The Christian Right and Free Speech

"I understand why [Dr. Laura] feels gay people are lesser beings ('biological errors,' she calls them) in need of reform. She is religious (an Orthodox Jew), and says she finds confirmation of her views on gay people in Scripture. Sadly, there is a type of religious person who finds inspiration for prejudice in the Bible, a circumstance that allows them to be bigoted and feel morally superior at the same time. She is of that type."

- Des Moisnes Register, 7/5/00.

 

After calling gays and lesbians "deviant" and "biological errors", physiologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger has raised the ire of both gays and non-gays alike who object not only to her stance on homosexuality, but also to Paramount Television's offering her a television show for next fall. A massive campaign to convince Paramount to yank the show has begun, and the Christian right is eagerly rushing to her rescue.

Surprisingly enough, they have not only offered a straightforward defense of her views on gays, but they have also based their defense of Dr. Laura on First Amendment grounds. Why is this surprising? Because the Christian right has a long tradition of trying to force other broadcasters off the air when their views are not as ideologically pure as Dr. Laura's. In such cases, the First Amendment is treated more like an enemy of the faith rather than a sacred moral virtue.

Indeed, religious conservatives seem to have made a habit of making the free speech argument only when it is their speech that is in question. Take Howard Stern for example. On its website, the American Family Association, a Christian group based in Tupelo, MS, currently tells readers that "...Stern's daily dose of nudity, blasphemy and depravity are reasons enough for stations and advertiser's to drop his show." Likewise, Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell has proclaimed that "...homosexual activists are trying to take away Dr. Laura's right to free speech."

The Walt Disney Company is still being boycotted by the Southern Baptist Convention after being condemned for their so-called "anti-family" business practices, one of which was their support of the televison show Ellen. Back then, they wanted it taken off the air. What about free speech here? Doesn't it apply to Disney, too?

The problem here is one of honesty. If those on the Christian right were to merely offer a spirited defense of Dr. Laura's anti-gay views, instead of selectively invoking the right of free speech when it only serves their particular speech, they would not be open to charges of duplicity.

Of course, Schlessinger has a right to her views. But what if she had called African Americans "biological errors"? Knowing the extremely adverse political and cultural reactions that would result, it is doubtful that anyone would rush to her aid, especially the Christian right. Apparently, they consider the First Amendment akin to a collection of fine china. You only bring it out when you have important guests, because it makes you look really good.

Despite Dr. Laura's homophobic positions, the gay community is somewhat split on the issue of whether or not they are embracing the right tactics. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has not asked Paramount to cancel plans for the show, only to ensure that alternate (read pro-gay) points of view are offered. Others, however, think that just doesn't go far enough.

Many are alarmed that her medically-unsound opinions could be broadcast to such a large audience of viewers, some of whom will undoubtedly take this doctor's words about gay persons to heart. Her opponents have beseiged Paramount with thousands of phone calls and emails, demanding that plans for the show be dropped. A massive protest is planned for March 21 to be held outside the company's headquarters in Hollywood, CA. Dr. Laura has even hired a crisis management team.

While the First Amendment allows you to say almost anything that you please, it shields you from government retribution alone. It does not guarantee the corporate subsidization of bigotry over the commercial airwaves, only that you cannot be arrested for it. It is Paramount's willingness to offer Dr. Laura a lucrative television contract with which to further propragate her homophobia which has offended even the most vocal supporters of free speech. The issue is not one of free speech, but of corporate responsibility. Even Dr. Laura herself has said that "words have the power to hurt or heal, depending on how we use them." How true.

 

Send us your comments