Was Voltaire Right? the Perez Hilton Question

The author Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in her 1906 book The Friends of Voltaire ,"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This line has often been mistaken as a literal quote from Voltaire, who in fact never spoke those words. However, the line was written to match the beliefs of the man the book undertakes, which were, in a nutshell, reason, liberty and truth. That being said, how does the ethos of the French Enlightenment philosopher compare to the plight of celebrity commentator and internet tabloid icon Perez Hilton who, after a recent incident with Will. I. Am, posted a blog in which he declared "I like writing about other people's drama; I don't want to have drama in my life."? Can one extend the use of the freedom of speech without consequence, or, can this freedom be abused to such a point that its effect merits a reaction?

I realize at this point the incident between Perez Hilton and Will. I. Am is probably old news, but for the purposes of clarification I will just briefly mention what took place. Essentially, during an after party following the 2009 Much Music Video Awards, Fergie and Will. I. Am of the Black Eyed Peas confronted Perez over some less-than-complimentary comments Hilton made on his blog. Later that same night, not Will. I. Am, but his manager, allegedly punched Hilton several times in the eye after Perez angrily called Will. I. Am "a fag" claiming in his defence that that's "the worst thing you can call a rapper." He reprised his statements in his blog, which carried on for twelve minutes as Perez attempted to tell his side of the story and discredit the Black Eyed Peas. Likewise, Will. I. Am made his own video blog defending his actions and clarifying "what really happened".

It's clear that there are two equal and opposite sides to this story, and so what actually happened in its entirety is unclear. Therefore I will ask my question based on Perez's blog. Can a man comment on the lives of others, both personal and professional, private and public, and not thus implicate himself in their affairs? It is generally agreed that Will. I. Am was not responsible for the physical assault endured by Hilton, but rather, his manager was. And so it stands that both Fergie and Will. I. Am defended themselves with words. And did they have the right to do so? If we take the line attributed to Voltaire literally, then we see that Perez Hilton was indeed justified in making any sort of commentary he saw fit, and that did not necessarily imply his involvement in any of their affairs, but rather and observer of them. One can certainly be an observer of something without having anything to do with its existence. On the other hand, the quote also justifies Fergie's and Will. I. Am.'s reaction to Hilton's observations and criticisms, as by the quote and by the ideal of liberty they also would have the right to speak their minds, whether or not Hilton liked it.

And so, can Perez dabble in drama and then ask for none? Can he call Fergie "fugly" and decry Will. I. Am's talent and not be rebuked? It seems that in both cases, Perez can say what he wants and expect to receive some negative reactions, whether or not he approves. Such is the ideal of tolerance. But what of the punch
and Perez's hateful slur? Can those be justified as well? It would seem that Perez said those words in order to get a rise out of his opponent, and so he wilfully tried to have some kind of an effect. The same could arguably be true about the manager, who communicated his frustration with the blogger physically rather than verbally. Clearly, Fergie and Will. I. Am were affected by Perez, even if that wasn't his intention. And he was affected by them enough to shout a gay slur, not to insult homosexuals or homosexuality (which would not be in his interest anyway) but to deflate the pride of the rapper.

And if Perez was indeed trying to insult Will. I. Am, does that not make him guilty of directly implicating himself into the affairs of others? If one can agree with this premise, than one can agree that Perez was putting himself into a position wherein he might receive rebuttal. After all, he is not surrounded by a protective force field, and the people he speaks of may also speak of him, and to him. Voltaire would have presumably seen this as fair and just, but not necessarily pleasant. It is a difficult thing to uphold freedom of speech, a double-edged sword that can come as an emotional and intellectual struggle, from the most trivial of squabbles to the most profound of social schisms.

On the other hand, can the actions of the manager be excused? Where the members of the Black Eyed Peas chose to rebuke and rebut the accusations and observations of the blogger, their manager chose to retaliate violently. Can this be defended, and under what circumstances? Only recently has the climate been to discourage violent retaliation, particularly amongst children. In the French Revolution of 1789, for which Voltaire (and other Enlightenment thinkers) was an inspiration, a precedent was set that promoted the notion of bloody vengeance and reactionary violence. When the Jacobins held the Terror from 1793-1794 during the Radical period, then the Directory held a counter Terror during the Thermidorian period one year later. Since this eruption, the paradigm has been that of an uprising. Only recently, during a phenomenon of Western protectionism, have we been preaching and teaching the opposite. But, have we been living the example? Is it possible? Not being an expert on human behaviour, and only having the most rudimentary knowledge in the fields of sociology and anthropology, I can't say with a professional certainty what makes all of us tick. However, basic observation dictates that, at quite a high frequency, people erupt and seek violent gratification under threat or pressure.

The question of whether or not this is defensible is still up for debate, and will not be resolved here. Personally, I don't find that calling someone a fag merits a clock in the eye, no matter how irksome the offender might be. Then again, a "fag" to me is nothing but a poor use of an archaic word. This brings me to my last portion of this analysis. The fact is, after all was said and done the night of the incident, Perez reprised his previous statement and still geared it towards not the manager, but the members of the band. This is speculation, and I am not a psychiatrist, but I would assume that he was still sore, embarrassed and trapped in a rut of self-pity at the time the blog was made. I would assume that he decided to hold, what for lack of a better word I would call a tantrum, in order to stir drama, in order to humiliate The Black Eyed Peas (specifically Will. I. Am, whom he blamed for orchestrating the assault) , and of course, in order to get attention. Therefore, was this Voltaire-inspired quotation right? Can we defend the freedom of speech at all costs? And isn't a cost of freedom the possible negative reaction of other people? Despite the fact that Perez is quoted as saying he would rather stay away from drama, he is certainly mired in it. Perhaps all this time, he took himself as an observer, whose critiques had no direct or practical effect, except for that found in dollars and celebrity. But whether he likes it or not, it seems that the direct consequence of dabbling in drama is receiving some yourself. It would seem he does not defend this premise, and therefore does not defend freedom of speech in its entirety. But, even if he doesn't defend it, can we defend him? I ask you, is it worth it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJ9jUjGdF4&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Rui_nlpc4

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=frenhiststud