Why The Whole Freaking World Knows That Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Hates Being Called Fartenberry

Say That Again

from the don't-threaten-people dept

I have to admit that before yesterday, I’d never even heard of US Representative Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (even though I visited his district while he was in office). However, boy am I hearing an awful lot about Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, and the one thing I will now always associate with Rep. Jeff Fortenberry is that he and his staff are so offended that anyone might call him “Fartenberry” that they’ll ignore the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and threaten a professor for the grievous offense of liking a Facebook post with an image of a defaced campaign sign changing his name.

No, really.

This story has a bit of everything. It starts with this, however. A Nebraska blog, Seeing Red Nebraska, posted the following to its Facebook page a couple weeks ago:

If, somehow, you cannot see that, it’s a campaign sign for Rep. Jeff Fortenberry that has been somewhat crudely “altered” such that Fortenberry’s face now has two giant googly eyes, his name has been changed to “Fartenberry” by adding a line to the “o” in his last name, and whatever the third item in the following list really is, was changed to: “Strong Families; Strong Communities; Strong ODOR.”

A bit sophomoric, but, hey it happens.

What happened next, however… You see, University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor Ari Kohen “liked” that post on Facebook. And, apparently, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s staff decided to scan through all the likes on that post, and decided that Kohen couldn’t possibly get away with liking such a thing. So, Fortenberry’s Chief of Staff, Dr. William “Reyn” Reynolds Archer III decided to call Kohen and chew him out and threaten him over the “like.” Archer left a voicemail for Kohen, who was away at a conference. When Kohen didn’t call him back quickly enough, Archer then emailed Kohen’s department supervisor, Kohen’s dean, and the chancellor of the university to complain about Kohen liking the image.

Again, let’s just be clear what’a happening here (and it’s going to get crazier). Someone else made some additions to the sign. Someone else took a photo. Someone else posted it to Facebook. The sole thing that Kohen did was click the “like” button because he found it amusing. And Fortenberry’s chief of staff emailed Kohen’s boss, Kohen’s boss’s boss and Kohen’s boss’s boss’s boss to complain.

Kohen then called Archer back, and they ended up talking for 53 whole minutes, though the key 7 minutes gives you a good taste of what went down.

Amusingly, if you listen to the full call, it starts out with Archer specifically saying: “Look, I want to just be really clear that we support First Amendment.” Then, he follows that up by saying this nonsense: “I think the thing that we’re concerned about is liking vandalism which is against the law.” The call goes on and just gets more and more insane (yes, dear readers, I listened to the whole 53 minutes for you). At one point, Archer tries to point to Jerry Seinfeld’s comments on college students as evidence that… um… something.

Humor has changed a lot over the last five years. What we thought was funny… and even Seinfeld is saying it’s really difficult to be a comedian nowadays because things are misunderstood in the context of humor. Yes you can have a laugh about potty humor or about googly eyes, but the point is you’re also secondarily liking and validating vandalism without… in a way that you may not have intended, but is a direct validation of vandalism.

The call goes on and on like this, with there being two main complaints, both of which are bullshit:

1. This is an endorsement of vandalism (and even potentially “violence”) and…
2. Some others had highlighted Kohen’s “like” and were using the fact that Kohen is a professor at UNL to further promote this image.

From there, Archer “threatens” to “put this out there”:

And frankly we have a 1st amendment opportunity to put you out there in front of everybody and put it clearly as “why is a professor liking vandalism?” We can do that publicly. Would you like that? That’s our 1st Amendment right too?

Kohen, who certainly seems to have a much better grasp of the optics here, points out to Archer how that might backfire:

Kohen: I think it’d be a terrible idea for you, if I’m being perfectly honest.

Archer: No. How so?

Kohen: Because the [disbelieving laugh] optics of this are terrible Reyn.

Archer then complains that he was calling to “come to an accommodation” and is frustrated that it seems “that is not possible with you.” To which Kohen rightly asks (incredulously) what possible “accommodation” he would think is necessary or appropriate. To which Archer, hilariously replies:

For you to understand the optics of this, and you don’t…

About those optics. Since this went public late yesterday, tons of publications have picked up this story. Here’s a snapshot from Google News:

Now, perhaps I’m no communications expert, but I don’t see any of those articles calling out Kohen for daring to “like” a silly sign defacement. They all seem to be reflecting pretty negatively on Fortenberry and his chief of staff.

Speaking of his chief of staff, Archer seems to have a bit of a history of being controversial himself. The first President Bush appointed him as the head of “Family Planning” at the Department of Health and Human Services, leading to a bunch of complaints about his lack of qualifications for the job:

“He has no credibility in the family planning community,” said Judith M. DeSarno, executive director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which represents clinics funded by Title X. “He is well-meaning, but he confuses empathy with the idea that he has to protect people from themselves.” NFPRHA disinvited Archer to its last conference because so many of his views were “anathema” to its members, DeSarno said. Archer said he remains ready to work with them.

“I have nothing in common with the man, and no respect for him based on his political attitude,” said Joan Hinneberry, who administers the Title X program in Colorado. “I have real problems with someone who accepts tax dollars to run a program he’s basically trying to destroy.”

“I advise people never to talk to him alone, because he twists what you say and uses it against you,” said Betsy Render, executive director of the Wyoming Reproductive Health Council. “We have lots of problems in family planning, and the only thing he wanted to talk about {during a visit} was abortion.”

Later, the younger Bush, George W., appointed Archer to be the Texas commissioner of health, where he made quite a bit of news for what was described as “nutty (and possibly racist) comments” that eventually resulted in Archer resigning in controversy. Indeed, when Fortenberry hired Archer in 2016, he had to defend the hiring over those comments. Some of those comments came from (wait for it…) a tape recorded conversation made by a woman who worked for Archer which was described as “a rambling, mostly one-sided conversation,” in which Archer makes repeated nonsensical references to his employee’s race, and talks about lynchings and privilege.

Anyway, back to the call. Kohen continues to ask why this conversation is even happening, and Archer keeps falsely stating that Kohen was supporting vandalism, and then makes various references to other professors getting negative publicity over their political views, with Kohen accurately pointing out that those were all very different situations. At that point, things get super bizarre again, as Archer references the widely debunked theory of “broken windows policing” as the reason he’s calling. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Archer: We all live in an ecosystem in which all these things hold together. Are you familiar with Felton Earls in broken windows at Harvard.

*pause*

Kohen: Uh… no, I’m not.

Archer: So you don’t know anything about broken windows as a theory?

Kohen: (incredulous) The broken windows theory of policing?!?

Archer: Well, it’s the idea that if you leave broken windows, it means you’re going to let the festering of other things happen. You can’t leave broken windows in a community without allowing the community to continue to believe it’s appropriate to break windows and do other things. That’s the point.

The conversation keeps going around in circles, and then Kohen correctly notes what this is: a violation of the First Amendment, in which a government official is clearly threatening and putting pressure on a constituent over his protected expression:

The suggestion seems to be that professors should watch what they say, whether they’re in the classroom, or not in the classroom, professors should watch what they say. And one of the big concerns, as you know, with the First Amendment, is that chilling effect that this kind of discussion that we’re having right now can have on speech.

Archer then responds in a way that suggests he has… a very, very confused understanding of the 1st Amendment.

I think there are limitations and problems created by both the left and the right around this issue. And I think that there should not be a chilling effect on your right to speak about ideas. But if you tell someone to go blow up a bomb, or you tell somebody to go vandalize, or you validate and say an inference that vandalism is a part of political discourse, by inference, you have to be careful about whether your are constraining yourself in the context of the 1st Amendment, in which… it ends when your fist hits my jaw, as you know.

We all know that this is a very complicated area. And we also know that it’s important… It’s foundational to this civilization without question. We couldn’t survive without it. At the same time, the way we do it, also allows us to continue to do it. To be in this robust conversation with each other. So we’re saying, and requesting that you look at your behavior and think about it as being an inference of supporting vandalism, which we don’t think is appropriate political discourse.

So, just to be clear, if you’re a government official telling someone else that clicking the “like” button (which courts have already said clearly are protected speech under the First Amendment) is “inappropriate public discourse,” you are the one violating the First Amendment.

Either way, the call goes on and on and on, around and around for nearly an hour. Frankly, Kohen has the level of patience of a saint as the conversation continues and Archer’s argument gets more and more ridiculous, and very carefully considers each and every wacky argument presented by Archer. Incredibly, Kohen tries, multiple times, to end the call, and Archer just keeps wanting it to go on, and pressing Kohen to somehow apologize for clicking the like button. Still, by the end the two end the call on a more friendly note and have a conversation about getting past political differences and improving government — which is great. But… just the fact that the entire call came about over a like, and it involved a government official (1) complaining to multiple levels of bosses over a university professor and (2) further threatening to publicly shame that professor over his daring decision to “like” a silly joke on Facebook is insane.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ari kohen, broken windows policing, fartenberry, free speech, jeff fortenberry, likes, politics, reyn archer, streisand effect, william reynolds archer iii