Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

On March 6, 1996, the "Jenny Jones Show" (a daytime talk show) taped a program about secret crushes. At that taping, guest Scott Amedure revealed his admiration of fellow guest Jonathan Schmitz. Schmitz, who had been told by producers that his secret admirer could be a man or a woman, blushed and smiled. The two guys, along with friends and audience members, laughed and joked good-naturedly about Scott's crush. After the taping, Scott and Jonathan, accompanied by their mutual friend Donna, went out drinking, continuing friendly banter about the program.

View our poll archive

But three days later, things went tragically bad. Jonathan Schmitz bought a shotgun, went to Scott Amedure's home, and shot him dead.

His defense at his criminal trial was that he had been driven to the murder by the humiliation suffered on the Jenny Jones Show. The jury didn't buy it, and held Scott accountable. (He has since, though, been granted a new trial on technical grounds.)

Last month, Scott's family sued the Jenny Jones Show claiming that it, not Jonathan Schmitz, was responsible for Scott's death. The jury in this civil case agreed, and awarded Scott's family $25 million.

Some gay groups and individuals have praised the jury award as "encouraging accountability" for the easy-to-ridicule and often sensationalistic daytime talk shows. But thoughtful consideration reveals that gay people have two special reasons to be scared of this appalling decision.

First, mischief occurs when individuals are encouraged to blame others for their own actions. Jonathan says Jenny humiliated him, and that's why he killed Scott. Such logic invites all violent criminals to evade the personal consequences of their actions by asserting that humiliation or abuse (especially if it has a lurid sexual component) by a parental or authority figure explains and excuses their violence.

If the press can be held legally responsible for the actions of their readers and viewers, censorship is unavoidable. If third parties can be held guilty for another individual's actions, scapegoats are sure to be created. Sexual minorities inevitably suffer when free expression is suppressed and bogey-men are blamed.

The second reason gay people should denounce the Jenny Jones decision is that it forces the media to cater to homophobia. Jenny Jones was doing gay people a service by un-demonizing same-sex attraction; she didn't ridicule her guests nor in any way disparage man-to-man sexual feelings. The show she taped could reasonably be seen as a way to pleasantly normalize same-sex attractions. But the jury's $25 million award coerces Jones and others into deferring to the most homophobic on their stage and in their audience. The court's judgment says that being thought gay is so humiliating that it excuses even murder. Thus, a powerful incentive is established for the media to keep gay issues in the closet lest someone somehow offended sue.

Gay liberation depends on freedom of expression and robust challenging of prevailing sexual attitudes. The Jenny Jones decision inhibits both. Gay people should root for its overturn on appeal because what we need is more-- not less-- talk about girls who are hot for girls, and guys who have crushes on guys. **