Following the September 11 attacks, holding rational, fact-based discussions with regards to cause and effect, religious freedoms (or lack thereof), national security, what would constitute an appropriate response, or any remotely related topics was difficult if not impossible: one was either pro-America or pro-terrorism, black and white with no middle gray.
Bill Maher initial lost sponsors and then his show Politically Incorrect was canceled when he controversially disagreed with President Bush‘s statements that the terrorists were cowards: We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right. Likely the timing was poor, the attacks less than a week prior and a new normality just appearing, but even months might not have been long enough.
[Personally, I considered the American Revolution and wonder what term the British used: was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist attack? The major difference between the American Revolution and the 9/11 attacks is that the colonists were, primarily, from Britain and therefore had the same cultural and religious experiences, even if religion was one of the driving forces for those cross the Atlantic.]
What Is Lèse-majesté?
The most apropos definition is an offense violating the dignity of a ruler as the representative of a sovereign power, a crime to insult the dignity of a ruler or head of state, either within the country or outside rules. Originating as a way for absolute monarchs to artificially maintain their stature as holy-among-thou, lèse-majesté laws still exist in a surprising number of countries. Thailand is known to increasingly use it, though just having the law on the books is likely a deterrent for the average citizen.
Lèse-majesté In The United States?
The United States has laws specifically when the target is an elected official or government employee, such as threatening government officials, but de jure lèse-majesté would, in my non-legalistic view, contradict the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[Lèse-majesté does technically exist in American sports, where games officials are protected from post-game comments about the quality – or lack thereof – by coaches or team/school officials with the threat of fines; however, high-definition television provides plenty of evidence to allow pundits to do for the coaches what they can’t do for themselves.]
However, the current occupant of the White House appears to believe in de facto lèse-majesté, that you accede to his beliefs, demands, world view, etc., or you are his enemy. His immediate reaction is public ridicule and scorn against whomever wrongs him: journalists, judges, foreign leaders, cabinet members, elected members of the legislative branch, family members, you and me. He’ll pout, scream. insult, whine, whatever it takes to make sure his view takes precedence and gets everyone to fall back into line. And, scared of whatever retribution he might dole out, the Republican Party continues to bend over and take it up the ass.
Final Thoughts
I would not be surprised if in fact Congress attempts to pass lèse-majesté as a law to satisfy the vanity of the current White House occupant; fortunately, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives small that it would be difficult to pass such a law. That said, weirder things have happened….
