About That R-Word...

Last weekend saw the opening of the action comedy movie Tropic Thunder, starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black. I'm not much of a Ben Stiller guy; some of his stuff is okay, some not so much. Ultimately, I think his parents are funnier than he could ever hope to be. The premise of the film (which Stiller directed and co-wrote): a bunch of movie stars making a jungle combat picture suddenly find themselves part of real jungle combat. Hilarity ensues. The film was only on my radar because of the 3.2 million commercials I'd seen for it. Other than that, I hadn't paid much attention.

Once the protests began, I started paying attention.

In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)

At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."

Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."

For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)

To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.

To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.

First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.

This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)

The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.

As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.

The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.

Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?

Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?

If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.

If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.

The Speech Isn't Free, But the Ham Is

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

The line is a classic one, uttered by the late (not tardy, but dead) John Belushi, in his role as Bluto in the 1978 film Animal House.

Of course, everyone knows it was the Ukrainians who bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776, that "date which will live in infamy," called such by then-president Gerald Ford.

What? Did you say that my statements are not factually accurate? Facts-schmacts! I'm exercising my right to free speech!

In a story picked up by various news outlets, including a piece on thebulletin.us by Katrina Trinko of The (Philadelphia) Bulletin, three Philadelphia tour guides, with help from the libertarian law firm Institute for Justice (think ACLU without the sexy brand name), have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia. Before I continue, a brief aside:

I'm no lawyer. Everything I know about the law (as well as medicine, home repair, most religions, processed cheese, and the Canadian government) I learned from Hollywood. Since I might have missed an episode or two of the complete Law and Order canon, I will caveat this entire piece by saying that nothing in it should be construed as legal advice.

The issue is a law the city passed in April 2008, effective October 2008, that will require tour guides to pass a test to become licensed to offer tours for compensation. For most readers, that last part is crucial. The law only applies to those who charge others for tours. If you live in Philadelphia and you are responsible for entertaining out-of-town family members, you do not need a license to be their tour guide. And this is not limited to tours involving quill and parchment, either; I think it applies to tours involving pole and dollar bill, as well.

The Institute for Justice (which calls itself "IJ" - see what I mean about no sexy brand?) believes the law to be a violation of free speech, which we all know to be protected by the First Amendment. (If you didn't know that, and you are older than, like, twelve, consider evening classes in something, please.) According to a release on their website (IJ.org), IJ's suit seeks to "...overturn a law enacted in April that will make it illegal for anyone like [the tour guides] to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—without, in essence, getting the government’s permission to speak."

I know. It reads like an episode of Law and Order: Test Pattern. Hang in there.

IJ's site goes on to say: "The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not...." It adds, "The Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a musician or a tour guide."

It comes as no surprise that the suit - with its Constitutional subtext and its Cradle of Liberty locale - was filed days before July 4th, the anniversary of our nation's independence. Is the timing hammy? Of course it is. Is it as hammy as, say, Apollo Creed dressing as George Washington and throwing money at people before the fight? Oh, IJ can only dream.

But would IJ care if, instead of historic tours in Philadelphia, the complaint was about Tennessee tour guides being required to pass a test about the Backwoods Barbie Tour coming soon to Dollywood? I cannot say, but a Dollywood issue would lack the quality ham the Philly issue brings.

To me, this is not a free speech issue. The government already can, and does, restrict speech in at least one workplace: public schools. The state tells teachers what they can and cannot teach, at least to some degree. Should we change that? Should we simply hire the cheapest labor and let teachers say what they want? Consider the potential consequences: One day, your child comes home and asks you to help her study history. She pulls out her study guide and reads aloud, "The Ukrainians bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776." When this happens, will you call for heads to roll, or will you shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well! Free speech!"

(Okay. I can't take it anymore. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yes, it was called the "date which will live in infamy," but not by President Ford; it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

In the real world, we require testing of plumbers and stockbrokers and doctors and teachers. Why not of tour guides? Why not of those who have chosen as a vocation the art of passing along the oral history of this great nation? Why not of those who have before them a classroom of new students every day; students who have traveled great distances; students who are not there because they have to be, but because they want to be; students who yearn to be there because they are eager to learn about this country's infancy? Is it so bad to want to ensure that the knowledge imparted upon these students is accurate?

Tour guides, you should not only welcome this law, you should embrace it! Tour guides, when you are at a party and you are asked what you do for a living, you should hold your head high with arrogance and say, "I'm a tour guide, and I'm SO good at what I do, I'm licensed by the government to do it!" Tour guides, you should dress as George Washington and throw money at people!

Oops. I got a little hungry for some ham there. Sorry.