Immigration and Hate Speech in America: A Need for a Balanced Discussion on Major Networks

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) request that major networks should “Screen and reject giving airtime” to specific persons who are “expert commentators” and “anti-immigrant spokespeople” known to be affiliated with hate groups, nativist-extremist groups, and vigilantes” should be compromised but a compromise that will accomplish NCLR’s goals.  NCLR cannot make this request legally because major networks are protected under the First Amendment rights to Freedom of Expression. Censorship of such material is unrealistic.  Instead of calling for censorship, pressure must be placed on the major networks to balance the debate on immigration.

            The request should be compromised because this is not simply a matter limited to the content that makes good ratings on television.  It carries a heavy burden of social equality and justice.  This is a significant issue, a sensitive issue, and an issue that affects the lives of millions of people living in the United States.  This issue of immigration touches upon the very idea of the identity of this nation- equality, justice and liberty.  Socially stigmatizing a group of people, thus provoking or fomenting a sense of prejudice, hatred and resentment should not be tolerated.  We’d be walking along the same propagandist path as Nazi Germany that stigmatized millions of people based on frivolous, false and villainous standards.  By allowing an extremely biased airtime of just anti-immigrant commentators is socially irresponsible, prejudiced and even backward.

The “experts” and extremely biased anti-immigrant spokespeople are entitled to their personal opinions.  However, major networks that service millions of people in this country bear social responsibility to uphold standards that reflect societal values—the ability and the means to broadcast extreme opinions to millions of viewers at a time is an incredible power.  Giving airtime to only one side of the spectrum on the immigration debate with an undercurrent of hate speech against immigrants induces and buttresses social stigmatism and social inequality for a group of people already facing discrimination. 

These major networks need to establish an ethics code in which they check and balance the kinds of content they air on television. One solution may be creating a fair discussion on immigration by allowing equal airtime to people of pro-immigration and anti-immigration.  The networks will consider this proposal only when there is an outcry of public support for this issue because they lack the financial incentive to do so, because doing so will decrease the ratings of these particular programs.  I believe NCLR should provoke a great public interest in this matter using the rhetoric of social discrimination and social injustice.  If these networks aren’t responsive or lack an incentive to be socially responsible, letters of protest or protest by boycotting their networks should be considered. 

The fact that the 14^th amendment protects not only citizens but also “all persons,” immigrants should have access to all the values that we hold as a nation.  Major networks carry a social burden to broadcast material that does not vilify immigrants as monsters. They enable and facilitate the vilification of immigrants by allowing excess airtime to extreme anti-immigration spokespeople who use hate-filled language and code words in their speech against immigrants.  NCLR’s request should be compromised and the major networks should balance the airtime between extreme anti-immigration persons and pro-immigration persons. Further, they should be far more conscious of the social burden they possess and regulate extreme contents in their networks that is grounded in social injustice and social inequality.