I understand the word "messaging" to mean the public delivery of opinion. In communities where there is an acceptance of the importance of free speech, opinions are normally expressed either in the hope that others will agree, in which case the opinion gathers strength in community life, or that even if others disagree, they will know that others disagree with them. In the latter case, there may be a hope that those who disagree may modify their views - perhaps quickly in the light of evidence and persuasion, perhaps over the longer term as the times themselves change. If the bedrock belief in free speech is insecure or not really a belief at all, the messaging becomes propaganda.
"Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda." I subscribe to this Wikipedia definition.
With public messaging, the message itself matters, but context also matters greatly. The meaning of a message changes with context. A cross outside a building proclaims the identity and purpose of the group who uses it, but is not usually interpreted as an aggressive attempt to enlist passers by to the cause or to separate them from the faithful within. A cross tattooed prominently on a person's skin carries a different meaning. A cross carried into the Capitol by an insurgent mob means something different again.
There are also "Black Lives Matter " signs. I find it deeply disturbing and powerfully necessary that this slogan is used at all Should any members or groups of a decent society have to say this ? And if they do, what a powerful message it carries, that people feel it has to be said. But it is clear, and stark. I find this message hits hard but slightly differently if I know whether it is proclaimed by white or black or a racial mixture of people. This is a fact about me that others might well find fault with, and ideally would be irrelevant If I put up a sign saying that Native Americans (I still use that term with all its implications - sorry, I cannot bring myself to write "Indians") shouldn't be succumbing to the pandemic at a higher rate than we are, there is whole set of assumptions about poverty, discrimination and oppression I am reminding you of and challenging you to share. And of course Native Americans might well tell me to back off because they are the only ones with the right to promote the publicizing of that injustice.
A very obvious example of what I am talking about are the "Trump" signs, still there on display. Context ! From being one of several different election signs last Fall, the ones left up now mean "the election was stolen, he should be president", or at least "he is still our guy and we don't like what the people have spoken" both significant changes of message, although of course the first of them is by far the more inflammatory.
Now to the subject of the current controversy here. I can step back from messages and react, first of all to their content and then to them according to who is proclaiming them and where, but I certainly take note of who the messenger is. I tend to regard all members of Christian groups as benighted, which I accept is not as common a view in this country as it is in Europe and perhaps needs to be said for the purposes of clarification (and by the way, taking that view does not make me an :"Atheist", although it certainly means that I am not a Christian) . My beliefs colour my response to any message posted outside a church, but then I regard the crosses and other public signs outside those places as offensive to me but must be tolerated, as I hold for freedom of expression. That also goes for opinions or sayings about God exhibited outside. However, when the church is being used as an authority prop for an opinion on a matter that spills into general politics or law, I feel fully entitled to object. My own argument on Dr. Seuss books is that the publishers are fully entitled to choose what to publish, that it would be wrong to ban the books or to have a public burning of books regarded as offensive, even by the majority, that we can't legislate what books are read to children unless we are prepared to ban them altogether, and that the great responsibility that libraries have for deciding what should be on their shelves will always be a potential contextual battleground. To me personally, any messaging on this subject by a church definitely diminishes the effectiveness of the argument.
Let me explore a difficult area of inconsistency. We have a concept of "Hate Speech." I understand what is meant by this idea, but I do not think that it is a viable category to be prosecuted. Definitions of Hate Speech roughly agree that it is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. To me, abusive and threatening uses of language are not exactly the same thing. From my English background I draw the example of Speakers' Corner, where on Sunday morning in Hyde Park, London, one could stand on the proverbial soap box and speak ill of the church, the monarchy, Communism and any other -ism that took one's fancy to anyone who cared to listen, and no crime was committed unless one exhorted the listeners to join together with the speaker to go and attack Parliament or Buckingham Palace or search out people of another race with ill intent.. I think that it is hard to separate hatred or even disapproval from an implied or actual threat, but it seems to me that in a court of law we have here at least the possibility of separating a crime or misdemeanor from free speech. We also have laws relating to slander and libel, which have been refined over centuries.
But here I need to present a possible counter-argument. I would go beyond saying that I understand the reasons why the concepts of hate speech and hate crimes havwe been invoked in this country, because an underlying bedrock of society is a tolerance and acceptance of a variety of views is no longer reliable. I went to Speaker's Corner as part of my education in England in the 50's and 60's, and I am under no illusion that much of British society at the time was xenophobic, intolerant and abusive to homosexuals and other "deviants." That is still true, but very slow change is at least under way. The true situation is revealed by events such as the Brexit vote, or the current future concerning the royals. But half a century ago we didn't have the internet and its 24/7 Speakers' Corner with - and here is a very significant detail - anonymity and the ability to link up into hate groups, and a whole new order of polarization of views in politics and social attitudes. America may need to identify, stigmatize and prosecute hatred itself and not just the violence ensuing from it because of the guns, the new separation of formerly mixed communities, the gated enclaves, the one percent and the vast masses of the impoverished who in one of the centres of world wealth are food-insecure without adequate health care or secure housing, the gerrymandering and vote suppression, the political arguments of fear and hatred that bombard the populace. The strains underlying the hatred are immense, and perhaps this country has to have laws against it: I wish it didn't.
Back to messaging. They are always loaded, these messages. "Jesus Saves" - harmless enough? No! - the implication is that we have to or need to be saved, and from what ? Even messages of love can be very aggressive, especially to such as me, who hates being told to have nice day - my British hackles always rise with that one, though I do manage to forbear to snap back that whether or not I have a nice day is myown bloody business. My final point? All messages have a context, and public messages have more context to be read than others.
