform that promotes it. There are channel dedicated to satire of social media and though at times they might go too far, they bring attention to problems with pop culture and in ways brings us back to reality.
DeleteNohely, satire is indeed an important mode of persuasion even today as you said. You mentioned that satire can be based on opinion. This is true; however, it is also used to bring to light issues that are lesser known. If Candide was merely opinion, would there have been such a controversy over it? Do you think that satire only based on opinion is less effective than satire based on truth?
DeleteI'd say that it more or less is based off of opinion but I guess you could kind of say that about anything. Nonetheless, I would say the way that the satire itself is delivered would determine it's effectiveness.
DeleteNohely, I would be interested in knowing what examples of satire you have seen recently. I personally have a hard time finding examples of satire outside of literature and comedy, which I chose to focus on in my prompt.
DeleteTo answer the question you asked, I believe that satire based on opinion generally "hurts less" so to speak. It definitely can still hurt someones reputation or be a threat, but I believe that satire that is based off of truth is often times what stirs up so much controversy.
Im not a huge fan of satire, however as the first amendment states, here in America, everyone has freedom of speech. It would be hypocritical to allow some words or ideas and not others. This country is a collection of many cultures and religions making it such a unique and liberating place, and with that, collaborative efforts are crucial to running a country with such diversity. Of course all should consider morality and a common interest of the subject peace, but it is and will always be a cruel world so it is up to the people to be generous and understandable. If an individual is speaking offensively they do technically have the right to do so, however us as a bystander, you also have the freedom of speech and can speak against them is you feel moved to do so.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what new laws are formed, people will say what they want to say, it is hard to change a heart. There is a huge chance that if new laws are created to fight back against words of hate this might only create more division amongst the people. It is also hard to regulate what all people say, but with that I am not against the creation of new laws that will regulate the freedom of speech, but I do think we should somewhat focus more on the future generation, guiding them to being more openminded and more accepting than all the previous generations before. By doing so peace amongst the people is more obtainable.
Despite my thoughts on satire, it does not matter what I think of it, it has without a doubt played an important role with in the advancement of thought around the whole world. I think how Voltaire handled satire is how it must be done if one wanted to pursue in the field. And truth be told, I do enjoy it from time to time, I just think we should be a bit more conscious with the subject matters we pursue and to choose topics wisely. Only focusing on topics that really matter like world issues and so fourth, will bring more people to understand the importance of satire and the potential it holds.
Jacey, so if we were to add new laws to combat stuff like hate speech and satire, would it be infringing on the country's principles of freedom of speech? I think you bring up a good point in people not being subject to laws because this country is founded on people voicing their thoughts, no matter how vulgar. Satire is one of those mediums that can be interpreted differently by everyone but comes from a place where it doesn't take itself seriously. I think if the government tried to enforce laws on satire and other forms of commentary like it, the people wouldn't be content with it and fight back.
DeleteHi Jacey. I completely agree when you say citizens should be more conscious and choose what they poke fun at wisely. I also agree that, as a society, we should attempt to make our future generation more open and accepting. I briefly mentioned in my post how I also believe that creating laws would have more negative repercussions as it would likely divide our society. I enjoyed your post greatly and I like your view or satire as a whole, thank you Jacey.
DeleteSatire is often used to point out flaws in a system which is what free speech relatively is. The right of free speech was given to us so we, citizens of this nation, could speak out against what we feel is wrong. Satire has been used in the same way but with a twist of humor and sarcasm. So, yes, satire should be protected under free speech. There are, of course, moments where satire could turn into hate speech as the line is slightly blurred. If pointing out flaws in a system leads to stereotyping and furthering hate towards a group of people that are already oppressed, then that’s no longer satire but it’s now turned to hate speech. I guess even though satire could become hate speech it’d still be protected as hate speech is already protected under free speech.
ReplyDeleteHate speech should definitely not be covered under the first amendment because it only causes oppressed people to become even more of a minority. Satire fits the qualifications of free speech because it strategically points out flaws the government, for example, has without targeting specific culture groups, religions, etc. It is actually difficult to make a concrete definition of both hate speech and satire but ultimately satire is used to point out flaws of a government and hate speech targets specific groups of people and follows a basic stereotype.
Voltaire’s Candide did point out the flaws he saw in his government and how certain ideas were being spread that he didn’t like. He was very harsh in some areas but ultimately that’s what made people come to the realization he was right. With this story, he became a huge part of the Enlightenment.
Damaris, I like how you brought up that the right of free speech was given to us so that we could speak out against what we feel is wrong. That is a great argument for why satire should indeed remain covered under the first amendment. However, you said that you believe that hate speech should not be covered under the first amendment. While hate speech is not okay, if satire continues to be allowed and hate speech is not, will we still see hate speech through the use of satire? Should satire just be gotten rid of as well? Do you think there were parts of Candide that could have been interpreted as hate speech?
DeleteYou both posed great questions that should be considered.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly believe that satire should be covered under free-speech. Being able to express your criticisms and opinion whether or not they appeal to majority is the bases of freedom of speech in my opinion. Voltaire's Candide and Donald Glover's This Is America are both strong criticisms about the society they live in. They are able to start important conversations about injustices happening during their lifetime.
I believe there is a very thin line between satire and hate speech, thin but a line nonetheless. Satire is, in my opinion, meant to push the boundaries of comedy. Satire forces you to be able to laugh at yourself and find the humor in difficult situations, but it also invites healthy dialogue about things otherwise unwilling to be discussed. In my opinion and experience hate speech is loud and rather than inviting healthy discussions about tough topics, hate speech makes dialogue unnecessarily aggressive and hostile. Do I believe hate speech to be wrong? Absolutely, without a doubt. But trying to monitor the speech of person seems unrealistic and evades the really problem. Instead we should try to identify the root of their hatred and replace it with tolerance and understanding.
Voltaire's work sparked serious conversation about the injustices occurring in the 18th century. I feel as though the controversies in result of satire shed light and bring awareness to the mainstream culture. Satire delivers strong and important messages with humor making the seriousness of the topics easier to digest.
Nice job Aryanna! I really like how you said that Satire can start healthy conversations about new topics in a good way. I totally agree with you because many times people are uncomfortable talking about certain things and when you make it into a joke, it kind of eases them into the subject and creates a conversation. When do you think Satire turns into Hate speech? I think that when joke goes too far and starts using prejudice as the joke and purposefully targeting a group or person based on it.
DeleteI think you articulate what satire does for us really well. "Satire forces you to be able to laugh at yourself and find the humor in difficult situations, but it also invites healthy dialogue about things otherwise unwilling to be discussed." That I feel, is a good alternative definition to satire. Another thing everybody seems to agree on is that hate speech shouldn't be tolerated but that satire is on the other side of the line and hasn't quite crossed it. I think your insight into the potential satire has to direct conversations is what we are looking to ascertain when looking at satire as a whole. Nice post!
DeleteGreat question, Isac! I don't know if I can give a definitive answer. I agree that when satire is used to target a specific group or person it can be hate speech, but I will add that when any type of violence is being condoned against a group or person is also apart of hate speech.
DeleteThank you, Ethan! We all agree that hate speech should never be tolerated, but it is and it is protected under the first amendment. As I said in my post trying to monitor what people can say seems unrealistic to me, but it goes without saying that it should be understood that the use of hate speech, like all things, has consequences. Although we are able to say whatever we want without being arrested, what we say can effect people. I believe a solution is to teach people to be mindful of what they say.
Yes, I do think satire should be covered under the free of speech because it's use it mainly humor. It doesn't threat anybody and its humorous. Much like how I make jokes with my siblings about how our parents used pinching as a form of punishment, its harmless banter that can lead to other harmful but anything form of speech can. Satire can reach a point where is goes to far, maybe including death or anything personal towards the intended person or group. This is where we can start saying if we consider it hate speech or not depending on the opinion of the person. For me, I don't think it's hate speech until you start using prejudice as a way to make fun of them or bring them down. Satire is only using humor and exaggeration to either prove a point of make a point, while hate speech is purposefully hurting a group or specific person with prejudice. In 2019, Satire occurs in many places. The most frequent one being talk shows later at night. The ones I've seen use Satire to make fun of political issues and political figures while still making it funny and not harmful. So far, I haven't had any complaints about how they use it because its purposefully funny to engage the audience and show them politics and what they think they're doing wrong while making them laugh.
ReplyDeleteIsac, I like how you included a personal example to illustrate how satire is used, even in everyday life. You also made a point that any form of speech could potentially turn into hate speech. This is interesting to think about. If satire was taken out of the protection of the first amendment, that does not necessarily mean hate speech would end. Is there a way to end hate speech without getting rid of satire? I think, like you said, hate speech is what people interpret it to be. What is harmless to one, may be hate speech to another. We could try to create laws/amendments to abolish hate speech, but because of different feelings toward different issues, it would probably still exist.
DeleteI also agree that satire should be covered under our freedom of speech! At first I thought that hate speech and satire were one in the same with little differences but once I looked into satire more, I found that satire is mainly followed by humor. People should be able to poke fun at something, they aren't damaging anyone with their humor. Hate speech has infected society which is one of the reasons why I too thought that satire was just hate speech in a funny way.
DeleteI believe that satire should be considered covered under the first amendment as free speech because citizens should be allowed to voice their opinion as long as a line is not crossed. Although, I do also believe, as mentioned previously, there is a very blurred line based on individual perception as to what can and cannot be ridiculed or what exactly is going too far. When talking about a certain topic, as in the past and in today's society, it is fairly easy for some people to view a statement as satirical or hate speech. Also mentioned above, when Voltaire's Candide was first released in 1759, the Catholic Church and French government had the book banned because they believed it was a form of hate speech that ridiculed society; whereas it was also coincidentally a best seller among society likely because they thought it was humorous how Voltaire poked fun at the horrors of humankind. I think this is a great example of the very blurred line in perceptions of controversial topics at hand in society at the time. Also, comparing uses of satire in today's society, Donald Glover's This Is America is mentioned as an example. I can see how many in society would view this production as offensive, but others see it in a brutally honest light that depicts the events and gore in America that unfortunately occur and are hidden or masked. This video was highly controversial when it was released and is probably still to some today as some see it as a form of hate speech or criticism. I think that satire and hate speech are two separate things, but I believe they are also often mixed for one another as well. I don't necessarily think that laws should be put into place to re-frame the the difference between the two; that is a lot of work and resources that could be put into more pressing issues and it may cause more problems than resolutions in the end as some people may feel restricted by their speech.
ReplyDeleteVoltaire's Candide and today's modern forms of satire are both still important modes of persuasion and hold pertinent places in society to fuel conversation and beliefs in society. I think satire almost runs as a fuel for popularity for politics, whether it is positive or negative; satire never fails to bring important issues to light and cause debate over society. Satire fuels conversation and conflict as seen in the past, as well as, modern day societies.
Great response Kyle. I think your post outlines a good point that satire fuels conversation and has fueled conversation for a long time. You make the case though that satire is mostly framed in the political sphere and I think that for the most part the commentary is centered around political topics. The only question I have is, If we aren't putting resources towards laws for satire and hate speech, where would you put the resources?
DeleteGreat question Ethan, it has taken me a little to think about it. But, I believe, instead of putting forth political efforts of lawmaking towards materialistic things that do not really harm physically, more productive actions could be made in other fields where people are actually hurting or suffering. For example, more reforms or laws could be made to regulate opioids as America still witnesses many that suffer from the repercussions of prescription medications and, hopefully, provide help to those in need and bring the situation into a better light. This is just one example but the point still stands, I believe there are more pressing issues to deal with than laws that cover how citizens voice their opinions.
DeleteKyle, the Opioid Epidemic is a huge issue, much more pressing than whether something is satire or hate speech! As I read your original post and got to the point where you said that speech laws should not be re-framed, I initially disagreed. However, your mention of opioids posing an actual threat to Americans ultimately convinced me otherwise (and thank you, Ethan, for probing the question!) Thank you for your insight.
DeleteI absolutely adore Donald Glover’s This Is America music video because it highlights something things that could be happening while everyone could be unaware of the bad things that are happening; with that said I don’t believe that satire should be regulated. It should fall under free speech, without satire people probably wouldn’t be aware of what’s really happening. Social media doesn’t go too far sometimes. I don’t think there should be a limit on what is too far. Satire is that alarm clock. It reminds us that just because things seem to be going great in one place, things could be going south for another. Laws should be written in order to help reframe the difference between hate speech and satire. Hate speech can sometimes influence people to act. Say if someone created hate speech about people who don’t like the color green and they make suggestions that people who love that color should die or have something terrible happen to them. Some people will take that to the next level and act on it. Satire is more of “look at what’s happening here”. I can’t say that people won’t or can’t be influenced by satire to do terrible deeds. I feel that once people can see what really makes something satire or hate speech would help others know that which is which. I believe that Voltaire’s satire was important, most people don’t always see the other side of the meadow. Satire can bring people together if changes are necessary. Satire is a way for people to call out injustice acts by others with comedy. Writers intention with satire is to hopefully improve humanity by poking fun and criticizing follies and foibles. Some people even say that satire can be constructive social criticism. Satire does continue to be an important mode of persuasion in 2019, without it people wouldn’t see what’s going on unless they watch the news or social circles decide to share other articles on the topic. Satire is important because it can bring more attention to reassuring issues within the world. Personally, issues that I usually hear about are through my social circles and satire.
ReplyDeleteYasmine, you made a good point about satire bringing to light issues that may be hidden. There are often issues that people are afraid to talk about. If not for satire, some of these issues might still be in the dark. Do you think that people often get their news from their social circles rather than the news because they find it a more trustworthy source? Regarding satire, if it was not a form of communication, would there be a group of people uniformed about current events happening in our world?
DeleteI find it funny that the mere thought of censoring satire is satire in itself. I mean, it is pretty ironic that we have the freedom of speech yet there are those out there who wants to censor satire in any form. In both "A Modest Proposal" and "This is America", Swift and Glover use satire to highlight major issues going on in the time. For Swift, it was the Irish Potato Famine, for Glover, it is the increasing gun violence in America, especially toward black Americans. Censoring the use of satire would only silence the voices of those affected by the issues at hand. Neither of these go too far because they both show the hypocrisy of the situations. Swift wrote a detailed plan about breeding humans and eating babies that would not only feed the hungry but maintain population control; Glover showed people in happy situations (singing in a church choir, playing guitar) being shot because of increasing gun violence.
ReplyDeleteIn Glover's case, I find it especially interesting how he used satire in 2018. He is a Renaissance man of this time; he is a writer, an actor, a stand up comedian and a rapper. He is also outspoken in the political issues he found important. He combined all his talents into one to create the music video for "This is America", which accurately shows what the dangers of living in America (and any other place in the world with loose gun laws, for that matter) are today. It is incredibly persuasive; shootings happen no matter where you are, even during church service.
Regarding question 2. about differentiating between hate speech and freedom of speech, I always believe that you are free to say what you will, but you are not free from the consequence. So, do I care that someone says something racist and they get punched in the face? No I do not. If you can say something, you should be able to handle the consequences that follow.
Hannah, you brought up an interesting viewpoint regarding free speech. You said that people can say whatever they want to, but they must be ready to accept whatever consequences come with it. It is often risky to speak one’s mind today, especially regarding sensitive issues. What one person says is giving their opinion, could be offensive to another. One must be cautious about what comes out of their mouth, words can carry a lot of weight. Do you think that because of the risk of consequence of what we say, that free speech is really free speech?
DeleteWhen it comes to satire, I believe it’s important to delineate between social and legal repercussions. There are laws on the books that protect against hate speech, but only against hate speech that directly incites violence or causes harm. That’s an important legal distinction because it’s difficult to prove the assertion that a given work has “directly” incited violence or caused harm. An easy example of illegal speech is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded area, inciting panic and increasing the risk of injury to those around. It’s also illegal to explicitly call for violent action against a group or individual, though implying support of (un)said action is apparently covered under the first amendment (Alex Jones and his ilk come to mind). That said, while there may not be grounds for legal action against someone for a distasteful bit of satire, such as Kathy Griffin’s publicity stunt, there can be significant social repercussions. Griffin received huge backlash from both sides of the aisle for being crass and inflammatory, she lost her job over the incident. To attempt to legally regulate expression of this kind risks a slippery slope that could censor valuable opinions and damage the foundations of a free society, and I don’t think it would accomplish any more than the existing social regulation of speech already does.
ReplyDeleteDarrick, bringing up the legal repercussions of hate speech is an interesting point. It is true, there are already a few laws in place to protect certain forms of hate speech. However, like you said, they only apply if the speech is inciting violence or causing harm. I had not thought about the social repercussions before. Even though there is not legal punishment, what a person endures as a result of their decision to take advantage of free speech is a punishment in a way. Is additional regulation of hate speech necessary then? Maybe not.
Delete