PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

By MICHAEL CONNELLY Connelly • Baker • Wotring • Jackson LLP

What Price for Outlandish Behavior and Outrageous Dialogue?

TIn previous messages, I have tried to focus on topics which were consistent with the emphasis of each issue. That has seemed to be an appropriate way to highlight and comment on the subject matter of the magazine. Without indicating any disapproval of the emphasis of this issue, I felt led to discuss a topic which deserves our time and attention.
Our society is burdened by an unpleasant level of dialogue. It has become common to include complaints, criticism and personal vitriol in discussions, which is neither civil, productive, nor intelligent. I first recall being aware of such unpleasantness in public while attending sporting events. I was stunned at the fact that crowds did not just cheer good athletic performances, but rather jeered players, booed officials, and otherwise openly expressed personal disgust and displeasure. At times, open hostility was displayed. Such actions were very abnormal behavior to me; after all it was just a game, and it was intended to be entertainment rather than the end of the world.
Why would people feel that they could or should act in that fashion? Was a sporting event a major opportunity to make some principled assertion of the constitutional right to freedom of speech? Was a large segment of our population so infected with feelings of personal inadequacy and insecurity that they had to demean others to feel worthy? Or, was this the customary venting of pent-up emotions after a trying week at work? In some instances, one or more of those circumstances may have contributed to such behavior. But, on more and more occasions, spectators attempted to justify their outrageous behavior as a matter of personal privilege due to the fact that they had purchased (or in some instances were the bearer of) tickets to the event. Somehow, even though it was not specifically authorized by the ticket, spectators felt entitled to express any level of animus they chose.
Much to my chagrin, this phenomenon has gone beyond sporting events. Television shows gained popularity when they allowed their guests to speak in open hostility to each other, allowed the audience to berate the guests, and even allowed actual physical contact. For many of the guests, the only apparent criteria for their appearance seemed to be the ability to exhibit bizarre behavior. This behavior was not only condoned, but it was encouraged, and it allowed the television programs to achieve high popularity rankings. That should be stunning to all of us.
But, it has not stopped there. In the last decade, talk radio has become the rage. Such programs have not only allowed the host to be personally critical of individuals and issues, but they encouraged and allowed call-in guests to criticize with various levels of venomous dialogue. There is similar evidence in political campaigns, including the current Presidential campaign, where the zeal to win has justified the use of personal attacks, mud-slinging, and vitriolic dialogue. Now, we are deluged with all sorts of “reality” shows on television which exhibit circumstances which are not real but are contrived for the ratings game.
As a society, I fear we have become numb to outlandish behavior and outrageous dialogue. We have allowed our society to evolve in a way which has normalized bizarre conduct and dialogue. We seem to have accepted the concept that one must engage in personal criticism and accusation to be relevant.
Before anyone concludes that my remarks do not demonstrate an adequate appreciation for the constitutional right of freedom of speech, let me set your mind at ease. I firmly believe in, and will strongly support, the constitutional right to freedom of speech. There will always be instances when the right of dissent and open discussion of issues must be preserved and are in the best interest of society. My concern is not about preserving the principle of freedom of speech, but it is about the common practice of striving for shock value, celebrating the bizarre, and allowing mental laziness to reduce our ability to communicate without personal criticisms and demeaning behavior.
I am personally disappointed that I have not done more to discourage such behavior and dialogue. Like so many people, I endured and impliedly condoned it, because I did not want to appear outdated and unable to engage in modern rhetoric. However, my response was not proper, and it was not in the best interest of our society. We are not a better society because of the trends toward outlandish behavior and outrageous dialogue. The legal profession has a special place in this society as leaders, as role models, and as examples of proper civil discourse. We are trained to exhibit clear communication and civil dialogue. We shun mental laziness and work diligently to create phraseology which says what we mean without engaging in demeaning personal attacks. It is our obligation as members of this society to express our displeasure at the regression of the art of verbal communication. It is also our obligation to demonstrate to society the proper way in which discussion and dialogue should take place. I hope every member of the HBA, and lawyers all over this nation, will help lead our society to achieve a higher level of civility in our personal interaction. However, it should start with a commitment to achieve a higher level of civility in our personal interaction. Together, let’s work to improve civil dialogue.

< BACK TO TOP >