Two recent stories make it clear that free speech is still generating controversy and raising the issue of whether we should place limits on our abilities to speak our minds.
The first story concerns the mass-media "psychic" John Edward.
His television show, Crossing Over with John Edward, has shot up in popularity, and why not? He appeals to a near-universal human desire to communicate with departed loved ones.
According to his website, "John embarked on developing his own abilities after an encounter with [a] famed psychic... [who] made him aware of his abilities." This, despite the contradictory story that "John exhibited psychic abilities from an extremely early age and was deemed Ospecial' by many in his family.... No fuss was made over these early experiences," which is itself internally contradictory. Now on a national tour, "Unfortunately, not everyone... [is] guaranteed a reading by attending." But don't despair, because, "Being in the audience does increase your chance of receiving a message from your loved one."
How reassuring.
Just recently, the company that syndicates the TV show announced plans for a special, in which John Edward was to contact the spirits of those killed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Sept. 11. Public and media ridicule stopped that show, but the regular show goes on. As many skeptics have pointed out, however, this "psychic" failed to foresee the public outrage over exploiting the families and friends of the dead--then again, that's his career. For that matter, he should have foreseen the Sept. 11 tragedy. Or, if he's limited to talking to the dead, he could have issued a definitive list of casualties Sept. 12. None of which, of course, he did.
All of which begs the question, should such rubbish be banned?
The second story comes from the Virginia Supreme Court, which last week threw out the Virginia state law forbidding the burning of crosses on public land or on publicly viewable private land. That court agreed with the defendant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, that the law was an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.
In the first story, it is highly probable that people are being manipulated, taken advantage of and finally fleeced by "John Edward Inc." Watching the show, buying the books or simply buying into spirit communication through John Edward, people are supporting the concept and making him a very rich con artist. People are wasting their time, their money and their higher reasoning skills, but they're choosing to do it--even if under emotional duress--and the only people they're harming are themselves. And heck, fans probably see Crossing Over as comforting, even reassuring; and repeated use of psychics is less likely to cause physical harm than use of alcohol or controlled substances.
The second story is, however, more disturbing. The Virginia Supreme Court has redefined public cross burning as essentially harmless. This is fundamentally wrong.
The purpose of public cross-burning and similar hateful "speech" goes well beyond self-identification with a particular group. That could be accomplished with a simple banner reading, for instance, "Believer in Whites." Or with a wholly-private flaming crucifix.
The purpose of a public cross-burning is to intimidate. This is not simply a statement of opinion which, no matter how offensive, is consistent with free speech. Cross-burning is not merely stating one's beliefs, but emphasizing that those beliefs absolutely require the subjugation of others. A burning cross deliberately evokes a vile and lengthy part of our history: the hundreds of blacks who were lynched in this nation in the name of white supremacy. Cross-burners actively intend to threaten physical harm to all who seek equal rights, equal opportunity and freedom from fear.
In cases of other forms of harassment, courts have ruled that people can create a "climate of hostility" that constitutes harassment without even directing those actions at a particular person. It would seem perfectly appropriate to apply that same logic to bullies who torch a cross to impart an implicit historical threat.
The mystics and psychics among us are annoying, to be sure, as they profit from pretending to meet real human needs. But they are generally mild parasites, whose presence is rarely harmful.
The judges on the Virginia Supreme Court, on the other hand, seem to lack an appreciation for our own history. They seem to deliberately ignore the very real oppression of spirit and hope, and the very real threat to property and life, that are implied by a burning cross.
The only good thing about the John Edward show is that, ultimately, the harm done is minor and largely self-inflicted.
The only good thing about the Virginia Supreme Court ruling is that it provides grounds for more free speech: about why cross-burning, and the Virginia Supreme Court, are both so wrong.
Edward Benson is a Durham resident.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.