Elphie Thropp: Visual Pathetic Appeal (Final Draft)

Sticks, Stones and the Protection of Noxious Speech

It is a routine practice in this country for individuals to perch upon soapboxes and trumpet haranguing demands for the immediate fulfillment of their rights as citizens of the United States. As Americans, we are highly aware of, and fancy ourselves indefeasibly entitled to, the privileges granted by the Bill of Rights. Heads rear at the subtlest implications any legislation may have for our freedom of religion, our leave to keep and bear firearms, and of course, our right to exercise free speech. But how often—if ever—do these soapboxed spokespeople direct their pugnacity towards their responsibilities as citizens of this nation?

Sure, we are granted certain constitutional rights, but not one of those rights is—or should be—without limits. It is my firm belief that with rights come responsibilities; namely, the responsibility not to exploit your own rights so as to infringe on those of others. Does the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” translate into the freedom to use the deadly weapon against anyone you please? Of course it doesn’t. Does the right to religious freedom authorize you to engage in human sacrifice, should your religion call for it? Surely not. In certain situations, the ways in which you are permitted to exercise your own rights hinges on their potential to snuff out the rights—or life—of others. My visual argument contends that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech is no exception to this rule—nor should it be; there is simply some speech that doesn’t deserve protection.

My argument begins by asking the viewer whether we should protect the freedom of all speech, then proceeds to present a series of unsettling images reflecting various situations in which words are wielded by one to the detriment of another. In order to appeal to the emotions of a broader audience, images were carefully selected to touch on several aspects of the free-speech debate. Allen Allport (1970) noted that the range of issues related to free speech are often dichotomized into (a) content, and (b) time and manner, and that in some cases, one component may be of greater import to an individual than the other. For example, one person may consider all sexist comments to be deserving of censure or condemnation, whereas another person considers it an individual’s right to utter such remarks in general, but conceives of certain situations (e.g., a job interview) in which doing so would be inappropriate or inexpedient. Accordingly, each picture in my argument clearly conveys the dissemination of messages with contemptible content, with much of the communication transpiring in an unseemly context.

In terms of content, the images include such themes as domestic and child abuse, sexual harassment, bullying, racial discrimination, and gay bashing. To touch on the issue of time and manner, the communications are set in environments we would ideally like to be safe and hate-free. As such, many individuals would consider the context to be inappropriate, regardless of their potential endorsement of the messages’ content. The domestic and child abuse take place in the would-be safety of the home, the sexual harassment occurs in the workplace, the bullying transpires on a playground, the race-based discrimination makes reference to public schools and the community, and the gay bashing is conducted by the Westboro Baptist Church, a congregation infamous for their practice of tormenting mourners at funerals (especially those of of fallen soldiers and hate-crime victims) with abhorrently hateful, homophobic messages.

In addition to touching on the heated aspects of the free-speech debate, the images function as evidence and pathemata by virtue of their use of widely-recognized social issues (e.g., racism, domestic abuse), highly offensive messages ("God Hates Fags"), and acutely emotional archetypes (e.g., children, Ku Klux Klan members, minority groups). The viewers are insulted by the odious messages and figures the images depict. At the same time, the presentation elicits empathy by closing in on the tortured expressions of the victims of hateful or violent speech. These close-ups tend to be especially distressing when the injured party is a child. Yet, in two instances, the belligerent party is a child. By depicting children as both the recipients and the messengers of hateful messages, I hope to demonstrate to the audience the myriad consequences and cyclical nature of such speech. Whereas the viewers' heart strings are pulled by the suffering of a precious child, they are shocked by the sight of a child serving as the agent of another's suffering.

The interpretation that links the viewers experience of empathy, insult, and shock to the conclusion that not all speech deserves protection is the discrepancy between the value of the speech and its cost on the target. The messages communicated in the presentation are ones most viewers would rate as more worthless than garbage--yet the toll these words have on their victims is immense. This is a price many will continue paying until we make a stand to protect them.

Works Cited

Allport, A. (1970). Point counterpoint: Freedom of speech. Retrieved from books.google.com

Photo Credits