This is one of my favorite scenes from Blazing Saddles. To me, it is one of the best anti-racist films ever made. And that's because of Brooks' use of language. Could you imagine the impact of this scene if it were limited to politically correct language? Try this comparison:
"One move, or the black fellow gets it!"
or
"One move, or the n----r gets it!"
Which is more funny in the context of this film? Given how dumb the racist whites in the film are being shown to be, I feel the latter line used by Brooks has a greater impact in more ways than one.
- - - - - -
What a person says, how it is said, and the context in which something is said gives much meaning to an utterance. This is why Germany has strict rules regarding the display of Nazi symbols to this era. I find it sad that America has greater freedom in the use of Nazi symbols, and with it, a larger neo-Nazi movement. Sadly, symbols can carry meaning more effectively than words. And during the Trump era, we've seen more Swastikas and Confederate Battle Flags on display than I'd ever have dreamed would be socially acceptable in any part of America.
I was sickened when our former president said "there were good people on both sides" when referring the the Charlottetown protests. Are Nazi sympathizers good? How so? Does this mean that black rights are bad? I still remember them chanting "Jews will not replace us." How can they do that, given how few there are in this country? Maybe, it's because these people don't want want to invest in the education needed to get the jobs of the future? Maybe, it's because these people don't want to move to where the jobs are? Maybe, it's because they don't value people who are not as bigoted as they are, and employers reject them because they want a healthy workplace?
Over time, we saw how bad a person our 45th president was. Recently, Business Insider posted an article noting how the Russians have been cultivating this man as an asset for years. The article links to another in the Guardian, that references a new book on the KGB's development of assets in America. Given what is now known about our 45th president, it's easy to see how a foreign power could manipulate a person's use of words to harm a nation while plausible deniability is spread all around.
It's hard for me to say this, but maybe we need guardrails on the 1st amendment. Germany strictly regulates the use of Nazi symbols. But it does allow them to be used. How many of us know that in a country that generally prohibits the use of the Swastika, that Mel Brooks was allowed to use it in a theater where "The Producers" was being performed? Yet, Germany prohibited the use of the image outside the theater. So, a pretzel flag was used instead. Even Germany realizes that a symbol of hate has to be exposed to the contempt it deserves.
- - - - - -
Sometimes, freedom of religion conflicts with other people's property rights. Several years ago, a bunch of ultra orthodox Jews sued to allow their Eruv to be extended from Rockland County, NY into neighboring areas of New Jersey. What couldn't be openly discussed in the courts is that the neighboring New York religious community had a much higher rate of poverty (50%-60% on public assistance) than in the community on the New Jersey side of the border. The folk in New Jersey wanted to keep their parks for their own community, and not be crowded out by outsiders. They wanted to make sure that their properties would not be bought out, then turned into illegal multi family homes. The 1st amendment actually got in the way of free and responsible speech in this case.
- - - - - -
All
of our freedoms come with responsibility. Sometimes they come into
conflict with each other. When I contrast our 45th president's
encouragement of a mob storming the capitol on January 6th with the
court battle regarding the Eruv, I see evil (as evidenced by the 1/06/21 mob) vs. good (both sides of the Eruv dispute). In the former
case, people had no respect for the law, and would use any and all tools
to get what they want. In the latter case, the court system was
responsibly used. Although the settlement was not perfect, it is being
adhered to, and has had a peaceful outcome.
Language when used effectively is powerful. But without law, it can also be dangerous. My question is: Do we need explicit limits on 1st amendment freedoms?
