The Defining Freedom
David Summerlin, a frequent writer in our comments section, is a vocal critic of The Stranger’s decision to re-print the Danish Mohammed cartoons—which we did in the context of a piece about the uproar. That piece, “All the Rage: , is by Bruce Bawer, and it can be read here .
In response to my post earlier today, David S. wrote…
Of course you can talk about it as a “straight up freedom of speech issue.” Now, as then, that characterization would be oversimple and not quite accurate…I take a contrary position to yours not because I oppose “free speech,” but because I consider your strategy impotent and showy. I don’t even oppose the republication of the cartoons — I only oppose republishing them in a reactionary context that escalates a dangerous holy war.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. David does go on. Our re-publication of the cartoons was not “reactionary,” whatever that means in this context. And, I’m sorry, but Danish, French, German, and American writers, editors, and bloggers are not guilty of escalating a “dangerous holy war,” it’s the idiots rioting in the streets (some of them on the orders of their governments), to say nothing of the Saudi clerics calling for the “trial and punishment” of the cartoonists who drew the original twelve images (some of which weren’t even of Mohammed), who are guilty of that. (You gotta love those Saudi cleric: try `em and punish them. Gee, if the cartoonists are already guilty, and punishment is a foregone conclusion, why bother with a trial?)
The publication of the original twelve cartoons was not a provocation; the rioting, burning of embassies, issuing of death threats, and calls for beheadings are. This is an assault on free speech—period. It is an attempt by the most reactionary, conservative, backward adherents of one the world’s most reactionary, conservative, backward world religions to impose their religious taboos on people who do not share their beliefs. That some, like David, are all too willing to grab ankles in order to avoid escalating a holy war that they intend on fighting whatever we do only proves that some folks don’t get it: If we start trimming our rights to mollify these religious bigots, where does it end? If freedom of speech is the first thing we’re willing to sacrifice, is there anything we’re willing to defend?
I was stewing about all of this on my flight to Portland. At the airport I bought the latest issue of The Economist. I was delighted to find this stirring, kick-ass, fuck-the-ankle-grabbers editorial—their lead editorial—in the magazine.
Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies . When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France’s interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”…Shouldn’t the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.
In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. …
There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them…
Go read the whole terrific, blistering, bracing piece here.
Excellent post, Dan.
I want to know: is the re-printing of photos and videos of the crimes of Abu Ghraib also flaming this so-called 'Holy War'? The U.S. government seems to think so and I couldn't disagree more.