Have we in the gay and lesbian community become free—speech bullies? That was the fear I registered as I read the details of three seemingly unrelated but concurrent news items, all involving gays and lesbians and our allies trying to silence, punish or shut down people who speak out against our community. The three news items are encapsulated below. As you read them, ask yourself: Whom am I rooting for? Why? Are my loyalties based on emotions, or principles? And in situation, whom would I cheer on if the tables were turned? *
In Pasadena, Calif., police officer Naum Ware is suspended after publication of his book, The Rose Garden. The author is calling the book a fictionalized tell—all of the behind—the—scenes lives of real cops, with many of the characters and stories based on actual events. His boss, Pasadena Police Chief Bernard Melekian, is calling the book "full of hateful remarks." The book has some characters referring to women as "tramps" and contains a chapter titled "Gays of Our Lives." "What I found was language that was unacceptable, directed at women and members of the gay community," the chief told The Los Angeles Times. The chief says the book was "not [ in ] keeping with the department's values and mission." He added that the book may indicate the officer's inability to professionally deal with women and gays, and cited that reasoning behind pulling the officer's badge and putting him on paid leave.
Ware may sue, on the grounds that the suspension is allegedly a violation of his free speech. The fracas has resulted in a publicity boon for a self—published book that would otherwise probably have gone unnoticed. *
Near San Luis Obispo, Calif., the wealthy, Christian conservative family publishers of a local newspaper impose a ban on news stories or ads that portray the gay and lesbian community in any positive manner. Mary Weyrich, who with her husband David publishes the Gazette, flips when she sees an ad for a gay support group in their paper. The result is an edict banning stories or ads "promoting the gay lifestyle." Mrs. Weyrich told The San Jose Mercury News: "We wanted nothing that would promote the things we don't believe in. We wanted to make a difference."
The ban indeed made a big difference to many members of the editorial staff—including the editor—in—chief of the newspaper and the managing editor of another Weyrich—owned magazine, as well as a bevy of reporters— who quit their jobs in protest.
It also made a difference to many advertisers: Some, like San Luis Obispo County, pulled their ads. Others, like a local bikestore owner who has sold wheels to the Weyrich children, donned a "Got Christ?" cap to greet customers, recently, to show his support for the policy. Though detractors question who might be next on the editorial hit list, and point to professional standards of news coverage, the paper's supporters emphasize that the Weyrichs are operating fully within their First Amendment rights. *
In Hollywood, hundreds of protestors gather at the gates of Paramount studios to call for a stop to the proposed, upcoming television program of the conservative radio talk—show host Laura Schlessinger, known popularly as "Dr. Laura." Protestors point to Schlessinger's history of anti—gay remarks—calling gays "biological errors," accusing vast numbers of gay men of preying on young boys, and promoting the widely rebuked philosophy that gays can "change" through so—called "reparative therapy"—as evidence of her bigotry. The protestors, some of whom have also created the website stopdrlaura.com, say Schlessinger's broadcasts translate into more than hate, but real harm to gays and lesbians, especially youth.
Paramount executives continue to cling to the planned show—which they hope will net them megabucks—and defend their decision by ostensibly championing "the free exchange of speech and ideas." *
At first read, I was profoundly worried that, as a movement, we had indeed become the hypocritical, politically correct authoritarians we so often accuse our opponents of being.
Even worse, I was worried that as an individual I had become those things, too. After all, it's natural to feel a certain amount of loyalty to the gay and lesbian cause in each of the above circumstances. But beyond some gut feeling of allegiance, we need to dissect each situation and ask ourselves some hard questions about our tactics and goals, and the issue of free speech.
When I review each of the three events above, I have to admit I come up with a mixed scorecard.
Only the Dr. Laura incident is an easy call. Laura has the right to her opinions, but that doesn't include the right to a TV show. Paramount has the prerogative to give her a show if it so chooses. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit idly by and let a private company do bad things.
We Americans love to toss around our Constitutional right to free speech. But in the furor, we often forget that free speech is protected from government. Private companies have the right—I would argue they have the responsibility—to pick and choose what speech, thus what ideals, they stand for.
But sadly, the whole Schlessinger affair is less about anything like taking a bold social stand or defending free speech than it is about profit. Schlessinger has an estimated 20 million listeners, and Paramount's proposed show has already been sold in more than 95 percent of media markets. Paramount isn't worried about free speech. It's obsessed with profit.
The case of the anti—gay paper publishers is equally straightforward from a free—speech perspective. But it is more complicated from a moral one. There's no question that the Weyrich's are within their First Amendment rights to refuse to print anything they find objectionable. The reaction we have against their move is not one about Constitutionality, but fairness. And yet, I can't help but wonder if most of us might not cheer a newspaper publisher who declared he would not print anything damning about gay people. Indeed, many gay and lesbian ( and Black, and women's ) publications around the country were founded on the same principle: publishing positive news about their communities.
It is the police officer's situation I find most troubling from a Constitutional perspective. Although there is some court precedent for removing public servants who show bias based in matters of race, gender or sexual orientation, the bottom line remains that the police fall under the umbrella of the local government. Punishing a municipal employee for something he has written strikes too close to home for comfort. Just imagine if the author had been a lesbian cop who wrote a fictional account of how poorly lesbians were treated by the police force.
These three incidents are hardly isolated events in our community's continuing struggle to come to terms to gain equal rights without trampling Constitutional rights. As gays and lesbians, we would do well to remember that, historically, free speech—designed as it was to champion the underdog, to protect the unpopular voices—has long been one of our community's few salvations. Those who champion the notion we chip away at it now simply to simply to gain small triumphs over our opponents should bite their tongues.
