COLUMN: Two-pronged assault on freedom of speech

From Siona Listokin's, "Think Different," Fall '00 From Siona Listokin's, "Think Different," Fall '00Every two years, the Whitney Museum in New York holds its Biennial exhibition to showcase today's up-and-coming artists. The verdict on this year's show is decidedly tepid; even critics who approve of the curators' choices admit that the show as a whole "lacks boisterousness." The problem is that New York art critics and their public have grown used to seeing elephant dung and mutilated animals and other works of art that shock the senses first and foremost. The success of the Brooklyn Museum of Art's "Sensation" exhibit is a supreme example, drawing crowds that rivaled the museum's far-more-impressive 1997 Monet exhibit. In the midst of all this elephant dung is a loud debate over the scope of the First Amendment. Those who oppose the display of "offensive art" say that there is a limit to freedom of speech. The artists involved retort that this is an old line used by conservatives throughout history to quell creativity. Lately, though, the voices calling for restrictions on freedom of speech have come from others besides traditional conservatives. As the demand for "controversial" entertainment grows, the offended parties are demanding limits on what should be publicly expressed. Case in point: the magnificent popularity of the so-called Queen of Hate Radio, Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Just as the art world has seen an increase in controversy, so has talk radio. Dr. Laura's strong opinions about the deviancy of homosexuality have caused such a huge outcry in the gay community that her upcoming TV show be pulled. They argue that there is a limit to the freedom of speech. Who would have thought that the religious right and the gay community would use similar arguments? The increase in shock art and shock radio is being driven by the Great American Public. The masses have shown themselves to be intrigued by and willing to pay for anything that incites controversy, be it radical displays of art or conservative hatemongering. Thus, we have proliferation in gross and offensive content from both sides of the ideological spectrum. In this environment, freedom of speech faces its greatest challenge. As the boundaries of respect are being pushed aside -- to the masses' delight -- it is increasingly difficult for either political extreme to defend the First Amendment. Those who traditionally heralded it are abandoning the idea that free speech must be protected without regard to the message. And those who have traditionally called for limits on free expression continue to do so as fervently. To be sure, free speech does have legal limits; words cannot be used to incite violence or otherwise directly create an unsafe environment, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But clouding the current debate is the increasingly blurred line between hate speech that incites violence and one's valid individual opinion. Do Dr. Laura's diatribes on syndicated radio differ that much from the e-mail sent to Penn's Queer Student Alliance last week? What about the difference between University of Wisconsin students' views on distribution of student fees -- the subject of a recent Supreme Court ruling -- and Mayor Giuliani's losing battle on public funding of the arts? The Whitney Biennial is a fine example of how problematic "the enduring appeal of controversy" can be to the First Amendment. The only piece in the Whitney that is getting some controversial -- and profitable -- press time is Hans Haacke's "Sanitation." Haacke's work includes disparaging quotes from Giuliani and others on exhibits like "Sensation" and suggests a comparison to Nazi Germany. (Haacke denied any comparison to Nazis in an interview in The New York Times Magazine, though he said, "The sentiments expressed toward contemporary art by Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and Mayor Giuliani recall the language used by the Nazis." No comparison, indeed.) A number of groups and individuals, such as the Anti-Defamation League and Marylou Whitney, a daughter-in-law of the Whitney's founder, denounced the display of this piece. For his part, Haacke has protested the language with which these groups choose to criticize "Sanitation." Apparently, the idea of free speech is forgotten when it runs against one's political agenda. In today's environment, anything that offends is hip and the public will pay good money to see it. It is therefore safe to say that we have not seen or heard the last of controversy for controversy's sake. With that in mind, the importance of the First Amendment cannot be emphasized enough, so that rights are protected by all and for all.