ItÂ’s easy to condemn the vandalism, the hatred and the violence. I am sure everyone here joins in this condemnation.
But there’s still the uncomfortable fact that many European opinion-makers are reveling in provocation – not only reprinting the cartoons but piling on new offense.
In France the right-wing tab France-Soir already ran the pics. Now Charlie-Hebdo [no website], a leftist satirical weekly with roots in the May 1968 student rebellion, runs the Danish portfolio and its own, new, cover illustration that you can see here. Titled “Mohammed overtaken by fundamentalists,” it shows the usual dark-and-swarthy Prophet with his head in his hands, exclaiming (using the rude word cons): “It’s hard being worshipped by idiots!”
Meanwhile the editor of Jyllands-Posten has decided that not content with offending Muslims, he also wants to offend Jews; and announces, in a particularly tasteful comparison, that accusing him of provocation is like accusing a woman of causing her own rape:
The Danish paper responsible for the original caricatures of the prophet Muhammad is set to stoke the row further by running cartoons satirising the Holocaust.
Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, said today he was trying to get in touch with the Iranian paper, Hamshari, which plans to run an international competition seeking cartoons about the Holocaust.
“My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with the Iranian newspaper, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them,” Mr Rose told CNN. Â…
Mr Rose said he did not regret publishing the pictures.
“I think it is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a discotheque [on] Friday night,” he said.
“If you’re wearing a short skirt that does not necessarily mean you invite everybody to have sex with you. If you make a cartoon, make fun of religion, make fun of religious figures, that does not imply that you humiliate or denigrate or marginalise a religion.”[Link]
ItÂ’s still all about freedom of speech, right?
It’s provocation to show support for free speech by publishing cartoons that are provocative or controversial or even down-right offensive?
Yeah. I don’t get that.
Okay, my comment makes no sense. Not the first time 🙂 Things that are provocative…..anyway, you get the rest of this.
I guess what I meant was: when is provocation okay and when is it not? I’m sure the papers are trying to be provocative, but they might argue they are being provocative in order to make a point about free speech – like publishing Maplethorpe photos or pictures of Bush as a baboon or Iranian papers putting up anti-semitic photos. But, if the point is to say: hey, we know these photos are provocative, but we think in a free society we should be able to do this without violence or threats of it, what kind of provocation is it? Good or bad provocation?
Whlie it can be argued that the initial publication of the cartoons was an exercise in free-speech, the way the incident has since been aggravated by publishers in Europe is unfortunate and in poor taste. I don’t think that the sort of defense of free speech that was utilized in cases like Taha Hussein, Naguib Mahfouz, Rushdie etc apply to this case – what scholarly or artistic puspose these cartoons serve?
Wow – I feel dumb for having given such an asshole a millisecond of my attention. Now it’s definitely nothing more than a provocative PR stunt.
Unless he’s doing it in the name of Academic Freedom, of course, in which case I completely support him :p
“applies”, “do these cartoons serve”
Okay, one last comment given that I’ve already made a fool of myself with the provocative/provocation snafu.
Maybe provocation in this environment is okay. You have a perfect storm here, an incident which serves as a proxy for a lot of different things: societies that are feeling stressed by trying to balance traditional ideas of free speech with new cultures that have a different understanding of the public realm. So, I guess I don’t understand what you are trying to say. That there are two equal wrongs here? That we have to understand how these images are stirring people up? How is that? I’m a woman and I see degrading images of women all the time in the greater society: I don’t go on a rampage. So what if these images are degrading or provocative? It’s up to you, the individual, to give power to images: they have no power in and of themselves. Only the viewer can do this. Only the viewer can do this.
(Speaking of provocation, apparently many of these protests were organized by the usual culprits, with doctored images used to rile up said culprits. Have you seen those reports? Very convenient, I’d say).
How do you calm down millions of muslims up in arms over a cartoon, hey it’s easy, attack the Jews!
How do you calm down Indians if they’re insulted, shit all over Pakistan of course.
How do you rip on Americans, tell the Russians their Vodka is crap. Oh wait, that one is outdated by 15 years. My bad.
Sadly, it still is. But instead of engaging in this juveline form of tit for tat reactions, if Arab countries had the balls, they would simply say, “No more oil for you”. But Kings and Princes still need the cash to roll around in their 5 trillion benzs and Maybachs.
You can file a lawsuit, make the paper pay. But this emotional outrage doesn’t give anyone didly squat. Seriously, the internet is full of far more nasty stuff, yet no one is running around yelling and killing.
GujuDude:
Why would this calm millions of Muslims down?
I can’t help but think that most of the same people who are up in arms about “provocation” here would be LEAPING TO THE FRAY to defend “provocation” if / when it’s directed against some Western symbol –
This outsized focus on avoiding provocation is just a form of rule by he who hath the thinnest skin.
And how was the provocation related to kashmir palestine and iran. BBC had a bit on why no embassies were burnt this time in pakistan, and an annoymous answer was b/c this time we(pakistanis) dont want the US to think Islam is volatile. It was hillarious as the reference was was to the image created by zia that pakistan will either flip to the iranian style or american style if the US doesnt support them and consider them a major ally against russians. Here it is [from bbc]
But, if the point is to say: hey, we know these photos are provocative, but we think in a free society we should be able to do this without violence or threats of it
I guess they are re-printing the cartoons to show that they are not intimidated by the embassy burning/boycott of Danish products.
The Muslim street insane response has now in a way encouraged the Europeans to not back down or back down and lose face. So now its a question of who blinks first. I think the Europeans will now keep coming out with cartoons which are even more derogatory towards Muhammad/Islam/Muslims. If they dont, it will look like the Muslim street won and Europe lost.
This sad escalation will eventually lead to the killing of one of the European cartoonists followed by Europeans burning down a few dozen mosques (like in the Van Gogh case) followed by even more hysteria on the American Right Wing blogosphere about Eurabia/dhimmitude/total war.
Vinod_at_large: Do you see any difference between provocation which offends/humiliates the majority/people in control and offending/humiliating a vulnerable minority? I am sure you dont and that is why my friend you are a conservative leaning libertarian.
The reason liberals in the West dont mind satirizing Jesus, the white man, churches is because they are in power and not a vulnerable minority and they can handle it, while at the same time the liberals would be up in arms against the satirizing of Blacks, Gays and Muslims is because these groups are a minority and stigmatizing them will not be the same as stigmatizing people in power.
There is a difference between limitation in speech in a international and US context. This situation is going to explode, and the Danes, the French, are misguided to provoke it as if they have nothing to gain. As I describe below, limitations on speech were incorporated into the UN charter for this very reason: the power of xenophobia. Abhi was at least respectful.
I never thought I would believe that I am going to put forth this idea, but even in our great bastion of democracy, the first amendment is limited by context when there is clear and present danger. As Justice Holmes once said in the landmark case that even troubles me:
We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=249&invol=47
Let me be clear that I absolutely disagree with the conclusion in Schenk as applied to the United States; in that case a man was sentenced to 20 years for “sedition” and “espionage” because he promoted membership in the Communist party. Schenk presents the same argument that we have against the US government in its overreaching in the war on terror. As Schenk’s counsel pointed out:
source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/curiae/html/249-47/001.htm
But we are no longer talking about speech in a nation, a republic. We are talking about a global context. The UN Charter and subsequent international conventions adopted after WWII and reflect limitations of speech in global rights because they were borne out of WW II and the horrifying resounding reality that the persecuation of Jews and Kurds and Gypsies and entire races came both from actions and inflammatory speech, ie mein kampf, that persuaded entire peoples to kill others based purely on such racialized hatred. Thus, international law, out of the profound experience of how xenophobia can spin out of control, by words, charicatures of racialized images, puts limits on hate speech and speech that can inflame. These laws reflect a principled distinction between speech within a nation and speech between nations and peoples. These laws respect a difference between exchanging ideas and spreading hate.
Yep, those (poor) jews / xtians who (still) live in Arab countries sure know a thing or 2 about being a vulnerable minority.
I’ll grant that there’s some aspect where majority / minority issues play out but I’m still ultimately far more “individualist” than “group membership” oriented about this sort of stuff. The ultimate diff b/t the “conservative / libertarian” view here and the “liberal” one is the DEGREE to which minority status provides cover. For me, when there’s a philosophy that so directly attacks free speech, subjugates women, advocates violence to achieve these ends, yadda yadda yadda, I give it very little cover – regardless of majority / minority status.
Well, it depends how the situation is handled. If the offense taken by a community (“Eastern” or “Western”), against a particular expression of free speech which apparantely serves no greater purpose than provocation, is then spun into cheap publicity and further provocation I’m not with the “leapers”.
Unless they’re Republican evangelicals in power in the U.S. 😉
Anji, That is an interesting analysis and I largely agree with it. However, it should be pointed out that radical Muslim clerics from Denmark are the ones who first spread these cartoons out of one country (where they were published in a small-time local paper) and then distributed them (and other more incendiary ones that were never published) across the Muslim world. At this point as AMfD says in comment 11, this is about losing face. Many who believe in the freedom of speech feel that appeasement is a greater sin than needless provocation. If radical Islam sees that violence or the threat of violence is enough to change free countries, while their own corrupt autocratic governments remain the same, then where does that leave the world?
Many who believe in the freedom of speech feel that appeasement is a greater sin than needless provocation. If radical Islam sees that violence or the threat of violence is enough to change free countries,…
i don’t see how it’s changing anything. the original cartoons got published and nobody’s taking jyllands-posten out of circulation. the reprintings are happening without impediment. the danish paper issued a provocation, and found muslim activists unsophisticated enough to take the bait; the escalation proceeded from there in a spiral as AMfD points out. now the papers i mentioned in the post are just piling on. it’s already degenerated completely which is why so many people are turned off and unwilling to say anything on the entire matter.
what i find unpleasant is that the euro papers are doing this in the name of “freedom of speech.” they are not. it’s fascinating that in the united states, where the doctrine and practice of free speech are far more entrenched than in europe, nobody is hurrying to print the cartoons.
i find that american free-speech values and american multicultural values seem to blend quite well here to produce a general reasonableness. american papers aren’t bandying the cartoons about, and american muslims aren’t calling for jihad. the same apparently in canada. what about australia?
the purported opposition between free-speech and multiculturalism is a total red herring. free-speech and multiculturalism seem to me to go well together, and what we are currently seeing in europe is a deficit of both.
peace
This sad escalation will eventually lead to the killing of one of the European cartoonists followed by Europeans burning down a few dozen mosques (like in the Van Gogh case) followed by even more hysteria on the American Right Wing blogosphere about Eurabia/dhimmitude/total war.
i predict that an order of magnitude or more muslims in muslim countries will die than any non-muslims (byproduct of rioting and what not).
Do you see any difference between provocation which offends/humiliates the majority/people in control and offending/humiliating a vulnerable minority?
much of europe is post-christian. this is probably one reason that the vatican is siding with muslims.
woops, forgot to blockquote the first sentence in my comment (#19). it was a quote from from abhi (#18).
I’ve beat this horse dead by now, but if you want to be respected like a grown up, you have to act like one. These newspapers may be publishing more stuff ‘provoking’, prodding, inciting, etc. They may be racist. By reacting to these articles, people play right into the hands of the instigators (on either side). It’s like a heckler in the stands during a game. Hecklers can talk a bunch of shit, call names, moon the players, etc. But by losing your cool and getting all pissed off, you lose your mental edge, focus, and ultimately the heckler got what the wanted.
You don’t see these religious leaders showing tapes of, um, erotic entertainment that at times has some pretty crazy stuff with relgious charcters used at times. Again, the internet is a far more open forum with lots of stuff being said and published that would ‘offend people’, and there is no way to stop that content from reaching the masses.
Ditto.
Changes the focus, by calm I mean venting their frustrations somehwere else. And it was a comment not to be taken too seriously. More of an observation of what people try to do, despite the lack of any success by using such a strategy. It’s more of a temporary smoke screen that lasts, say, all but 2 seconds.
it’s fascinating that in the united states, where the doctrine and practice of free speech are far more entrenched than in europe, nobody is hurrying to print the cartoons.
most americans respect religion, period (unless you are some elephant worshipping hindu). more americans dislike atheists than they do muslims.
the purported opposition between free-speech and multiculturalism is a total red herring. free-speech and multiculturalism seem to me to go well together, and what we are currently seeing in europe is a deficit of both.
america is less operationally multicultural than much of europe in that there is more mixing. many muslims live totally separate from non-muslims in europe (though not all, see the relatively low religiosity of french muslims as a case in point).
The cartoons were not well publicised till muslims in non european countries started to publicise them. Condi did single out iran and syria using this for political gain. The cartoons were not published in india or afghanistan, but there were hooligan style protest there too.
I’ve beat this horse dead by now, but if you want to be respected like a grown up, you have to act like one.
not unless people demand that you do.
amj’s point that this is an attack on minorities vs. majorities in well taken in response to vinod’s query about (some) liberal absolutism for free speech being equivocal in this case, but, the reaction of muslims is many orders of magnitude more extreme than christian nutsos has been. controlling for all variables i would still say that this wreaks to me of be-careful-the-savages-aren’t-grown-up.
Vinod_at_Large
This is not an attack, but don’t you think it more than just “some” majority/minority relations. You don’t think, that Daneish parlimentarians calling Muslims “a cancer on Danish society” perhaps describes what this is really all about (They could run for Shiv Sena with a platform like that). How about selective persecution of blashphemy laws? It was all about race. We talk about the west as if it’s some kind of monolithic culture. Danes are not the same as Brits, Americans, Canadians or even French. It is an almost completely homogeneous society, that has been playing up its socialist credentials and pretending to know something about integrating with others. Easy to do in theory, I guess. Faced with reality of the first wave of immigration, they turn into these aloof biggots who seem to be saying: How dare people living in Denmark have different values than us? How dare these people don’t appreciate hours of porno on TV?
one thing, i’ll go on the record that i if i had to choose between
a) no disrespect of religion b) disrespect of islam but not christianity c) disrespect of christianity but not islam d) disrespect of both
i would go d, (c|b), a. the rank order of c & b is conditional on the context, in the USA i would probably pick c) since islam is a weak force here, and in europe b) since christianity is relatively moribund.
Agreed.
How dare people living in Denmark have different values than us? How dare these people don’t appreciate hours of porno on TV?
hallelujah!
look, there aren’t many places where TV-porn is appreciated. there are dozens of muslim states, but only a few nordic states. i will stand up and say that nordic states should keep their culture the way it is, and too many muslims as they behave themselves is a cancer. i have a friend in copenhagen and he jokes about how he’s never seen so many headscarves in his life. shit, i’m taking a stand with spinoza, get out of the damn ghetto!
come on guys, speak with your mouse clicks, stand up for porn!
re: values, i’m with the crowd that says some values are nonnegotiable. the rights won by the persecution of voltaire, the imprisonment of diderot, etc. are not negotiable. spicy food? check. colorful dress? dress. new slang? check. new musical styles? check. hybrid children? check. there are many things that i think are cool, and are probably acceptable to broad swaths of modern people in many nations. but, sacrificing the felicitous freedoms won by the quirks of european history from the wars of religion to world war II are not negotiable.
enough of the world already respects “traditional values” and “decency.”
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Porn is the secret weapon. You can fight em, you can shoot em, you can bayonet guys, you can send the diplomats in all in vain.
Everyone has gone about this the wrong way. Shit, all we needed to do is send Jenna Jameson in.
razib_the_atheist
I would be with you, but I don’t think that you can have a dialouge with anyone who attacks your core values. Do you think the cartoons were meant to start a cross cultural dialouge? Of course not. The right wing paper (which has the largest circulation of any news paper in Denmark) wasn’t planning on it’s cartoons to get out. They were creating an atmosphere of hate and intolerence in their own community and flexing it’s ‘secular’ muscles, openly provoking the ethin minority communities whose values differed from the majority. I’d be interested in seeing how many ‘tolerant and open minded’ Danes have cancelled the subscription to the newspaper since the story hit the fan.
The fact the story got out and has become a useful propaganda tool is a statement about globalization and the manipulative skills of Islamic Fundamentalists.
On a side note did anybody notice:
More than 900 Danish websites have been hacked, with a further 1,600 western sites attacked and defaced. Does anybody know what kind of manpower would be required to pull this off?
Excuse my Hinglish please the last post had an error,
Note to self: preview before posting
I wrote: The right wing paper (which has the largest circulation of any news paper in Denmark) wasn’t planning on it’s cartoons to get out.
I meant: The right wing paper (which has the largest circulation of any news paper in Denmark) wasn’t planning on it’s cartoons to reaching the greater muslim community, the images were for it’s core audience (Danes with right wing values).
In the first place, “Muslims” aren’t protesting violently against the cartoons. If they were, the mobs would be tens and hundreds of thousands, not thousands and hundreds. What’s happening is that “some Muslims” are protesting violently. So one has to ask, who are they? Aside from the obvious suspects — rabble-rousing, ignorant clerics — I would guess the crowds are made up of underemployed males in their late teens and twenties, the same crew that in all cultures at all times is prone to engaging in mob violence. The cause is immaterial — soccer, anti-globalization protests, etc. And always, these mob-lovers, these testosterone-expenders, give a bad name to the far larger group of more reasonable people that they are taken to represent.
Because, in the second place, “Muslims” in the aggregate are offended by the cartoons. They have good reason to be. I’m not a Muslim, but I’ve read several biographies of Mohammed, and it’s obvious to me that some of the cartoons in particular are based in utter ignorance. Satire is pointed, witty criticism; it presumes intelligence on the part of the satirist. Real satire requires knowledge of the object of the satire on the part of the satirist. When Jonathan Swift wrote his Modest Proposal, he knew the situation in Ireland and he knew the nature of the English ruling class. The Danish cartoons, with a couple of exceptions, appear to have been written by juvenile know-nothings, the cartoonist equivalent of the bile-filled flamers that are the bane of comment boards on the Internet. They clearly know nothing of Mohammed and tar all Muslims with the al-Q brush.
No matter what you think of his religious credentials, Mohammed was a decent, loving man who genuinely tried to improve human society. He was well aware that there would be people to come who would claim to be his followers who would grievously distort his message. I’m all for freedom of speech — but I’m opposed to the sanctification of ignorance. As far as I’m concerned, most of the Danish cartoonists are ignorant fools. As are the violent rioters.
Abhi wrote:
it should be pointed out that radical Muslim clerics from Denmark are the ones who first spread these cartoons out of one country
Actually, it was Ahmed Akkari, a ‘born-again’ Muslim Dane. You can read an interview with him here. Some excerpts:
Akkari grappled awkwardly with the global emergency that has sprung from his mission. Friends, strangers and close family members are now blaming him for exactly the thing he says he was trying to prevent: the caricaturing of Muslims as violent fanatics.
The riots, he acknowledged, have placed his fellow European Muslims in a far worse position than they had previously known.
He even seemed embroiled in the same fear that has gripped most Danes this week. “This could get a lot worse, and it could make life worse for Muslims here. If we can sort it out, if we can do something to help, make people take responsibility _ all the people involved _ then we have a chance of this violence not happening any more.”
He had never meant this to be more than an internal Danish conflict, he says. It was meant to be a technical matter: How to get the government to acknowledge that something had gone wrong in this close-knit society, something that had caused its largest newspaper to ignore the feelings of a minority whose members number 180,000 in a country of 5.4 million.
Too late now, buddy
Siddhartha,
I fully disagree with you in your final analysis.
I wrote a few comments on Abhi’s post, and similar to posts actually written by Muslims at Desicritics. I understand a muslim’s feel of hurt. Respect is important.
It seems there was maybe some latent xenophobia when the cartoons were published, and it points to a deeper problem. Cicatrix and Scandanavian Hippie talked about it.
However,
The moment you take away the Freedom of Speech and Expression you take away the foundations of democracy. I support European newspapers publishing them as an act of solidarity. More important than that is you cannot be a hostage to whims of a group (be any religous or political group) – should we all seek permission before we write, draw, and speak at all time – no object certificate for everything, that is censorship.
siddharth m
Perhaps it’s because free speech as we understand it in the US is not as ‘entrenched’ (as you put it) in some European countries that it is so irresistable to republish these pictures. Am I making my point clear? I mean, maybe the safety valve has to go off once in a while and it can’t if you can’t really say what you think. And here comes the pressure cooker, and here comes the safety valve……
I meant:
…….no objection certificate for everything we do at all times, that is censorship.
It’s interesting that most people who staunchly defend free speech also generally identify themselves as being not religious. Notice however, they treat free speech exactly as if it were a religion. They have nothing at stake if Jesus or Allah or Ganesh are attacked but no-one dare touch their deity of free speech. If you take the context out of a situation you’re left with nothing but blind faith. In this connection, I appreciated Abhi’s post (not the substance of it which I didn’t agree with at all) because he chose to use his discretion in censoring a part of the cartoon and saying that comments would be screened. So you see, by instinct people do get it right even if theoretically they worship at the altar of free speech. For the first time in my life I find myself on the same side as the Vatican. I too believe there is no need to be deliberately insulting and peoples’ feelings count for something. This does not mean I will feel this way in every situation. The dominant powers can be provoked and I have no problem with Jesus cartoons even if they are offensive.
I don’t think this controversy is about free speech at all. There is a lot of anger on both sides and it would be good if people tried to get at the bottom of it. I sympathize with the European predicament of feeling that they are being required to submit to Islam and not just be tolerant of it.
kush,
where did i say anything to the contrary? i note that amid all this noise, no newspapers that are printing this stuff are getting penalized for doing so. it seems to me that freedom of speech in this matter is holding up pretty well, against considerable pressure.
all i am saying is that it’s way too easy for certain european papers to reprint the pictures using “freedom of speech” as a mask for an underlying project which is, at least in part, and consciously or not, to react against the role islam plays in their societies. it’s a pretty shallow substitute for honest debate.
but as far as i am concerned, sure, those papers are free to print whatever they like. and we are free to analyze what it all means. (and MD, i think i agree with your last point.)
on a psychological level, one thing i see at work here, is that it looks like powerful white males (of all political stripes) in europe are feeling a lot more defensive/insecure about their cultural status than are powerful white males (of all political stripes) in america.
an interesting observation, no?
“on a psychological level, one thing i see at work here, is that it looks like powerful white males (of all political stripes) in europe are feeling a lot more defensive/insecure about their cultural status than are powerful white males (of all political stripes) in america.”
siddhartha,
That is probably true.
That is why I really hope some of European Muslim leaders step up to the plate for dialogue. Middle East and South Asia needs to back off.
Divya
What do you mean freedom of speech is not absolute?
I for one will prove that I can not be oppressed and that the freedom of speech is absolute. I will go to a crowded theatre and scream Fire. Democracy demands it.
If a few people get hurt, it’s really their problem, they should respect my rights to free speech.
Come on Mutineers, fight for democracy. Each of you go to a crowded theatre this weekend and scream fire. We must all do this or else the facist-firementalist will win.
Totally wrong, see FAQ under ‘free speech.’
on a psychological level, one thing i see at work here, is that it looks like powerful white males (of all political stripes) in europe are feeling a lot more defensive/insecure about their cultural status than are powerful white males (of all political stripes) in america.
an interesting observation, no?
Very interesting. Europe is declining in so many ways–demographicaly (the “great” city of Milan, in the news toay, has a population of 1.3 million–it wouldn’t even be a suburb in China!), economically (overall percentage of world gdp), and it has much less cultural influence than it once did.
Itchy and Scratchy watch out the president is on the case.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/08/news/web.0208bush2.php
Van Desi –
If these they were marching around with signs protesting stuff like that, I’d agree with them. If they were protesting that while threatening beheadings, I’d DISAGREE with them. But what’s worst, is that they’re carrying signs like this AND threatening beheadings, suicide bombs, etc.
At this point, we’re far from a case of “look what we’ve brought upon ourselves” but are instead, facing bedrock principles which are in diametric conflict.
It’s interesting that most people who staunchly defend free speech also generally identify themselves as being not religious. Notice however, they treat free speech exactly as if it were a religion. They have nothing at stake if Jesus or Allah or Ganesh are attacked but no-one dare touch their deity of free speech.
Well then, if I gotta be representin’, then I guess I better start representin’. Yo. I AM RELIGIOUS, AND I STAUNCHLY DEFEND FREE SPEECH. Got that?
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, Vinod is religious too. This is probably the first time we’ve agreed on anything remotely political ever.
Why has no one in America published the cartoons? Well first of all, I’m not even sure that’s true. But if you’re asking why have the major papers not published the cartoons–the answer is very simple. Americans–the most continuous experience with the philosophy of free speech–realize that just b/c you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. Amazingly subtle distinction, apparently. You can go through the comments sections and find hte Laxmi thong. I hated it. I condemned it. It made me sad. If I meet the maker at a paty, I will refuse to talk to them unless they apologize. I will staunchly oppose their participating in any Laxmi-centric religious activities. But you know what? I’m not going to hit them, and Im not going to call on the state to hit them, either literally or figuratively. Laxmi has Her own posse that can take care of that stuff with far greater precsion than I can. I regard vengeful violence exerted on not-violence as expressing a lack of faith in Divinity.
I actually see my religiosity and my love of free speech as a piece. In my room on one wall hangs religious paintings, and on another wall hangs the First Amendment, written on the flag. Let me loudly declare my love for my God without fear of reprisal, and let anyone who watches me and considers that love know that I am NOT declaring it loudly because I am afraid of the state or of a mob, and let the signifier of that knowledge be the fact that the jack-ass down the road who needs to loudly declare his hatred of my God can do so without fear of violence, and let the watcher be free to discern which signal is most true and most sincere without outside interference.
I WANT to know who the jackasses are. I want them to feel free to say they are jackasses without being attacked. Then I can avoid them. There is nothing more religiously repulsive to me than the notion of a temple/mosque/church full of worshippers who are secretly blasphemous in their heart but who worship in public simply to stay safe.
Each of you go to a crowded theatre this weekend and scream fire.
Very clever. Let’s think about that shall we.
In both situations a signal is delivered (screaming) and received. In this example the signal contains information that must either be acted upon immediately (i.e. wihtout time for thought or examination) or ignored. If it is true, and ignored, the recipient risks death. If it is not true, and acted upon, the recipient risks death. The recipient has no time to evaluate the verity of the signal, and the risks entailed in ignoring it are absolute.
In another a signal is printed on a piece of paper. That paper is picked up at a newsstand and read. (Or fine, transmitted through the internet.) There is no lack of time to evaluate the source and credibility and of the signal source, nor is there any immediate threat contained in it. BOTH of the conditions that make the fire signal dangerous–the risk involved, and the opportunity to evaluate–are missing. ANY remotely reasonable human being–older than the age of 5 and not retarded–has the capacity to evaluate the signal and ignore the signal (or shove it out of the MUST GO KILL SOMEONE pile and onto the BLOG ON SEPIA MUTINY pile) with plenty of time and attention. There is no immediate threat, there is no lack of time to process the signal, there is no necessary physical reaction involved, really. The threat, as it exists, is cultural. And it can be responded to in a cultural medium. Like more cartoons. Or a sarcastic blogpost. Or even boycotting. Fine. But torching embassies? Demanding that the Danish state do something about it* Those are responses that are out of proportion. Proportion, what a concept. Speech, press, religious belief are all mental actions, fundamentally–and proportionatley, they should not be subjected to physical force.
*Yes, I realize the Danish state has anti-blasphemy laws, and well, that’s also ridiculous, but it’s not clear to me that they’re ever actually enforced.
this is only partially true… I’ve seen ’em on major network news and a blogger I read regularly (Virgina Postrel) has a screen cap w/ a very visible “Fox News” logo in the bottom left (here).
FWIW… the blogosphere has reported that CNN did NOT show them… So I wonder if this is just selective outlets within the US…. “Provocative” conspiratorialist that I am, I wonder what the correlation is b/t outlets that didn’t show the cartoon picts for fear of creating even more outrage vs. ones who had a media field day with Abu Ghraib picts…
Saheli,
Well said.
NPR discussed US media role this morning. The cartoons have been published in US – even of one of major news network did for some of them earlier.
I think the majority of US media has refrained because they can on their own volition – not out of fear – as you said.
I may have not drawn Prophet Mohammad cartoon out of respect or I may have (who knows – I have not thought about it) but I am not going to tell others not to do it.
If they are lying about something, I will get upset and try my best to defend truth but not get violent.
Wha??? I fail to see the connection – and I also fail to see how such a spurious relationship can be drawn between the two that are often seen to coexist. I’m not even going to start to list various staunchly religious groups who freely expound their ideology in states where free speech is constitutionally upheld, precisely because they are free to express their bigotry or religious beliefs without fear of violent retribution or persecution.
It most certainly is at the heart of it all. Its about whether or not people have the right to offend, which relates to whether or not one can express themselves freely, even if that means saying (or drawing) something offensive.