Who Is Shooting Whom, and With What?

In a long series of essays, nineteenth-century Ecuadoran writer Juan Montalvo unceasingly attacked a dictator who was driving his country towards destruction.  Inevitably, he was forced into exile, where he eventually heard that the dictator had been assassinated.  His exultant reaction was, “My pen has killed him!”

In the present climate of our country, however, it seems one dare not even use the word “shoot” in certain contexts, not even if the word clearly relates to photography.  In Western New York there is a quiet little woodsy town full of Wesleyans named Houghton.  Some years ago two excruciatingly Middle-America ladies had the job of sending news from that area to the nearest newspaper, in Olean.  They were asked to take a few shots of—not at—Governor Cuomo when he visited there.  The evening before his arrival they were discussing his schedule by phone.  One said, “Oh, there’s a five-minute break between two events.  Maybe we could shoot the governor then.”

It didn’t take long for the FBI to descend upon ultra-peaceful little Houghton, where they mercilessly grilled the two women over several days about their plans to assassinate Governor Cuomo.  The agents knew every detail of their lives, right down to the brand of dishwasher detergent they used, but the fact that they were utterly boring housewives without even a traffic ticket to their names made no difference.  The agents were determined to find all those who might be involved in the conspiracy.

All this over the one word, “shoot,” clearly in the context of photojournalism.

Now the same mentality prevails with regard to what has been described as “a very competent, credible, funny and concise” film entitled Shooting Michael Moore, which was made by a friend of Moore’s named Kevin Leffler.  The latter’s comment is as follows:  “Everyone I talked to or observed at both the Miami and Detroit showings of the movie thoroughly enjoyed the movie, including many who identify with Michael Moore [emphasis mine].  Anger was never an observed result, so concern about any type of violence directed at Mike seems to be mistaken.  The use of the word ‘shooting’ was . . . in the context of shooting with a camera, which I believe is appropriate given that Mike is a movie type guy.”

But in Traverse City, Michigan, a certain Jeff Gibbs warns citizens that the film promotes violence towards Michael Moore.  This is patently absurd.  He goes on to associate Leffler and the owner of the movie with the murderers of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and John Lennon.  Draw your own conclusions about the exacerbated hysteria involved in an accusation of that kind, especially in view of the fact that even friends and supporters of Moore laughed at the humor in the film and liked it as a spoof.

Presumably those T-shirts one used to see showing the face of George W. Bush against the backdrop of a target were perfectly all right, though.  It all depends on whom one is attacking, correct?

The film was essentially killed in Traverse City by this campaign, and it remains to be seen whether it will be banned in the rest of the country.  The attacker says, essentially, that the right to free speech is suspended in this case because Leffler is advocating the assassination of someone.  Am I allowed to think that just possibly there is some hypocrisy here, and that Leffler’s real crime is that of lampooning a liberal icon?  Some pretty hairy stuff is being used to steamroll over our right to free speech, while, incidentally, pornography is not only permissible but, as one writer put it, held in a reverence formerly associated only with religion.

In the meantime, the reputations of two very good men have been damaged in a thoroughly nasty way, and a serious apology is in order on the part of Mr. Gibbs.

We’d better start thinking about what free speech is really all about before some things that need to be said are repressed under one preposterous pretext or another.