As I was lying in bed last night, waiting for the dizziness to go away so that I could get some sleep, a thousand different thoughts entered and exited my mind. Weirdly enough, one of those thoughts was a response to David's post regarding the uproar over the Mohammad comic (see, "Third, politics:"). One quote struck me in particular: "We should not sacrifice the principle of free speech on the alter of accomodationism, and we should stand by those fighting the good fight."
Most of the response from Western countries are basically saying the same thing: we won't stifle freedom of expression just because a comic hurt someone elses feelings.
Now, ever since this story broke, something hasn't sit right with me. The violence is indeed repulsive, there's no question about that. But, as difficult as it is, put that aside for a moment. Forget for a second that violence did erupt, and instead there were just massive, peaceful protests. I've been wondering: if the cartoon in question were instead depicting someone so blasphemous, so insulting to another religious or ethnic group, say perhaps, Jews, would Jewish communities worldwide call on the rest of the decent world to condemn the cartoon and boycott the country from where the cartoon originated? And would Jews worldwide be angry, incensed, and appalled that the world is sitting idly by, while this reprehensible country is defending its cartoonist behind the guise of free speech? Free speech is a terrific ideal, they may say. Sure, we should all be free to express our beliefs, without fear of retribution, but not when it's so ugly, insulting, denigrating, and wrong!
Is it the same thing? If not, why?
Where is the line drawn between free speech and hateful speech?
And just because you have a right so say something, does it mean that it's actually right to say it?
Just a few questions to help look at this critically. The violence that has ensued is wrong and disgusting, bottom line. But it shouldn't blind us from taking a look at what all this is really about, and then remember our reaction to this once we're the ones who are insulted. Because, I'm sure it will happen again at some point or another.
Most of the response from Western countries are basically saying the same thing: we won't stifle freedom of expression just because a comic hurt someone elses feelings.
Now, ever since this story broke, something hasn't sit right with me. The violence is indeed repulsive, there's no question about that. But, as difficult as it is, put that aside for a moment. Forget for a second that violence did erupt, and instead there were just massive, peaceful protests. I've been wondering: if the cartoon in question were instead depicting someone so blasphemous, so insulting to another religious or ethnic group, say perhaps, Jews, would Jewish communities worldwide call on the rest of the decent world to condemn the cartoon and boycott the country from where the cartoon originated? And would Jews worldwide be angry, incensed, and appalled that the world is sitting idly by, while this reprehensible country is defending its cartoonist behind the guise of free speech? Free speech is a terrific ideal, they may say. Sure, we should all be free to express our beliefs, without fear of retribution, but not when it's so ugly, insulting, denigrating, and wrong!
Is it the same thing? If not, why?
Where is the line drawn between free speech and hateful speech?
And just because you have a right so say something, does it mean that it's actually right to say it?
Just a few questions to help look at this critically. The violence that has ensued is wrong and disgusting, bottom line. But it shouldn't blind us from taking a look at what all this is really about, and then remember our reaction to this once we're the ones who are insulted. Because, I'm sure it will happen again at some point or another.
posted by elanit | 10:32 AM
1 Comments:
If this was a giant letter-writing campaign, I would still support free speech, but would sympathize with the people who were offended.
Honestly, things far more offensive than those comics are part of regular discourse (c.f. PeTA, DailyKoS, LittleGreenFootballs), and while people get horked off at them (legitimately!), the response is a legitimate one - speech is responded to with speech.
The boycott is a legitimate tactic. However, I think that it is sufficiently wrong-headed that those of us who disagree with it need to actively support the Danes and neutralize the effect of the boycott.
Burning down buildings isn't a legitimate tactic, and it empties the legitimacy of everything else which followed in common cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home