Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke: free speech, or sexual harassment? This question is easy to answer when you understand the context of the system under which the question is being asked.
In my past two diary entries, I've attempted to explain a bit about the military and the Department of Defense policies under which it operates.
This is a vastly different system, indeed, a vastly different lifestyle than our civilian system and lifestyle which operates under our United States Constitution.
It is for this very reason we all must educate ourselves as to the seriousness of this matter as applied under the DOD policies, and not simply think of his comments under the single paradigm of the civilian world.
There is another paradigm which operates among us. Those who serve within this paradigm must be considered, like it or not.
Free speech? Yes.
Sexual harassment? Yes
But how can both be true?
Under the Constitution of the United States, Rush Limbaugh's comments are considered by most to be protected under the First Amendment as Freedom of Speech.
I agree.
Though I do not care one bit for the vitriol he spewed towards Sandra Fluke, a private citizen who was denied the right to testify before, in my opinion, an unwarranted hearing, the fact remains, he has the right to say what he wants, short of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
So does the KKK.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are, however, some exclusions to our
freedoms of speech.
One of these exclusions is "obscenity", to include speech of a sexual nature which, as defined by the "Miller Test" includes all of the following:
- appeals to the prurient interest
- depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way
- and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)
However, the "Miller Test" is also dependent upon "community standards" which are extremely subjective.
Which is why the debate about Rush's comments is so heated and still raging. The community in question is our country, and as a collective, we're attempting to decide how we feel about his remarks and what to do about the situation.
Should we censor him? Censor freedom of speech? Wow, that is a tough one, isn't it? But, if we, as a collective do decide his remarks went over the line into "obscenity" then his speech no longer falls under the protection of the First Amendment and is subject to being censored.
Sponsors are already making that statement, as are listeners.
There is a completely different issue many members of our Armed Forces and Veterans have been attempting to raise, however, and that is the fact that Rush Limbaugh's comments are not "free speech" within the military system.
Consider the fact that when an individual enlists within the service, they not only sign up to serve and protect our Nation and our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, but they also sign up for a new way of life.
And they sign away certain rights civilians take for granted.
Although the Constitution still applies, active duty servicemen and servicewomen live under a completely different system of justice, rules, policies, and regulations which govern them, and restrict their way of life. When it comes to "law" and "policy", the comments made by Rush are viewed within the military system much differently than they are within the civilian system of law.
The reason why so many have called for the DOD to remove Rush Limbaugh from AFN is because of two key DOD policies:
The DOD's "sexual harassment" policy, and the DOD's "zero tolerance" policy.
The DOD isn't following their own policies, and many military servicewomen and servicemen, as well as veterans are a tad ticked off by that. We see it not only as hypocritical, but also as highly dangerous.
There is an epidemic of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape within the military of which the DOD has yet to fully control. This problem has been apparent for decades.
What cannot be denied is the DOD refuses to follow it's own policies, while insisting they are doing all they can to ensure the problems of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are being worked with new policy measures:
Panetta: Could be 19,000 military sex assaults each year with MSNBC video of Panetta's speech and a second video about the film which triggered the speech.
Note he admits sexual assault is a very under reported crime within the military.
Please also note this statement was made two days prior to the premiere of the film "The Invisible War", by Oscar nominated director Kirby Dick, at the Sundance Film Festival which won the Audience Award.
Lastly, please note the DOD's own investigative office, the General Accounting Office (GAO) produced a report (as required by law by the DOD) September 21, 2011 entitled, "Preventing Sexual Harassment".
Within this report, (which is 47 pages, is pretty negative over all, and can be downloaded in pdf format) it states on page 1:
However, the results of DOD surveys conducted in 2002 and 2006 indicated that active duty servicemembers perceived the incidence of sexual harassment to be a continuing problem in the military. Moreover, a 2010 DOD survey, the most recent available, found that, of the active duty servicemembers who reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact during the preceding 12 months, about half of women and a third of men reported they were also sexually harassed or stalked by the alleged offender before or after the incident.
Since 2006, we have issued a series of reports examining certain social factors of the military environment in which men and women serve our country. These include reviews of DOD’s programs to address the incidence of domestic violence in the military, DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s programs to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the service academies, and DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s programs to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault in the military. For a list of these reports, see the Related GAO Products section at the end of this report.
Seeking a more complete picture of that environment, and concerned about reported increases in rates of sexual harassment among servicemembers, you asked us to examine the most current available data on sexual harassment in the military and to assess DOD’s efforts to address this issue. This report focuses on the active components of DOD and evaluates the extent to which DOD (1) has developed and implemented policies and programs to help prevent and to address incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers; (2) has visibility over the occurrence of sexual harassment involving servicemembers; and (3) provides oversight of its policies and programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment.
The report acknowledges that sexual harassment is experienced by at least half of women and a third of men AND they were sexually harassed prior to, or after an incident of unwanted sexual contact by the offender! The report further cites various violence and assault reports completed in the past and explains the investigation is being conducted to ascertain the possible rate of sexual harassment due to concerns of a possible increase in this area. The link between sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence is clearly implied within these paragraphs.
The report defines sexual harassment by the DOD as:
DOD defines sexual harassment as “a form of sex discrimination that involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly as a term or condition of a person’s job, pay or career, or submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.” DOD’s definition emphasizes that workplace conduct, to be actionable as “abusive work environment” harassment, need not result in concrete psychological harm to the victim, but rather need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive, and the victim does perceive, the work environment as hostile or offensive. Under DOD’s definition, “workplace” is an expansive term for servicemembers and may include conduct on or off duty, 24 hours a day. Any person in a supervisory or command position who uses or condones any form of sexual behavior to control, influence, or affect the career, pay, or job of a military member or civilian employee is engagement in sexual harassment. Similarly, any servicemember or civilian employee who makes deliberate or repeated unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature in the workplace is also engaging in sexual harassment.
Regarding the Chain of Command:
DOD Directive 1350.2 states that it is DOD policy to use the chain of command to promote, support, and enforce the military equal opportunity program, which includes the department’s sexual harassment policies. However, concerns exist that DOD is not holding individuals in positions of leadership accountable for supporting the department’s sexual harassment policies and programs.
On Leadership setting an example; Leading by action:
During our site visits we were also told that some leaders do not back up their words with actions. At each of the six locations we visited, we heard concerns that some leaders did not enforce their command’s policies or did not address incidents of sexual harassment when they occurred. Program officials at one location told us that some commands publicly claim to have zero tolerance for sexual harassment but in fact do tolerate behavior that could constitute sexual harassment on a day-to-day basis. According to the individuals we interviewed, such behavior needs to be corrected on the spot or it will continue. Program officials at another location described inaction by leadership as a sign of condoning sexual harassment. At five of the six locations we visited we were told that leaders could take actions to better show their support for the department’s programs, such as by attending their units’ prevention of sexual harassment training or by speaking more frequently to their personnel about sexual harassment.
According to program officials and servicemembers with whom we spoke, leaders who do not support or do not show their support for the department’s sexual harassment policies effectively hinder implementation of the department’s programs. For example, program officials told us that servicemembers are less likely to take the department’s policies and programs seriously if they see that their leaders do not take the programs seriously. Similarly, senior enlisted servicemembers at one location we visited told us that if leaders do not emphasize the importance of these types of programs it would be unrealistic to expect the programs to be effective. A senior enlisted servicemember told us that a commander who ignores sexual harassment matters reinforces negative behaviors in the command that could “encourage” sexual harassment.
Similarly, we heard that by not taking sexual harassment matters seriously, commanders and other leaders can negatively affect unit morale and cohesion. Program officials at one location told us that units that take sexual harassment matters seriously are more likely to have good morale and be close-knit. According to these individuals, personnel run the risk of being ostracized from the unit for reporting an incident of sexual harassment if their unit is not close-knit.
One female was quoted as saying, "Why would you stick your neck out for someone who doesn't respect you?"
Hey, I hear ya!
Required "Climate Assessments" by Commanders are not always completed. Those attempting to assist with these assessments often encounter resistance. The Marine Corps doesn't have visibility over which Commanders have completed these required assessments.
And, data regarding sexual harassment within each branch is inconsistent and incomplete. It is incredibly difficult to gauge what is actually happening in this area according to the report.
In 1995, DOD’s task force noted that enhanced data collection and reporting could help improve the department’s visibility over the occurrence of sexual harassment and consequently recommended that the Office of the Secretary of Defense establish uniform data elements and require that the services use those data elements in reporting. Further, in 1996, while undertaking a review of the services’ processes for handling equal opportunity complaints, we reported that DOD was taking steps to address the task force’s recommendations.17 However, over 15 years later, the 1995 task force’s recommendation to establish uniform data elements has not yet been implemented because DOD has not made this issue a priority. Consequently, DOD’s visibility over the occurrence of sexual harassment continues to be limited.
Reasons for not reporting sexual harassment:
A senior officer male commented that “whistleblowers do not have a good track record in the military” and that by reporting something like sexual harassment “you’re setting yourself up to be viewed as a whistle blower. Or, you might worry how you’ll be perceived by the other members of your unit.”
Several servicemembers observed that reporting an incident of sexual harassment is perceived as something that can ruin your reputation. A junior enlisted female observed that if you report sexual harassment, you won’t get promoted. A junior officer female commented that some people choose not to report that they have been sexually harassed because they don’t want the incident to go public. Others fear that if they make a complaint, they will be retaliated against.
A junior enlisted female observed that she did not report a sergeant in her unit, whom she perceived made sexual comments about women, because she felt “things would just get ugly.”
A mid-level enlisted female observed that complaints of sexual harassment are not always taken seriously regardless of who reports them, commenting that “when servicemembers feel that the higher ups do not get the same punishment, they will likely not report an incident when it occurs.”
Regarding Oversight Programs:
(Virtually none, although a framework was suggested for implementation a decade ago) Four areas were discussed, the conclusion stating:
Without an established framework for oversight, decision makers in DOD do not have the information they need to effectively oversee the department’s sexual harassment policies and programs or to determine whether the programs, as currently implemented, are helping to prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment. Moreover, active duty servicemembers cannot be assured that the department is addressing the issue of sexual harassment as fully as necessary.
Conclusions of the report:
Occurrences of sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination can jeopardize the military’s combat readiness and ability to accomplish its mission and, according to DOD, must be eliminated from the department. As part of its military equal opportunity program, DOD has taken steps in an effort to help prevent and to address incidents of sexual harassment. However, simply instituting a policy and a program is not enough. For individuals in positions of leadership, support for DOD’s sexual harassment policies and programs must be unequivocal—those who do not take the issue of sexual harassment seriously or who do not address incidents when they occur can undermine the department’s efforts. Commanders who do not comply with DOD’s requirements to conduct climate assessments potentially risk failing to identify and address sexual harassment issues before they escalate.
Once again, the GAO report is acknowledging the fact that sexual harassment can escalate to sexual assault and/or rape.
As a survivor of Military Sexual Assault, I can tell you unequivocally that sexual harassment can lead to sexual assault and rape. I was raped four times, and sexually assaulted once in the presence of Security Police personnel. Prior to all incidents, I was sexually harassed... intensely... in one form or another... by each offender.
I'm not the only one who has experienced this.
It is easy for me to understand those of you who have doubts about how sexual harassment can lead to sexual assault and rape if you have not experienced it. I will not argue this issue with any of you. In my humble opinion, one only requires common sense and logic to understand the connection.
I've provided the facts as they are; both the Constitution as it applies to Freedom of Speech within the civilian environment, and the Department of Defense policies under which all military personnel must operate within the military environment and culture.
Rush Limbaugh has a right to speak his mind, yes. But when his speech falls into the realm of sexual harassment under the DOD policies ALL military personnel must follow, then the DOD, which also institutes a policy of "zero tolerance", must also remove said sexual harassment from the military environment and culture.
Hypocrisy cannot be tolerated.
The morale, and the emotional welfare of our troops, is being compromised.
12:05 PM PT: Update: Please sign the Change.org Petition urging Senators Carl Levin and John McCain to remove Rush from AFN.
https://www.change.org/...