ShareThis Page
Free speech can be shield or a sword, as Cosby furor shows |
Featured Commentary

Free speech can be shield or a sword, as Cosby furor shows

Bill Cosby’s career has been deeply rooted in the possibilities and protections provided by freedom of speech. The legendary comedian and actor’s career began with landmark comedy routines in which he tackled sensitive racial subjects. He was the first black male with a starring role on TV, in the 1960s series “I Spy.”

The late-’80s, early-’90s sitcom “The Cosby Show” featured an affluent, professional black family that countered decades of denigrating stereotypes. And, most recently, he’s made headlines as a public observer and candid counselor on matters involving fellow blacks.

Claims have now come to light that Cosby drugged and then sexually assaulted a number of young women, in incidents reaching back into the ’60s. Various news reports say no criminal charges are likely because of statutory time limits on prosecution.

The Cosby furor exploded in social media in recent days, starting with video of comedian Hannibal Buress inviting an audience to “Google Bill Cosby rape.”

Then, in a National Public Radio interview aired on Nov. 15, in which Cosby and his wife, Camille, had been talking about their collection of African art, NPR host Scott Simon switched subjects: “This question gives me no pleasure, Mr. Cosby, but there have been serious allegations raised about you in recent days.” When Cosby did not speak, Simon continued, “You’re shaking your head ‘no.’ I’m in the news business. I have to ask the question. Do you have any response to those charges?” Still, silence from Cosby.

In the days since, more women have come forward with graphic claims of sexual assault. Appearances on television and entertainment projects involving Cosby have been canceled, and his lawyer says no response is forthcoming. But Cosby’s critics continue to rage across Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

We’ve seen such controversies play out in the past in very different ways.

A little less than 90 years ago, a beloved entertainer also faced stunning allegations involving a claim of sexual assault. Newspaper accounts in 1921 raged around comedian “Fatty” Arbuckle following the alleged assault and subsequent death of 26-year-old Virginia Rappe. Ironically, the silent film star was forced to speak out to counter the media blitz. Two juries deadlocked, and the third jury voted for acquittal, but Arbuckle’s career never recovered.

In a much more contemporary example, filmmaker Woody Allen used a guest column in The New York Times in February to respond to the resurfacing of 21-year-old allegations that he had sexually abused an adopted daughter. Allen said at the time that “This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments.”

Traditional media, in Cosby’s case, already are being criticized for not jumping on the stories earlier. Cosby’s lawyer has rightly noted of the widespread claims against his client that “the fact that they are being repeated does not make them true.” And Cosby’s right of free speech certainly carries the right not to speak.

But in this news-and-information-saturated era, and with his accusers having ready access to social media to reach everywhere, Cosby’s approach of “silent until proven guilty” might not carry the day in terms of protecting his reputation and preserving his career.

Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.