I see some of our high-minded hate-speech laws, this time in England, are abuzz in the news again. A columnist, Victoria Coren, is in some trouble and may wind up in jail. Why? Because she wrote a bit too provocatively and broadly about her displeasure with Lucy Liu playing the role of Watson in the highly beloved English classic story of Sherlock Holmes for an American TV series titled “Elementary”. According to Ms. Coren, these are the two paragraphs that she wrote in a column that are the source of her legal troubles:
"Lucy Liu [told] the Times, 'It was a very big deal for me to play an Asian-American in Charlie's Angels; Watson's ethnicity is also a big deal', as if someone had bet her £100 that she couldn't cause at least three Conan Doyle fans to suffer a pulmonary embolism.
"Personally, I'd like to press Liu's face into a bowl of cold pea soup for that statement. It's not just her failure to distinguish between creating a new character and mangling a beloved old one (Tread softly! You tread on my dreams!), but the triumphant tone over such an appalling and offensive racial change. Let me be clear: I rather like the idea of an Asian Watson, but American? God save us all."If Ms. Coren were a man, I could see more cause for a little teacup tempest on account of the violent imagery she takes up, but the fact that she is a woman would seem to take some of the heat of her statement away - who doesn’t like a good catfight?
More seriously, I am just reminded why I like our First Amendment. Personally, I could see a law proscribing what I would call ‘true’ hate speech, namely speech that calls for violence against others, especially against minority groups, including the outright elimination of groups, something much clearer like this. Though, even here, I could accept such speech if it were at least veiled in fiction; I wouldn’t care to ban “The Turner Diaries” for example. If a people are not above such hate-mongering, I don’t think a few criminal laws proscribing speech will help very much.
Now, I can see regulating such speech and books, by not allowing them a popular platform, such as school libraries and network television or mainstream theaters and auditoriums, but not much more than this. It’s just that the idea of turning mere speech into a crime makes me wince. Writers try to be provocative, or at least the best of them do, and it is not like life is all about love and rainbows. I hate the idea of chilling free speech, creating a situation where a person behind a keyboard has to wonder if he might be crossing a line, “Should I take back that bit about pressing her face into a bowl of soup? Should I just forget about the whole angle about an Asian taking such pride in appropriating a classic English role?” These may not be entirely wholesome thoughts, and let the writer risk losing popularity and readers. But I feel like it is safe to say that she is not a criminal. She may actually be more of a racist than she likes to think, but she is no criminal, at least not on account of these paragraphs.
(Source: News-LJ)