[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: IN SOLIDARITY WITH A FREE PRESS: SOME MORE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week. Ive previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting extremist videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. Thats all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. Im hoping this weeks celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some. Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them. But this weeks defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show solidarity with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack, announced Slates editor Jacob Weisberg, is to escalate blasphemous satire. Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens (left). Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery (above, right), and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population. But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated not just on free speech grounds but for their content. In a column entitled The Blasphemy We Need, The New York Times Ross Douthat argued that the right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order and that kind of blasphemy [that provokes violence] is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because its the kind that clearly serves a free societys greater good. New York Magazines Jonathan Chait actually proclaimed that one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice. Voxs Matt Yglesias had a much more nuanced view but nonetheless concluded that to blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one, while the observation that the world would do well without such provocations becomes a form of appeasement. To comport with this new principle for how one shows solidarity with free speech rights and a vibrant free press, were publishing some blasphemous and otherwise offensive cartoons about religion and their adherents: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
It is total insanity to believe you have to not only accept free speech but to actually embrace that which you find offensive. My God is omnipotent and doesn't fear cartoons or free speech. Having said that I find much of the work of Charlie Hebdo insulting to Christians. Would I go and kill them for it? Certainly not because God can handle them in his own way and in his own time. But I don't have to promote their idiocy or embrace it. And those who do are fools (in my opinion). edited to add the specific thing I was responding to. Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|