The Price for Freedom of Speech.

Katie Hopkins is a name that may not be familiar to Americans. She first came to prominence in 2007, when she reached the final of the UK version of reality television show, The Apprentice, and then turned down competing in the final. She is now a columnist for The Sun newspaper. Katie does not conform to PC conventions. Supposedly, she champions the spirit of hard working Britain, delivering a strong take on employment, business, mothers, lifestyle and politics. However, she has a very unpleasant side. Earlier this year, Ms Hopkins wrote a column comparing migrants to "cockroaches" and "feral humans" and said these people were "spreading like the norovirus". She also branded Helen Mirren as “Dame Miserable.” Hopkins has been often criticized in the media and by both advocacy groups and politicians for her shocking comments but she argues she has the right of freedom of speech.

America’s Hopkins is Ann Coulter. She is angry, mean and arguably one of the most the most hated women in the USA. She is a conservative social and political commentator and writer. She often appears on Fox News, a bastion of right wing, white America. But does what Coulter writes and says deserve the protection of ‘freedom of speech’?

Let me give you some Coulter examples. On Mexicans: “If you don’t want to be killed by Isis, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you.” On Jews: “I want Jews to convert to Christianity. I don’t want a world without Jews, I just want them to be perfected.” On Muslims: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Many people suffer from disability. In 2012, Coulter called President Obama a “retard.” When criticized by people with disabilities for this remark, her response was, “oh, screw them.”  Her latest book is entitled ‘Adios America!’ I hope any sequel is titled ‘Adios Ann.’

Donald Trump has bought into the ‘be nasty’ medium. He delights in making personal remarks, not merely about his fellow candidates but about their wives. He castigates people who are fat or ugly or a different skin colour. I believe he is running his political campaign based on his TV show. And according to the polls, Americans are lapping it up, as are the television networks. In the film Network, the lead presenter says to his audience, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore.” If only the American public would say this to Trump, Coulter and others of their ilk.

Why is it that people who publish in a gratuitously offensive manner earn not just notoriety but popularity, fame, wealth and the trappings that go with such appalling actions? When did being obnoxious become such good copy? I have met so many journalists and media news people who believe in ‘fair and balanced reporting’ and who were diametrically opposed to gutter journalism. The late Ben Bradlee never offended anyone in public life, nor published the story unless and until he had the evidence from more than one source. David Broder, a political correspondent par excellence, always wrote both sides of the story. Elmer Lower, the man whose brainchild was the 1960 Presidential Debate between Nixon and Kennedy, would never have sanctioned a television columnist or pundit who insulted races, religionists or a disadvantaged section of society. All these journalists would offer a target of their stories a right of response, something La Coulter never does.

America has weak defamation laws. Anyone in public life is fair game. The private citizen has weak protections, and lobby groups like The American Civil Liberties Union will be lined up to protect speech freedom. The ACLU exists to ensure The First Amendment to the American Constitution is upheld. Might I remind you that the amendment: “prohibits the making of any law… abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press ...”  

In the UK, we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press but our defamation laws are strong and the press is looking down the barrel of potential legislative sanctions following numerous behavioural scandals, mainly in the Murdoch press empire.

It is difficult to understand why Americans in their droves expressed disgust when, for example, Janet Jackson’s nipple was inadvertently exposed briefly in a Super Bowl half time show. Some closed-minded states insist that creationism be taught as a science alongside Darwin’s evolution theory. It is now PC to protect school children from competition despite its existence in the real world. I suspect these same people can be tolerant of shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh and opinionated columnists like Coulter who demonise whole elements of society merely because they are different. The inconsistency, if not hypocrisy of this stance is difficult to justify.

Thomas Jefferson, a man conflicted if ever there was one, who owned slaves yet declared the right of people to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” also defended press freedom. He wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press,” despite the fact he was often the target of hostile journalism. I fear Jefferson is right. The best way to defeat Coulter and her ilk is not to watch her, not to listen to her and not to read her words.

PS. Last night, Secretary of State John Kerry announced America will over a two year period accept 85,000 refugees for re-settlement in the light of the Syrian crisis. Will La Coulter tell her readers that America already accepts 70,000 refugees each year? I suspect she will feed her public with a diet of vitriol and untruths.