Why the NY Post’s Advertisers are Today’s Racist Lynch Mob
Posted on February 21, 2009
By Joe Miller |
A few weeks ago, I discussed five reasons why the media reform effort is the civil rights movement of our time. In one example that I gave, I pointed out the similarities between the way Flavor Flav is depicted and the blackface tradition of vaudeville. Apparently, it’s not the only negative depiction of black people that still resonates almost a century later, and practically half a century after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Note the festering outrage over the New York Posts’ suggestion, in the form of a political cartoon, that President Obama is a chimpanzee who should be shot on sight.
Freedom of the press is a bedrock principle, but implying that the President of the United States is a chimpanzee and should be killed–literally shot to death–isn’t that a threat to national security? It depends on how we read the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which Justin Stevens, rejecting a petition to hear the case, wrote “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected speech unless “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action.” So the question is, was the NY Post cartoon directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action? Was it likely to produce or incite such action? In Watts v. United States, the Court specifically held that a federal statute prohibiting threats against the President could be applied only against speech that constitutes a “true threat,” and not against mere “political hyperbole.”
This seems airtight. It’s so airtight, that it seems like the editors over at the Post spent a lot of time thinking about what they were about to print. It’s interesting that, through all of that, the thought never crossed their minds that African-Americans have been depicted as primates for many years. Remember the guy who showed up at a McCain/Palin rally holding up a stuffed monkey doll, with an Obama sticker on its head? Here’s what he said before the event:
But in a disingenuous apology, the newspaper, on the one hand, apologized to “those they offended,” stating that it was not their intent, but on the other hand accusing those who spoke out against the cartoon as being opportunists, saying that the backlash against the Post was revenge.
Let me me tell you something, NY Post, the revenge that you think you experienced is nothing like what we’ve got in store for you.
