This reminds me of discussions I have had over the past few years. Friends and I have wondered what would have happened to a film such as Blazing Saddles in our current social climate. The off-color (predominantly racial) jokes might well inspire enough criticism or protests to close at least some of the screenings. Interestingly, Brooks’ purpose was the same as Lee’s.

The claim, returning to the primary content, that the play’s content created a public forum is indefensible, even with the condition that such content must be directed to the audience by a character. Any aside could then be deemed an appeal to or address of an audience, and some Shakespeare would be open to such interruptions.

Worse, since no one, at least as far as the information in thie article goes, was required to see the play, audience members can hardly claim that they were being forced to tolerate any of its content.

I understand that people want to ensure that gratuitous racism not be allowed in public places, but if the play was not a complete failure from the standpoint of writing—that is to say, if a person of reasonable intelligence could be expected to comprehend the satire—then not only do these people not have grounds to object, they have reason to back it.

Andrew Purvis, at 7:37 am EDT on July 18, 2005

So, who here isn’t a racist ?

A few points.

First of all, there are many mediums of expression that are taught in public universities. Some people are taught to write in English. Some are taught to write in mathematical symbols (which many claims are “gibberish”). Some are taught to paint and some are taught to write and direct plays. If people don’t get your message and don’t react to it, you probably are not being too effective. So, once the school decides to go down the road of teaching people how to write and direct plays they will probably need to teach the students how to appeal to an audience on a visceral level. And, once they do that, just as they can’t decide that some opinions expressed in term papers about the Iraq war or the president are good, they can’t decide that some messages that appeal on a visceral level are inappropriate or bad. You might think it is strange, but the reaction pretty much proves that someone is teaching these kids correctly.

(Likewise, I feel like I am a success when someone posts a personal insult after I post one of my ideas. The fact that I am able to get a supposedly academic audience to act like babies shows that my style of argument makes people think react in a way that is generally not accepted in “polite” academic culture.)

Second, South Park, All in the Family, Barney Miller, etc. all address/ed social problems. They often do it in an offensive and comical way, but they are using different devices to communicate their messages. Daniel Schorr does it, too. But, I don’t think he is nearly as effective as All in The Family was. Likewise, I am not that impressed with Mr. Schorr as he doesn’t have the command of the details that make life interesting (but this is why I don’t listen to NPR).

Third, I don’t see what is wrong with gratuitous “racism” in public places. Racism is ugly. But, by denying it exists we won’t even begin to confront the racism in our own hearts and in others. Instead, we will just sweep it under the rug. Perhaps if we talked more about it, and joked about it (a la Dave Chappelle) we might not act so uptight about it.

Larry, at 8:40 am EDT on July 18, 2005

Cal doesn’t know what a hate crime is

Cal,

This is not a hate crime!

I don’t even think you know what a “hate crime” is, anyway. (In fact, “hate crimes” have underlying “non-hate” crimes (e.g. assault) which are aggravated by certain motivations. Other states simply provide penalties for interfering with others’ exercise of their civil rights. Obviously these statutes must comport with the constitution, which includes a wonderful thing call the first amendment, which gives you a right to be a hata.

Look, we live in a great country. For you to go around screaming your slogans about “hate crimes” hurts us all. If you disagree with the play (if you saw it, which I doubt), why don’t you write a place which explains to people, in equally powerful language, why it is wrong.

If people are anti-Semitic, maybe you can write a play convincing them not to be instead of trying to get the government to ban some play. Declaring that they should be censored will only fuel their flames.

Larry, at 9:10 am EDT on July 18, 2005

Censorship is not a form of free speech

I have to agree with Larry on this one, even though I am probably one of the “babies” he refers to in his earlier post. One fundamental issue is the “offended” students are either willfully ignorant of the play’s point, or are simply not enlightened enough to grasp sarcasm. These “protestors” had no intention of engaging with the play, and instead attempted to censor it with their orchestrated heckling. The idea that they play became a “public forum” because a letter of protest was read by the play’s director is absurd. Students (and school employees) who would endorse and employ censorship will find themselves on the wrong side of the First Amendment. I urge these students and employees to visit firstamendmentcenter.org for a much needed lesson on protected speech.

Jennette, at 1:30 pm EDT on July 18, 2005

I think it is ironic that Jennette is being accused of calling people stupid and overgeneralizing. Welcome to the club, Jennette. Have some chips and salsa.

But, I am going to disagree with Jennette and say that Sanchez’ position is not absurd, but is rather deliberately formulated to tap into one of the grey areas in 1st amendment law. (We lawyers are a slimily bunch like that.) He is essentially arguing that the public forum doctrine prevents any regulation of speech in a theater, even when a play is in progress once the play acknowledges that there is a dispute and that once that happens a correlative right kicks in and the a state entity has a duty to protect the ability of the heckler’s to heckle.

Moreover, most of the first amendment cases in this area dealt with “prior restraints” on speech (wherein groups were not allowed to speak in the first place), here we have a constantly shifting government position on the speech. First the government allows the playwright to speak. Then the government presumably prevents the hecklers from talking out of turn. Then, after the playwright addresses the audience, the school decides (albeit retroactively) that everyone now has a right to say whatever they want.

The counter argument is, of course, that the state-sponsored encouraging or allowing heckling interferes with the exercise of the playwright’s first amendment rights.

Ultimately, however, I think he loses because the court has intimated a public forum (which is a term of art) such as a theater can be made available to one viewpoint at a time, and other viewpoints have to participate under the terms set out by proponents of that viewpoint, and there is no right to disregard such conditions. See, e.g., Clingman v. Beaver, 125 S.Ct. 2029, 2036 (2005) (Thomas, J.) (holding that a state’s regulatory interests in primaries will be enough to protect associational (not speech per se) rights).

But, of course, the opposing viewpoint has a right to interact in that forum as well, but they would have to do things like actually write a play and paint scenes which gets real hard real fast. Also they need to have a cast party, and those just degenerate into debauchery.

LArry, at 3:06 pm EDT on July 18, 2005

Where were the teachers? They were doing their jobs: TEACHING

In response to “Cal” who asks where the drama teachers were, let me tell you, they were teaching their student’s about theatre, as they should have been, and not worrying about Mr. Lee. As a theatre student as Washington State University and a very close friend of Chris Lee, I have to tell you that I know almost every little detail about this issue and so will set you straight with relation to things that many of you are assuming and making rash and extremely unintelligent judgments about.

First of all, Chris presented his idea to the board of the theatre department, not so much for their help, but for the use of the university’s theatre facilities, for which, he would pay in full. They refused. Now, this is not to say that the drama teachers were ashamed of their student. Actually, they were very proud of him for not taking no as an absolute answer to his play. They told him that they would not support the play or let him use the facilities but that they would support him and his rights as a citizen of the United States of America.

This is not something that should instigate a sort of banishment for Chris and his cast from the school. This was a PRIVATE production. Chris paid for EVERY little detail out of his own pocket. He had to find a place that would allow him to perform that production and Chris had to go up every step of the WSU bureaucratic ladder to be able to put this play on. However, as this play was an independent production, he, his cast and his production had absolutely no affiliation with the WSU’s theatre department, so once they told him that he couldn’t use their facilities, they and the entire University had no say as to what was presented.

The funniest part about this, that no one has mentioned, is the fact that when auditioning, advertising and performing the play, Chris put a disclaimer out either on the doors, on the audition sheet or in the advertisements. It said that this is an offensive play, it may not be suitable for anyone and everyone who will be offended by non-P.C. material and that no one under the age of 18 would be allowed to enter. So, let’s say, as a parallel of sorts, that the Surgeon General puts on a carton of cigarettes that the product inside will “offend” your physical body and that if you use them you MAY get cancer. AND THEN…someone actually uses them and, God forbid, they actually get cancer. Funny, isn’t that what the disclaimer said? So, does the smoker have the right to be angry and offended or even sue, when they were told that IF you buy these and IF you smoke them you MAY get sick? Should those sick people now have the right to go tear up a tobacco producing plant? Or even closer to this particular issue would be a piece of offensive art in a private gallery. On the outside of the store, there is a sign that says, “Some art may be seen as offensive and not suitable for children.” Do the people who come in to view the art have the write to destroy that painting? Because that’s exactly what those hecklers did. They destroyed Chris’s piece of art, which was put in the form of a play. Does any of this seem reasonable at all? I didn’t think so either.

These people KNEW it was going to be offensive. Half of Chris’s auditionees left when they found out exactly what they would be auditioning for from the disclaimer posted. Was Chris offended? I can tell you from first hand experience that he was absolutely not. He thought it was cool that people would PEACEABLY stand up for what they believed by not auditioning. The people at the performance that were offended had every right to leave or even better, they had every right NOT to attend, just as those who almost auditioned did. There were no security guards holding them there against their will. I know. I was there. If anything, the security guards just sat around and drank Coke, refusing to actually do their job.

I support Chris. If anything, I think there should be more people out there like him who are willing to laugh at life rather than torture themselves through it by every little thing said that could possibly taken wrong. Also, so many people, throughout the production process refused to help Chris but he stuck with it. He was not discouraged but rather more encouraged, to see the finished product, every time he met with some sort of contestation. He had every right to say what he wanted to say in his PRIVATE forum. Isn’t that why the age of McCarthy was sneered upon at that terrible time of unconstitutionalism and still is now? Those people, at that time, said what they wanted to say and believed what they wanted to believe in the privacy of their own homes, just as the constitution says they can, and were punished for it. Granted, this was not performed in Chris’ home, however, he signed a contract with the facility head saying that on the nights on these performances, that stage and the auditorium was essentially his. Honestly, if you are offended by Chris’ play, smoking or art (R-rated movies) don’t go to them, don’t use them. But, never, NEVER censor someone for saying something he or she wants to say in a place where he or she has every right to say it. For those of you who are against Chris Lee and his rights as a human being, (if I may be so bold), you are wrong!

Amee, at 6:56 pm EDT on July 18, 2005

Amee, You facts raise a few issues.

Just because your friend wasn’t “officially” part of the theater department isn’t quite dispositive of the issue. For one, it is difficult to understand what this means, as he 1) was a student at the school; 2) use the school’s theater; and 3) apparantly didn’t rent the place on the same terms that, say, Arrowsmith or Coke would.

But this probably works in his favor, as schools probably can exercise more control over their pedagogical method than they can over use of their facilities as a public forum. (So, for example, a school can insist on teaching evolution, but it can’t force kids who want to run a bible discussion group not to discuss creationism.)

I don’t see that there is a constitutional parallel between mandated cigarette warnings and your friend’s disclaimer. First of all, merely putting a disclaiming on a product does not prevent a user of the product from suing (and prevailing) the maker under a product liability theory. Second, unlike preventing lung cancer, the government doesn’t cannot constitutionally enact laws to prevent “offense.”

However, the disclaimer, and the peoples’ reactions to the play illustrate, as the article points out, that the heckling was not an impromptu reaction to the play’s imagery, but rather a calculated act designed to prevent your friend’s message from being heard. Ironically, by publicizing the nature of his message, he put all of his enemies (if that is the word for them) on notice and gave them time to prepare for battle. If he had prepared in private and/or not told people what was in the play until opening night, the most that would happen is that someone would have gasped. So, as we see, his message reached even more people.

But there is a bright side to all of this: we are now discussing the issue and issues now. FIRE actually is getting involved in a non-religious free-speech issue, and perhaps we will all be better off because of your friend.

Larry, at 10:09 pm EDT on July 18, 2005

It is closer than people think

I wonder how seriously I can take threats of violence at universities these days. On a weekly basis, someone claims to “fear for their safety.” That “fear” usually comes from someone who has taken a position that is diametrically opposed to them, and perhaps verbally confronted them. Faculty do this, and now students are doing it, too.

But, can we be real here? How many people are really assaulted on college campuses per year because of a political position (regarding either the university or the country) they took ? In my recent memory, both faculty and students have claimed to “fear for their safety” during some departmental battle. (See, e.g, email from Robert Pratt here: http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i45/45a02001.htm ) Most assaults are over the traditional things: love, money, and booze. Not whether the devil dress in drag, or people don’t like who gets what lab space.

I am going to differ Mr. Lee a bit: I would not immediately blame the police. They were called, and they were faced with heckling. As you can see by my above analysis, whether people have a right to heckle is not entirely clear. Indeed, they were definitely not trespassing, as Mr. Lee appears to have invited them. Most policemen have some idea of the constitutional dimensions of these problems, and although Mr. Lee may ultimately have the right to expel them from his play, it takes a considerable amount of legal analysis (and extrapolation) to reach that point. I am going to go a bit further: I don’t think that the police really cared about the content of Mr. Lee’s play. And herein lies the problem, the issue as to whether the hecklers could heckle is only one which could be resolved by splitting hairs.

Larry, at 8:02 am EDT on July 19, 2005

That hurts my stomach

This makes me laugh too hard. So white people just have to sit around with a squeamish face while Dave Chappell and Carlos Mencia make fun of them? Of course not, they’re supposed to roll around on the ground clutching their sides and gasping for air. I’m white and I don’t care if someone calls me a “cracker” with a comical connatation, or writes or performs in a play that makes fun of our racial quirks. The fact of the matter is that every race on the planet has its good and bad, so if someone says “nigger” and you are black, or “wetback” and you are Mexican, or “cracker” and you are white, wether they mean it or not, your offense only validates your insecurities. Why do you think they’re talking about you? I know I’m not a cracker, so why get offended?

As for stereotypes, they all have some degree of truth and should all be taken with a grain of salt, because they cannot be applied to everyone. LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!

If you don’t agree with someone then protest, but heckling will only put stock in the message you think the writer is trying to convey. Another solution might be a boycott. If you haven’t seen it and you know you won’t like it, don’t pay for a ticket and don’t interrupt everyone else’s good time. Have a sense of humor. Disrupting a public performance will only make you look bad. Why don’t you go interrupt a KKK rally?

Joey, at 7:30 am EDT on May 29, 2006