Public library. It seems all you need to do these days is turn on the television, and you can quickly hear what Alison Kibler talk about tonight, which is hate speech. Reality television to the nightly news, we see examples in the headlines that show that hate speech is alive and well in our country. Some would argue hate speech has a long and difficult history and our country, but also has a long way to go for improvement. Others say it pits equality and free speech against each other. Alisons book is examining how our society has changed since the early 20th century to verbally reflect the country we live in now, one nation, under all. Hate speech is a complex issue and i am proud to be part of the Kansas City Public Library, a place where, every day, offers a forum and an opportunity to engage and examine complicated issues, and debates, especially about free speech and the desk and equality. It is what a library is designed to do. Alison kiblers book is a great place to start. She is a professor of american studies and womens and gender studies at franklin and marshall and is currently at work on another project that is focused on second wave feminists and television reform. Particularly, their use of the federal Communications Commissions fairness doctrine, pressing television stations to improve the representation of women and feminism. Please help me welcome Alison Kibler. [applause] dr. Kibler i want to thank the library for inviting me. I am from relatively far away, lancaster, pennsylvania. When i mentioned i have the privilege of coming here, my colleagues had heard about how wonderful the Kansas City Public Library is, so you do have a Great Institution here. To show that this topic is relevant today, i want to start by asking you to take a short quiz. It is about some controversies surrounding hate speech in the news. It is a very short matching quiz. What im asking you to do is match the controversial expression with the way that the expression has been regulated recently. These are within the last 23 years. A couple minutes, then i will take responses from the audience. You can talk to your neighbor, if you want. [laughter] [indiscernible] dr. Kibler ok. Lets try to get some answers out there. Does anyone want to get started . Lets go through all three . Ok, go ahead. The second one down matches the redskins name. Dr. Kibler thats true. What is at stake is something called the lanham act, which forbids the trademark, a trademark cannot be disparaging to a group of people. That has happened, and is being appealed. There is an Appeals Court recently, it struck down that act, but it will continue to be litigated. The redskins issue is kind of in play. Does anyone else have one that they feel certain about . Ok. Correct. Remember what university it was . Ok. The university of oklahoma expelled the fraternity, and the students who sang the song. And that is due to a federal law, title vi, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids the creation of a hostile educational environment, a racially hostile educational environment. Ok. So that affects speech. The last one, does anyone remember this . A few years ago, this actually comes up on a regular basis, but School Districts can have dress codes that ban the Confederate Flag for fear that it will disrupt the school day. Ok. Great. Very wellinformed audience. The quiz, i hope, shows that controversies over hate speech are in the news today, and i will show you that there is a long history of the efforts, there is a long history of efforts to censor hate speech, or what, from the time i am come talking about, most people would call that racial ridicule, not hate speech. These controversies have lasted over centuries. Because they pit two deeply held American Values together, free speech and equality. In my presentation tonight, i will try to demonstrate three points. The first, that americans have regularly supported legislation against hateful speech. Although the context of the regulation has shifted dramatically over the course of the 20th century. The second thing i want to try to demonstrate is that when we think of censorship, we tend to think of conservative or rightwing censors working to stop sexually explicit images. This is a limited view. Censorship has long been about race, and censors have often been progressive. Censorship has been one tactic for activists who have sought racial equality. The third point i want to demonstrate is that the efforts to ban particular acts or productions often have surprising results. From that, i am trying to say more generally that you can never be sure what is going to happen as a result of the censorship. Sometimes, the result was not what was intended by the censors. In some cases, when activists succeeded in banning an offensive production, they found out that their victory was shortlived and turned against them. I hope this presentation will reveal the long history of hate speech as a struggle among many races, with unpredictable outcomes. Now for a story. On a bitterly cold january night in 1907, two tried and true vaudeville performers, john and james russell, took the stage at a new york city theater. They wore long dresses with aprons over top. James had a red wig. They started their wellknown act, the irish servant girls. It had been on stage for years, with no trouble. James called up to his brother, john, maggie, maggie. And batted at him with a broom. They winked at men and women in the audience. They leaned back, lifted up their skirts, and showed the crowd their underwear. In the midst of these hijinks, a group of protesters began to hiss and whistle. After the first wave of catcalls subsided, one man, a prominent irish nationalist, political activist, and a war veteran, rose to his feet and addressed the management, the audience and the Russell Brothers. Stop it, stop it. Or, by the eternal, we will stop you. The curtain came down on the Russell Brothers act early that night. Wait, i thought i had ok. Early that night. These protesters kept their promise. As the Russell Brothers tour continued, irish protesters stepped up their attack. They pelted them with eggs, rotten vegetables. Stink bombs. They drove the brothers out of vaudeville. Their career ended. The irishamerican protesters bragged that they had succeeded in practical censorship. That was the phrase they used. I skipped over an earlier slide. This is to show you that, the image of the kind of hulking irish woman that you see with the Russell Brothers. It shows up in other places, and irish activists are also mad about that. Whenever it appears, whenever there is this kind of masculine, rough, irish woman onstage, they are often there to try to ban that, or get it off stage or out of the newspaper. That is just to show you that it is more widespread than just the Russell Brothers. That is the depiction in the irishamerican newspaper, of the riots that followed the Russell Brothers until they leave vaudeville. The story of the Russell Brothers is intriguing to me for several reasons. It introduces us to the popularity of stereotypes of minority groups in theater and film in the early 20th century. In vaudeville, which was the most popular live theatrical venue of the early 1900s, every program featured several caricatures of africanamericans, irish, jewish citizens, german, sometimes these were jumbled together in confusing ways. Joe weber and lew field exemplified this. Here we are, a colored pair, they explained in a thick yiddish accent. Then they would move into an and anroke brogue irish costume for the rest of their routine. Al jolsons brother explained the confusion of racial types in his career, when he acknowledged that he mistakenly used a yiddish accent in place of an irish accent. He was assigned an irish part and used his yiddish accent anyway. Things got confused. These comedy routines were known, i will give you another example of, here is some sheet music from the early 20th century, late 19th century, and africanamerican performer named ernest hogan. The sheet music on your left shows you kind of how he had to dress up in vaudeville, to dress up in black caricature. That is how he looked. Me wasns look alike to also subject to protest in the early 20th century, africanamerican activists start to react against songs like that. So ernest hogan gives you an idea of some africanamerican stereotypes in the early 20th century. These comedy routines were known as racial comedy, not ethnic comedy. All the groups considered here that i will talk about today, irish, jewish, and africanamericans, consider themselves races in this time, over 100 years ago. Around this time, scientists and politicians acknowledged european races, including hebrews, celts and slavs, as races. Although they were white according to some purposes, unlike the chinese and japanese immigrants, jewish and irish immigrants were in between africanamericans and whites in terms of Popular Culture and scientific classifications. They used the term racial ridicule to describe offensive images of them on screen. In my book, i do not describe, i dont refer to irish and Jewish Americans of this time period as ethnic groups. Ok. The last thing i want to underline about my opening anecdote is that the attacks on the Russell Brothers by the irish activists who stand up in the auditorium and basically shout them down, they are significant because they are part of a broader multicultural protest against racial ridicule. Irish, jewish, and africanamerican citizens rose up against these images. Jewish and africanamericans were alarmed at images of their group as sexually depraved. It contributed to violence against them. Jews said that images of the scheming firebug insulted them. Irish americans and African Americans objected to representations of their races that showed them to be childlike and incapable of orderly democratic participation. Irish and africanamericans also objected to images of bridget, the irish made maid. Africanamericans were also concerned about images of the nanny. All three groups leave believed that disparaging representation impaired their social standing and political equality. The used direct actions, including disruption of acts onstage, to protest in front of theaters. They used backstage lobbying. They used state censorship to stop racial ridicule. By looking at the three campaigns together, we can see these early struggles against racial ridicule were not an oddity. It is not just, one case with the irish got angry about the Russell Brothers. There was a common language of protest across three different races, 100 years ago. All right. We started with the story about the Russell Brothers and the irish maid. Now i want to talk about a controversial play that were the country around the same time. That toured the country around the same time. Almost every thing about talk about today is within a few years of each other, to illustrate the bigger theme. In 1905, thomas dixon cosplay play thedixons klansman premiered. If the name rings a bell, it is because his work formed the basis of the most famous hate speech movie film of all time, the birth of a nation. Birth of a nation appears in 1916, and it is written about in relation to the history of race and Popular Culture. I spent some time in my work going back to the earlier play that is considered the basis of the film birth of a nation. It is a decade before. The play the klansman premiered in virginia in 1905. Dixon portrayed the suffering of whites during reconstruction, and celebrated and advocated a return to White Supremacy through vigilante violence. The play featured white robes and hooded figures who administer justice, what is seen is justice in the play. Dixon saw himself as rebutting Harriet Beecher stowes famous work uncle toms cabin. Critics ofhe play challenged Thomas Dixons claims of historical accuracy. One critic called the play a perverted mixture of truth and falsehood. So the play faced criticism for being an inaccurate representation of africanamericans, and inciting violence. It depicted violence on stage against africanamericans. In the first year of its tour, neither of these claims was the basis for censoring the play. The play is not stopped, although there is significant criticism. So the play was controversial for inflaming racial antagonism, but it was not banned in any city until the aftermath of the atlanta race riot in september 1906. The klansman may have played a role in stirring up violence in atlanta. When the play appeared in atlanta in 1905, near the end of 1905, the audience became unruly and Police Worked to silence the racial hostility in the audience. After the atlanta riot, africanamerican citizens had more success asking local officials to stop the play. City governments were now more likely to agree to censor the play after this context of racial violence that seemed to be associated with the play. In philadelphia, in october 1906, a large group of african gathered outside of the walnut street theater when the klansman was scheduled to appear. 2000 africanamericans came to protest and 1000 whites came to observe the protest. At the start of the play, an africanamerican man threw an egg at this stage. People ran from the theater. The Police Arrested who they thought the egg thrower was. That protest comes to an end. The mayor of philadelphia as a result of the uprising, banned the play because he believed it was calculated to produce disorder and endanger lives. It doesnt stop there. Thomas dixon tries to override the mayors band ban. Dixon ends up in a courtroom, trying to get an injunction to stop the mayors ban on the play. So begins a little moment of theater in the courtroom. Dixon encounters this judge, a jewish civic leader, in philadelphia. The courtroom is jammed to suffocation. A large group of africanamerican spectators, many of whom had been involved in the protest, so the hearing was a showcase for the key arguments for and against the play. Dixon upheld the accuracy, the historical accuracy of his play. He criticized the protesters for causing disorder. Thomas dixon, the author of the play, read some of the play out loud, with considerable dramatic flair. The judge is impatient and interrupts. What do we care for that . History may be as false as a lie. Dont weary us with such matters. Many spectators cheered for the judge. Dixon and the judge then debate, whether the protesters are the or the play was the source of danger. The playwright said the judge, it is a grave commentary on civilization, that a mob of colored rioters can constitute themselves as censors of drama and a close a historic theater. The judge had none of that. He told dixon he disliked the conclusion of the play, in which the ku klux klan apprehends the africanamerican villain. The government is displaced and usurped by a body of citizens the judge said. Dixon complained about the egg thrower. The judge disagreed. You make yourself the judge and police the audience. The audience may applaud, but may not show disapproval . It goes on like that. The judge backs the africanamerican protesters and upholds the ban on the play. I can just imagine it, though. The fight in the courtroom. The debate about who or what pose the danger to the social order is significant. Plays and movies that protesters identified as racist and hateful were sometimes banned because of concern about protesters behavior. This rationale for censorship usually reasserted the stereotype that the protesters were trying to challenge. Africanamericans succeed in censoring the klansman because people were able to say look, the protesters were dangerous. In 1915, when the play reemerges as the film the birth of a nation, one of the naacp tactics in refering the film was to to this disruption or up he censorship was successful, then, at what cost . The confrontation between sulzberger and thomas dixon is important because it shows an Early Alliance between africanamericans and jewish leaders. Sulzberger may have been sympathetic to africanamerican protesters in philadelphia, because he was involved in organizations that were becoming active with antisemitic publications. This was around the time of the clansman protest, looking to ban through new york city, new york state civil rights law, the Jewish Community was working to ban publications or advertisement of jewish exclusion. So in hotels and resorts in new york, there were often advertisements that would say, gentiles only, or no hebrews allowed. So the civil rights law in new york state made it so you could no longer advertise that. That is the innovation of these jewish leaders. And by 1926, those laws are in the books in seven states. So they become popular outside of new york. All right. The third and final story i want to tell tonight is an intriguing coincidence, which again involves jewish and africanamerican activists. It underscores the overlapping interests of africanamerican and jewish leaders. In 1907, an africanamerican lawyer in des moines, joe brown, succeeded in getting the city council to pass an ordinance banning any exhibition or performance that created a feeling of antipathy against any particular race. He was hoping to stop Thomas Dixons play. The timing does not turn out exactly right and the censorship of the play does not work, but that was the underlying motivation. Just a few months later, around the same time, a lawyer and civic leader in chicago drafted the nations first Motion Picture censorship ordinance in chicago. Motion picture censorship, by the way, is basically legal. It is not considered a violation of the First Amendment until 1952. He is a jewish civic leader, involved with he is a newspaper editor, civic leader, and his ordinance does not just outla