Free Speech and When To (Not ) Use It

[andrewducker]

I'm somewhat torn over the recent events with the Islamic comics. In case you haven't been following it, the story goes something like this:

A Danish newspaper, covering a story that a writer had been unable to find an illustrator for their children's books about Mohammed (for fear of Islamic extemists), asked a group of cartoonists to draw something about Mohammed. They then published the resulting cartoons, as part of a piece on freedom of speech and the problems of people fearing reprisals for said speech.

This had the expected effect of causing mass uproar across the Islamic world, because (a) Islamic tradition is against images of any of the prophets and (b) one of the images implied Mohammed was a terrorist.

Now, on the one hand, I firmly stand behind people's right to any speech that isn't directly causing harm (i.e. shouting "fire" in a packed cinema, giving out the addresses of people to those that want to kill them, descriptions of how to construct nuclear weapons, etc.). On the other hand, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean that you ought to go around insulting people.

I have several comics that are deeply offensive - Preacher is deeply offensive about Christianity, for instance. Many Northern Irish people of the Unionist persuasion wouldn't be impressed with Troubled Souls. Obergeist is unlikely to go down well with people who lost family in the German concentration camps, and Faust is pretty much offensive to anyone in a 50 foot radius. Should I give them all up and toss them on a pyre?

I was deeply offended that people campaigned against Jerry Springer the Musical. And I'm deeply offended that they are trying to suppress the cartoons. Should the Muslims stop trying to get them banned because _I'm_ offended that they want to?

Should it matter that many Islamic newspapers routinely publish pieces referring to Jews as dogs and eaters of shit? Should we really care if they're offended by other people's imagery when they're publishing their own? Or is that like saying that all British people are responsible for the terrible nonsense published in the Daily Mail?

I think, in the end, that in one sense I wish they hadn't published the cartoons, largely because they mostly aren't any good - they're not that clever, and they aren't saying anything that couldn't be said in a less offensive way. In another sense, I think that not doing something _purely_ because someone out there will be offended will lead to people doing nothing. Everything will offend someone, and people should publish what they feel is right, without worrying too much about their audience.

Free speech includes the right to offensive speech, and much as I'm against the recent attempts to make "reckless" (i.e. accidental) incitement to violence illegal, I'm against any restraint on speech just because it will offend someone. Doing things _just_ to be offensive is generally the resort of the childish, and it doesn't interest me, but I'd rather that people were allowed to be childish than that they weren't.

Comments

[allorin.livejournal.com]

"Drawing Mohammed as a terrorist is starting to look more like hate speech to me. It's propagating a harmful racial stereotype with the purpose of making people hate those evil arabs."

I disagree. Why does the cartoon have to be targetting every Muslim? Why can't it just be targetting those few, but prominent, hardline Muslim factions who actually DO use their religion, and the Prphet Mohammed, as a catalyst for terrorism?

By that rational, there shouldn't, then, be any cartoons depicting Bush or 'America' as butchers in the Middle east, because obviously, we (the rest of the world) thinks that every American is like Bush. /sarcasm.

These cartoons, like any other literature, require interpretation and introspection. America, remember, has huge factions of Christianity that are describing "Harry Potter" as satanic. A kids book. Gimme a break. The thing is, though, in any reasonably thinking country, you'll be allowed to read something yourself, and make up your own mind.

The point I'm trying (badly) to make, is yes, undoubtedly some people will interpret the cartoon as meaning all Arabs are terrorist. Those people are, frankly, as foolish as those people who think all Americans are as irresponsible and dangerous as P. Bush.

However, just because we shouldn't assume all Americans are nuts, doesn't mean we should not challenge the actions of their President. Equally, just as we shouldn't stereotype all Arabs, doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge the doctrine and actions of those who hide their fanaticism behind 'religion', and worse, incite violence.

I like the cartoon. I like that it has spawned this discussion. I like that it raises awareness of an issue, and that right (and wrong, sadly) minded people will interpret it, and consider it, and it will become a small part of their make-up and how they consider the world. My interpretation of the artist's purpose is that he/she was NOT trying to "make people hate those evil Arabs", but instead, was tackling a very real, very important issue facing us in the early 21st century, and provoking thought and discussion on it. Generaly, in my (admittedly limited) knowledge of cartoonist, that's always what they aspire to with their work.

[andrewducker]

One difference is that not every American follows George Bush. _Every_ Muslim, by definition, follows Mohammed. If you attack George Bush only those who voted for him feel attacked. If you attack Mohammed every Muslim feels attacked.

I like that it raises awareness of an issue

It raises the issue that there are Muslim bombers out there? There are people that don't know that, and have just discovered, through the medium of editorial cartoons, that this is the case?

[allorin.livejournal.com]

No, but maybe that's not the issue it raises. Maybe the issue it raises is that we're not allowed to speak about these things.

Look at the reaction to one wee cartoon. Look at what's kicked off. Now the attitude in Saudi seems to be "Apologise, cease and desist, or we will consider you evil forever more and cut you off at the knees".

Anything that challenges that, that dares to speak out, that confronts that sort of oppression and censorship should be welcomed.

And personally, I'm challenging the idea that the cartoonist's sole/main aim was to offend. Ain't necessarily so.

Also, there cartoons attacking American policy in general (which I mentioned) and not solely Bush. Again, I don't think these should be censored, in the same way I don't think all Americans are as depicted in cartoons.

[andrewducker]

And personally, I'm challenging the idea that the cartoonist's sole/main aim was to offend. Ain't necessarily so.

There were some of those cartoons that weren't bad - that talked about freedom of expression and fear of oppression. A picture of the founder of the religion, where his head and religious clothing have been replaced by a bomb? That's just trying to start an argument.

And as I said, I'm against censorship, but I do think that some of the cartoons were just pointless childishness.

Why, for instance, are there none where Mohammed is upset at the actions of his 'followers'? _That_ would be interestingly provocative.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Well, we'll disagree then. Sadly, cartooons, as an artform, are subjective, and our interpretations are going to differ.

To me, the picture in the cartoon was a picture already depicted in the minds of many westerners by the actions of Islamic hardliners shown here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4682262.stm (though there were better, clearer pictures in today's papers - "Behead those who insult Islam" indeed), and in the Syrian burning of Scandanavian embassies. That in itself is a short step away from bombing. If actions do indeed speak louder than words, then the actions of those puporting to be Islamic are proving the cartoon accurate, if nothing else. They are burning embassies in the name of Mohammed. Anyone else get the sheer idiocy of that? "Your image of Mohammed as a violent terrorist offends us - therefore, we will act like violent terrorists, in the name of Mohammed." Yeah. Way to go.

[andrewducker]

actions do indeed speak louder than words, then the actions of those puporting to be Islamic are proving the cartoon accurate, if nothing else.

Yup. There are some Islamic extremists acting savagely. The correct thing to do is therefore to insult them all! That'll make things better.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

by the actions of Islamic hardliners such as those shown here...

sorry.