The First Amendment and The Snowflake

Observations regarding the mainstream response to Kathy Griffin’s photographs

As you are surely aware, dear reader, comedienne Kathy Griffin recently appeared in staged photographs holding a mask that resembled the severed head of President Donald Trump. My personal opinion of these images is irrelevant; I find the public response much more intriguing. Griffin’s apology neither erases the response her photos generated, nor invalidates an analysis thereof. So I’d like to share a few thoughts.

The ubiquity of these photographs served as a litmus test for so-called “free speech” advocates, mainly on the right. It was a chance for conservatives — especially those who support Trump — to reaffirm their commitment to their stated ideals of liberty, including freedom of speech and expression. It was their chance to demonstrate they are indeed better than the antifascists they so vehemently denounce for shutting down events featuring prominent bigots and xenophobes. It was their chance to prove they are not pathetic, impotent snowflakes.

The responses ranged from libertarian comedian Ben Kissel calmly and rationally defending Griffin based on First Amendment considerations, to Fox News’ week-long marathon of complaints. Compare and contrast this criticism with the right-wing silence (or complicity) during the eight-year wave of disgusting racist imagery of then-president Obama being lynched, as well as conservative icon Ted Nugent calling for the killing of the former commander-in-chief.

Real beheadings vs. staged ones

If you’re offended by Griffin’s photos but indifferent toward Trump’s delightful little trip to Saudi Arabia (a theocratic monarchy and top American ally since the 1930s), then I have something for you to contemplate. The photographs are staged; fictional in their content and satirical in their intent. They are not real. “It’s no different from a movie,” explained Tyler Shields, the photographer in question. “It just happens to be a still image.”

But the kingdom of Saudi Arabia literally chops off the heads of its citizens at an unprecedented rate, often for non-lethal crimes. It’s ironic that political satire — regardless of its perceived tastelessness — could illicit such intense backlash, while the spectacle of actual public beheadings generates shrugs. Maybe TMZ should show up at the next execution conducted by this top American ally.

Is Trump himself more offensive than satire?

Those who are offended by these photographs, yet not offended by Trump himself have a strange and possibly malfunctioning moral compass. Again, these photos feature a fake severed head. Trump consistently advocated and promoted actual violence during his campaign (including political assassination). He admires and has jovial conversations with ruthless dictators, and has killed civilians overseas. He has mocked a handicapped journalist, belittled the family of a deceased veteran, and has made numerous racist comments regarding minorities and immigrants.

In addition to his xenophobic rhetoric, Trump’s affinity for white supremacists and his endorsement of neo-Nazis has emboldened the perpetrators of recent hate crimes and acts of right-wing terrorism. He even created an apparently Hitler-inspired program to document the crimes of immigrants, leading to the further demonization of an already marginalized and oppressed demographic. He has employed racists, white nationalists, and a probable Nazi, and attempted to ban members of a minority religion from traveling to the U.S. Trump is also a prominent sexual predator who has assaulted many women, and brags about it. Oh, and he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accord (which he justified by paraphrasing Hitler), an act that threatens life on Earth as we know it. And the list goes on. In short, Trump’s bigotry, sadism, and general scumbaggery are immeasurable. So if we’re going to be outraged, let’s make it proportional.

Kathy Griffin is a not a leftist

My next observation is less relevant to the main topic, but it’s kind of a pet pevee I’d like to get off my chest. Kathy Griffin does not represent “The Left”, as was implied by Trump in a tweet. As a comedienne, she represents her own views and expresses those views in whatever ways she see fit as an artist and a performer. Even if she was not a professional purveyor of humor, her views would likely be considered centrist by actual leftists. The Left is comprised of self-identified democratic socialists and anything leftward (Marxists, Maoists, anarchists, etc.).

To The Actual Left, liberals are centrists. This is because the mainstream U.S. political spectrum has shifted so far to the right during the last 30 years that low income families, oppressed minorities, and working class people have almost no representation in congress, much less in the corporate news noise machine. So, kids, what our shadowy corporate overlords tell you is “the left” is actually the gooey, marshmallowy, white (very white) center.

There has been a bi-partisan consensus on neoliberal policies that ship jobs overseas, destroy labor unions, favor corporate profit over people, and increase poverty and economic inequality. There has been a bi-partisan consensus on pouring trillions of dollars into the voracious American war machine while the middle class disappears, tens of millions suffer without health coverage, student loan debt reaches record highs, and 45 million people live in poverty. There has been a bi-partisan consensus in support of the draconian “War on Drugs”, which is the main contributing factor in our world-renowned mass incarceration system (which imprisons far more than any other country), largely affecting poor people of color. There has been a bi-partisan consensus in favor of ignoring war crimes and white supremacy. The Left is opposed to these sadistic policies, and view Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same corporate coin.

Speaking of bi-partisan consensus, milquetoast liberals such as Chelsea Clinton and Anderson Cooper regurgitated the manufactured outrage of conservative pundits and the Trump regime regarding the photographs. They belong to a cadre of nihilistic centrists who hypothetically support free speech, but squander the perfect opportunity to discuss it. They shed crocodile tears for the victimless crime of bad art, spending valuable time a resources that could have been used to give voice to the victims of systemic social injustices.

Conclusion

A Slate article characterized the stunt as a “bad idea,” and Griffin herself, during her apology, admitted it was “not funny.” Folks, I think we’re getting off topic. This is America. We should be talking about Freedom®. I would receive an “F” on this article if I didn’t mention the Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If pundits included this sentiment in their diatribes, it would have balanced out disapproving cries of “wrong” and “inappropriate”, thus clarifying support for free speech.

It is completely understandable if you’re disgusted and incensed by these images. They are certainly shocking. But it is possible to be offended by words, images, or artwork, yet still recognize and promote the rights of the originator to their opinion and their creative expression. But if you think Griffin went too far and that freedom of speech does not apply to what she did, I hope to God you condemn actual beheadings as well.

P.S. The only crime here is that the “decapitated president head” idea was stolen from GWAR without attribution.