OK - so I am a liberal. At least that's what they call me. And I can see that the Danish cartoons were provocative, but there WAS a point. The point being that a Dane was being censored in mild, positive depiction of Mohammed, not censored by law, but censored by fear. Some might say censored by taste.
Jyllands-Posten was speaking truth to power, a power that is pernicious and illegitimate, the power of fear that something just like did happen would happen - that radical Muslims would go apoplectic over something relatively minor. All the other European papers who published the images also decided to stir the pot - and boy was the pot stirred. But the point is, free speech can be curtailed by Government and it can be curtailed by elements who refuse to play the game by the rules of a classic civil society. In Europe, people have been killed because they offended Muslim sensibilities. This is important. We have to stand up to this.
Personally, I'd rather live in a society where some people get offended (heck, I'm offended on a daily basis) and no one calls for the death of cartoonists or actually kills film directors. And I rather live in a society where people are free to publish and we have friction, than to live in one where I must guard my every move, cover my sinful hair, and keep my mouth shut.
I see what you're saying. I think the childrens' book complaint (the artist being censored in positive depiction) I agree with, I don't see how the resulting cartoons addressed that complaint. If the cartoonists had gone ahead and illustrated that book instead of taking potshots at Islam in general, I doubt very much there'd be burning embassies right now.
True, there'd still be some nutcases to worry about, but I think we've got a lot more of them this way. The power of fear you speak of is one that is also in our control, to some extent: how much to fear isolated Theo van Gogh events.
Thanks for your comment, it was good. It's undoubtedly different living this in Europe than watching it from across the pond.
Couldn't disagree more about the Toles cartoon. I clipped and saved it right after it appeared, marveling at its bite. Didn't hear about the Joint Chiefs' reaction until after all the cartoon outrage was underway. I assume the JCS are just trying to kiss up in public to Rumsfeld to cover their savaging of him in private.
In the climate of silencing and deliberate lies and massive NewSpeak about what this government is putting soldiers through, Toles' cartoon is right on point. The longer the occupation goes on, the more of a crisis of care develops wrt those wounded in Iraq, and the closer the services come to the breaking point.
"The value and point of free speech is when truth is spoken to power, not when slander is coughed up like a hairball."
I disagree. Speaking truth to power is something Free Speech can be used for, but that's not it's point. It's free speech for free speech's sake.
We already limit the amount free speech by disallowing speech that directly threatens public safety (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example), but when you or anyone else says that free speech is supposed to be used for this or used for that, then you put further limits on its use and begin to erode its inherant power until we're left with "Free Speech" in idea only; a mere rhetorical anachronism that no longer reflects reality.
You have a preference for a specific type of speech. Others, including fundamentalists, have a different preference. Still others in this country have their preferences. None of these preferences should ever be seen as The True Purpose of free speech. I have the right to free speech because it's my right as a human being, not because it's merely a tool to be used in an approved, supervised manner already agreed upon by some random group of people.
I'd rather see a million people slandered than one person silenced.
I may be splitting hairs here, but I don't disagree with you that much. I distinguish the "value and point" from the right.
I don't dispute the right to draw cartoons of any sort at all; I do see some as more to the point (that is, more to my point) of why free speech is important, and others less so. But you (and, in different ways, VolAbroad and Nell) may be right that my efforts to distinguish the important free speech from the hairballs are doomed to failure, and may be wrongheaded.
"But you (and, in different ways, VolAbroad and Nell) may be right that my efforts to distinguish the important free speech from the hairballs are doomed to failure, and may be wrongheaded."
I could argue that art is the point or ultimate value of free speech. After all, those who wish to control thought often attack art first, usually as offensive, unneccesary, elitist, esoteric, etc. One of the most consistantly reliable examples is All Quiet on the Western Front. This is a movie that's been traditonally banned or suppressed by countries preparing to go to war, because it truthfully depicts aspects of war that those who start them don't want people to see. From the uber-patriotism at the outset, to the old-men telling tales of glory to the young ones about to go off and die, it's a pretty insightful film. Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the various forms of art that reliably offend someone, somewhere. Sometimes, the art is purposely made to offend, because being offended can sometimes actually make you think.
I could also argue that ideas are the main point and real value of free speech. After all, the first thing that totalitarians and their collaborators do is ban books and control the ideas presented to the populace in all forms of media. Books usually contain a wide variety of ideas, many of which are dangerous to totalitarians and therefore must be controlled lest the ideas infect the populace like a virus.
The main problem is who decides which speech is important or valuable? You can say that the "marketplace of ideas" will sort it all out, in which case you want maximum participation to guarantee a wide-range of thought to produce the best output. Still, that process requires the full-range of free speech to be effective, but what people may deem important today may ultimately turn out to have been insignificant (or vice versa). It's usually best to err on the side of freer speech rather than restricting it based upon arbritrary opinions of importance.
I should also add that I don't disagreee with you wholesale, just on the "importance and value" bit.
When you say "who decides" I agree with you if we're talking about national, legally binding laws and decisions; by contrast, I was talking about how much I care to take an active role in the matter, in which case of course I decide. Recall that my personal discussion of this began with the "where are those phony lefties now" Malkin charge.
Thus, if the American Nazis want to march in Skokie, I say no one has a legal right to stop them; OTOH, I'm not going to voluntarily go out and try to shield them from the resulting flying bottles, or draft elaborate statements in their defense. I think the Danish cartoons are frankly in the ballpark in that respect, or with some slob wandering into a black neighborhood and yelling "n****rs suck!" through a bullhorn. Again, this is all quite aside from the "Mohammed depiction issue", which I think wouldn't have been anywhere near as combustible had some respect been apparent.
Earlier, you concede the "yelling fire in the movie house" limitation on free speech. I think these are similar, and it's why I tried to set up some basis ("up," "down," etc.) for working harder, at least on a personal level, to protect some speech than other speech.
But to rephrase and strengthen what I also wrote, I think the sovereign Danish nation has nothing to apologize for, since they (rightly) had no permissible way to prevent the cartoons; to say that more positively, they should (of course) not punish the newspaper in any way, and (of course) protect it from violence.
"Earlier, you concede the 'yelling fire in the movie house' limitation on free speech. I think these are similar, and it's why I tried to set up some basis ("up," "down," etc.) for working harder, at least on a personal level, to protect some speech than other speech."
The problem with the "yelling fire" scenario is that it's often used by people to excuse anything that may offend people. To me, it's pretty obvious: by yelling fire in a crowded theater, people will naturally wish to save their skins and will trample each other to get out. If you can stretch that, it can only be stretched to speech that induces mass panic, in which case the entire Federal government, along with the mass media, is quite guilty.
People like to take that one example and use it to include speech that angers or offends people. I'm sorry, but anyone with a maturity level above that of a child can control how they react to words and pictures. I can't control how someone will take what I write, only they can control that; however, people can't control how they react to actions. If I beat you with a stick, you can't really control how you'll react. You'll either try to flee or make me stop. There's a reason why one of these scenarios is illegal, while the other one is always at risk of being eradicated by people who believe that words will always hurt them, so they must use sticks and stones to break the bones of the offender.
I don't believe that speech should be held hostage to the passions of a group -- any group. Does it really seem right to circumscribe speech because people will riot in the streets because of it? And not riot because you've clearly incited them to riot, but riot because something you said or drew or filmed merely offended them? If we were to censor ourselves because a group of excitable people decided to hang the threat of violence over our heads, then they would use that as a weapon to silence everything displeasing to them. That's intolerable.
You fight ideas with other ideas, that's the way it works in a free society. If your ideas are weak, you boycott or protest. If your ideas are superior, but you are weak, then you band together with other individuals and you march and you pickett and you make great speeches. If your idea is better, it'll catch on and eventually succeed.
Does it really seem right to circumscribe speech because people will riot in the streets because of it?
For the state, or rioters, or me to demand it, no. For people to have the sense to think ahead, and choose other words and images that would do just as well, yes. The original issue was illustrating a children's book with positive depictions of Mohammed. The Jylland Posten people could have commissioned one or more of the same artists to do that; we'd have a much clearer situation now. Instead they opted for Mohammed the bomber.
I'm personally with you on "sticks and stones" vs "words," and I don't advocate any law or regulation circumscribing this kind of speech. I don't take that to mean I need to actively approve of people saying whatever nasty thing pops into their head.
But re-reading this, I see I've already said much of this before. Maybe my question is, what would you have me say or do differently?
"what would you have me say or do differently?"
Concede defeat, lay down your arms, then pass under the yoke before my legions. :D
I don't know, I'm not really arguing with you, just presenting and defending a slightly different POV. When it comes to the Bill of Rights and what it represents, I take a fairly liberal view. I think it's better to err on the side of more freedom rather than less.
On the other hand, the Europeans are freakin' hypocrites. They have laws criminalizing the display of Nazi artifacts, as well as those who deny the holocaust ever happened, so they're already well compromised when it comes to free speech.
The Federalist Papers, and the debates and history of the time make perfectly clear that the First Amendment was primarily intended to a) protect freedom of the press and the right to criticize the government; and b) the need to protect unpopular speech. This really isn't debatable, I think.
Europe, on the other hand, has a different history, a particularly different recent history, and the threat from that history has hardly disappears. Are their patchy laws against Nazi regalia and glorification and Holocaust-denial wise? Certainly arguably not.
But the argument does take place in a different context, and it would be ridiculous, at best, to ignore that context, or the current remnant of neo-Nazis, not to mention the still plentifully alive small and dying minority of actual WWII Nazis. (No offense intended to and and all of the very much overwhelmingly vast majority of non-Nazis and anti-Nazis, of course.)
Should certain European countries have such laws about Holocaust-denial and speech? I'm simply not sure, and I am sure that if they should, such laws should be temporary, and be gone, absent a new threat, within one hundred years. Maybe within fifty years. Possibly even within another twenty-five years. Until then, I tend to be content to leave it to the various European countries to decide what's best for themselves, myself. Others can perfectly reasonably hold a wide variety of different views, of course.
I'd put forth for consideration, however, that Holocaust-denial remains tremendously widespread in the world, and is a belief held and exhorted by a vast majority of the population of the Arab world, and much of the Islamic world (including some of those in Europe), and that this holds real-world consequences arguably not particularly less threatening to millions of people than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
People are still dying as a result of this threat, and the threats are still heard every day. Ask that nice Mr. Ahmadinejad, for example.
You misunderstand the debate, Gary, to sail in days late and go back to the Federalist Papers and the 1st amendment.
I'm not talking about what is or ought to be merely legal or protected; I repeatedly stress Jyllands-Posten has (or by our lights ought to have) the right to publish whatever stupid damn thing it pleases. I was talking about what I personally was obligated to defend. They're two entirely different things.
"You misunderstand the debate, Gary, to sail in days late and go back to the Federalist Papers and the 1st amendment."
I was responding to Paul's "Speaking truth to power is something Free Speech can be used for, but that's not it's point," and the subsequent debate between you two.
I'm not clear how my not getting around to commenting earlier is relevant to my understanding.
I had more trouble than usual understanding your point(s), Gary, I think maybe I was still upset from a different one, which I overreacted to as well.
Commenting by HaloScan.com.
"newsrack" comment policies here;
RSS-subscription to comments here.
