Introduction
This Divided State is a documentary film that was directed by a first-time film maker Steven Greenstreet. The film captures the strong views that are held by conservatives at Utah to the point of inability to accept or listen to any dissenting voice. The community cannot differentiate between religious and political views. Members of Utah community, who largely are of Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), felt that their values were being eroded following invitation of liberal minds to come and give speeches to the Utah community (Greenstreet, 2005). They categorizes people into two groups “good” or “evil” to create a distinction between liberals and the conservatives. People who offer alternative ideas that oppose conservative ideals are considered evil while those who adhere to ideals are considered good. The people of Utah seemed to have no room for tolerance. The controversy in the town, christened as “Family City” comes out through characters in the film that include Michael Moore (liberal), Sean Hannity (conservative) and Kay Anderson (conservative). The film brings out the immaturity of civil discourse in the United States.
Irony of Free Speech in the Movie
The right to free speech is one of the most cherished values in the United States. However, it continues being one of the most contested domains. The intolerance displayed by some communities towards civil discourse indicates that people only value free speech when it provides support to their ideas (Fiss, 2009). When it is contrary, it is considered as violating the principles provided for free speech in the constitution. The view is supported by the occurrences in the film where the people of Utah direct hostility to the invitation of a liberal speaker and a harsh critic of Bush administration, Michael Moore, based on his political standpoints. In the film, the people of Utah valley consider themselves religious due to their affiliation to Mormon. They refer the conservatives to as representing their values on political grounds. Through them as per the film, they are able to maintain political values that are consistent with the demands of their faith (Catsoulis, 2009). Any dissenting opinion is thus considered as evil and dangerous to their moral values. Therefore, they would rather not listen to such views to avoid corrupting their ‘family’ values. In the film, Michael Moore seems used to representing evil while Sean Hannity embodies good. Kay Anderson enforces aspects of good and evil by bringing in Sean Hannity to speak to Utah Valley State College Students (UVSC) and oppose the invitation of a liberal (Greenstreet, 2005). Kay Anderson is a representation of the falling standards of civil discourse in the United States.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The right of free speech provides that people should display tolerance and patience to opposing views even when they do not subscribe to them. Giving each other time to express dissenting ideas represents a maturity of civil discourse. However in the film, people are divided along conservative and liberal ideals to the point that they disregard the right to free speech. In fact, Kay Anderson notes that “Free speech works because most people have the good sense to know when to keep their mouths shut” (Greenstreet, 2005). The quote indicates that the Utah community can only give audience to people who reason along their religious and political ideals. Any dissenting voices are blacked out to avoid inculcating evil in the community. It would be ironical that the Mormon beliefs emphasize tolerance and patience although the people of Utah are not able to practice them due to a strong political affiliation to conservative principles.
The beliefs held by the people of Utah on Conservativeness are so strong to the point that they cannot accommodate diversity. The American people do not want to listen to each other as a result of sharp political differences that are disguised in religiosity or faith. Human diversity brings forth an infinite number of personalities and opinions. To accommodate the diverse nature of humanity, people have to practice patience and tolerance (Fiss, 2009). People need to not only accommodate differences in sex and race, but also on politics and religion. When people display tolerance and patience, it does not imply compromising of their values. It also does not require any ideological agreement. Civil discourse is a way of keeping each other informed of the reasons why certain ideas and opinions are worth accommodating (Fiss, 2009). People get to understand the positive and negatives of particular views hence can choose whether to subscribe or ignore them. The film indicates that the people of America have become deaf to one another and to the international community. People no longer have patience and tolerance to opposing views. As a result freedom of speech is dependent on whether the audience considers the speaker good or evil based on their religious and political standpoints.
The irony of free speech is demonstrated by the reaction the student leaders of UVSC get when they announce that number one Bush critic, Michael Moore, will be coming to offer a speech to the students few days before the national elections. The news is received angrily by the parents, students, and community members who yell and scream to the student body leadership, particularly Joe Vogel and Jim Bassi, for inviting a person who they consider hates them, hates their values, and wants to destroy them(Greenstreet, 2005) . Lack of patience and tolerance is indicated by the decision of the community members, students, and parents to overthrow the leaders from student body leadership. The main intention of Vogel and Bassi is to stimulate the ideas of the students by inviting a different voice. The leaders are Mormons and understand that listening to varied opinions helps in strengthening the ones values and stimulating thought. However, the Utah community lacks the patience to listen to a dissenting voice because they consider it destructive to their values.
The mayhem that surrounds Michael Moore speech at UVSC is a reflection of the current divided state in terms of civil discourse in America. The country has moved to categorize the opinions and ideas of people as either good or evil as opposed to being right or wrong (Fiss, 2009). When a person does not represent the religious and political values of a community, they are branded as evil. People do not have time to examine the content of dissenting voices speech before they make a decision on whether to adopt it or not. Most people have become rigid in terms of attachment to their values to the point that they are unable to accommodate other people with varying ideas and opinions (Powers, 2015). People that are considered to be on the other side as a result of their stand are thus denied the platform to explain themselves to people.
The conservatives want to retain a status quo hence are doing everything possible to ensure that critics of conservatives are denied a space to talk. In the film, Kay Anderson attempts to deny Moore the platform to make his speech by saying that he is charging expensively to offer the lecture to the college students. He even goes ahead to bring a conservative speaker just days before Moore visits UVSC. Sean Hannity does not give room for any liberal ideas during his talk. At the end of the speech, he waives the speaking fee of $100,000 but requests for facilitation case of $50,000, which is still higher than the fee of $40,000 required by Michael Moore to speak at the sold out function (Catsoulis, 2005). Kay Anderson even offers to pay $25,000 to block Moore’s appearance (Catsoulis, 2005). However, the student leaders are determined to have Moore as the speaker and let the function continue. The actions in ‘This Divided State’ are an indication of the bullying nature of the Conservatives. They are committed to maintaining the status quo up to the point of blocking free speech.
The political scenario in America has drawn in religious leaders. However, the leaders are failing in their supposed roles as voices of reason. Therefore, there are no people to direct American citizens on what is right or wrong. All groups are fighting a war aimed at preserving their values without giving any thoughts to the diverse nature of America (Catsoulis, 2005). The country has been divided into a liberal and a conservative America. The division is represented by the categorization of states as either red or blue states to represent conservatives and liberals respectively (Hannikainen, Miller, & Cushman, 2017). The division is creating a disjointed America as opposed to a United States of America that was envisioned by its founding fathers. It indicates a failure of civil discourse in the state. The students’ leadership body of UVSC understands the importance of promoting civil discourse and has thus invited Michael Moore, a person that they also do not support so that he can electrify and revitalize a relatively apathetic student body (Catsoulis, 2005). However, their noble idea is met with a lot of resistance from the Utah community to the point that they are threatened with removal from leadership. One of the leaders eventually ended up resigning. It demonstrates the high levels of political intolerance amongst the people of United States.
The events in the film indicate why free speech has remained a controversial concept in the United States of America. Most people who want to maintain their values are keen on silencing the effects of free speech. Most of the gains in the American educational, political, health, and career fields have been made due to legalization of free speech (Fiss, 2009). Previously marginalized people were given a voice by the right to free speech. As a result, all American adults have voting rights; all children have the right to access education, health, and shelter. The discriminative practices in areas of employment have also gone down. All people have an equal chance of being employed in a workplace as long as they possess the necessary qualifications (Miles & Vaisey, 2015). However, the cherished rights of freedom of speech have been a subject to countless judicial battles that has even led to division in the Supreme Court. For example, The United States has witnessed court battles between the Attorney General of the United States with respected independent paper such as Washington Post and the New York Times. The current President, Donald Trump has had numerous battles with media houses and journalists (Powers, 2015). He has barred some media houses from covering his events and even revoked their admittance to the White House functions. Freedom of speech has also been fought in political circles, for example during political debates in campuses, as is witnessed in the film. The battles are indicative of the increased levels of intolerance by most people of America.
The film also indicates lack of a fine division between religion and politics. The human drama that arises out of a collision of ideals is indicative of the fall of the religious institutions in their role of promoting civil discourse. The churches are supposed to provide standpoints between right and wrong. However, they are also sucked into political conflict leading them to align their values alongside the political occurrences. Utah is a state that is characterized by Mormons. They have aligned themselves along political ideals of the conservatives hence do not give any space for liberal ideals (Catsoulis, 2005). The level of linkage of religion to politics in Utah can be compared to the Middle East politics and religion where Islam cannot be separated from politics. Everything that the Muslims do is connected to their religion. Every aspect of community is linked to religion and they include biology, economics, trade, and driving among others. In such situations, free speech cannot thrive due to limits created by religion. However, the United States is governed by differing principles that have to be upheld to promote civil discourse.
The controversies observed in the film point out to a deeper problem in the society. They indicate that political differences can create disharmony in an otherwise peaceful community. Joe and Bassi are strong Mormons. However, their intention of listening to a different political voice creates disunity in Utah community. The students, parents, and other Utah community members line up the hallways of the college demanding that Michael Moore should not be given an opportunity to address the students UVSC. The opposition to Michael Moore is based on his criticism of George Bush, a conservative candidate (Greenstreet, 2005). The invitation of Moor creates sharp divisions within the community. The people of Utah community cannot agree with the student’s body that there is need to listen to other voices to aid in informed decision making. Joe and Bassi who have previously been accorded high respect as leaders of UVSC student organization are threatened by the community and student body. In the end, Joe ends up resigning from his post as vice chairman of the students’ body. The division between students and their leaders points out at the power of politics in creating divisions within the community (Miles & Vaisey, 2015). The Mormons are wary of the threat posed to Bush by the liberals hence do not want to give them space to convince some members of their community. When Joe and Bassi insist that the event must proceed, they end up paying with their leadership positions.
The people of Utah community are occupied with campaign finance and hate speech. The divisions and passion displayed by the community engender the larger society that characterized by free speech controversies. The differences in the community are an invitation to leaders and other individuals to examine the nature of modern state and its role in preserving the most fundamental principles that have been enshrined in the American constitution (Hannikainen, Miller, & Cushman, 2017). In the past, most debates were premised on the idea that the state was the enemy of freedom. People were fighting the state to enable the fundamental freedoms of speech and association. However, individual presumptions about the state with regards to freedom have now changed. It is individuals that are suppressing the freedom of other persons.
The state enacted laws on rights of individuals with an aim of broadening the terms of public discussion. It was meant to allow individual to become aware of issues as well as arguments from all sides and then pursue their end in a free manner (Miles & Vaisey, 2015). However, it is unclear to many whose interests should come first during civil discourse. There are some that feel that it should be interests of the speaker while some feel that it should be the interest of the audience. The controversy experienced in the film is centered on whose interests should come first when exercising freedom of speech. Michael Moore is keen on sharing his opinions while the Utah community feels that he is violating their rights by exposing the community to toxic information that may lead to a change in values.
Conclusion
The film points out to a deep controversy in the society where the much sought after freedom of speech is now been curtailed by individuals as opposed to the state. The people of America have become divided alongside conservatives and liberals. States are categorized as either blue or red. States that are predominantly conservative do not want to give any opportunity to the liberals because they consider them evil. Politics is thus dividing America in to two with people aligning themselves either as conservatives or liberals. The church leaders have abandoned their role of guiding the people to make right choices. They are focused on furthering political alignments. Utah is predominantly a Mormon state and thus furthers conservative ideals. Any dissenting view is considered evil.
References
Catsoulis, J. (2005, Aug. 19). Trouble in Mormon Country When a Liberal Pays a Visit. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/movies/19stat.html
Fiss, O. (2009). The irony of free speech . Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Greenstreet, S. (2005). This Divided State. IMDB
Hannikainen, I. R., Miller, R. M., & Cushman, F. A. (2017). Act versus impact: Conservatives and liberals exhibit different structural emphases in moral judgment. Ratio , 30 (4), 462-493.
Miles, A., & Vaisey, S. (2015). Morality and politics: Comparing alternate theories. Social Science Research , 53 , 252-269.
Powers, K. (2015). The silencing: How the left is killing free speech . New York :Simon and Schuster.
