Clearly this is a freedom of speech issue. While there are legal limits on speech even in West, these cartons are clearly legal in Denmark, legal in the United States, and probably legal in all of Europe. So from a legal standpoint, end of story. But only lawyers with the winning case in court are satisfied with just a strict legal view, the rest of us are worried about what we ought to do or say, not what we can do or say. Most of us believe that there is a line you should cross in public discourse, and a different, less restrictive one you shouldn’t cross in private discourse, but that is by no means universal. So just what is that line anyway – who draws it, and who decides when and if it’s been crossed? At least in private discourse, it’s the person(s) you are speaking to directly, but in public discourse you can be speaking to the world, even at a small paper in Denmark. Just how much do you have to take into account before expressing yourself? Different communities have different standards, even within the United States, and within a global audience, the differences can be huge. Here we have the collison of two values – one is the reverence in Islam for the Prophet Muhammad, and the other is the reverence for free speech in the West. Which one wins, whose values should we follow? If I am not a believer in Islam, why should I have reverence? Who should respect the other one more? I in the west, or those in Islam? If Moslems want me to respect their reverence, can’t I expect them to respect my freedom to speak my mind? Is this a “clash of civilizations?” If you mean clash in the sense of war or struggle between, then the answer is no, not really. But if you mean in the sense of incompatibility, then the answer is yes. I want to be clear that I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about culture. There is not much of a contemporary culture of freedom in Islam, nor is their much respect for religion in the West these days. At one time it was clearly understood that the core right of freedom of speech was the freedom to offend other people. And the more important the belief being offended, the more important the right to be offensive. It’s why Lenny Bruce was such an icon of free speech, or Larry Flynt was considered a champion of freedom of speech in his legal battle with Jerry Falwell, or why the ACLU was heralded as a bastion of freedom of speech for their fight on behalf of the neo-Nazi march through predominantly Jewish Skokie Illinois. But that isn’t the case any longer. What has happened to those people who say “I don’t agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death?” A lot of them, mostly on the left of the political spectrum, no longer say that anymore. Now the motto is, I don’t agree with what you say, so shut up already. All of a sudden a lot of progressives who used to tell about the importance of freedom of speech, unfettered in your face communication, are telling me that just because you have the legal right to be offensive doesn’t mean you have to exercise it. Well, thanks for coming around to my way of thinking. But don’t go too far and claim that because you shouldn’t say just anything we cannot allow certain people to be offended anymore. Universities, which by and large are ruled by the left these days, have simply abandoned freedom of speech in practice while they still pay it lip service in ever lesser amounts. To be sure I’m not saying all liberals (or progressives or leftists) have abandoned true freedom of speech, nor do all conservatives embrace it. There are still plenty of liberals who really will defend to their death my right to say what they disagree with while more than one conservative is in favor of freedom of speech only as long as they agree with what’s being said. I think part of the swing is that back in the 60’s (the heyday of liberalism) it was the left that needed freedom of speech to express themselves and the right that clamped down; now that the left is in many ways the establishment, freedom of speech challenges the left and is needed for those on the right to express themselves. Now that good liberals are saying that you should excercise good judgement, does this mean they’ll take back all those nasty things they said about Ari Fleischer and his “watch what you say comment”? Now that newspapers have taken the position that not offending religious sensibilities is more important than informing the public, will they support the return of the Catholic Legion of Decency? If for instance Brokeback Mountain was banned from some Midwestern town, would there be any question of the response of all those wagging their fingers at Jyllands-Posten? Will they tell Michael Kinsley he had it all wrong: The right to go too far and the right to put it badly may not seem like terribly crucial rights, but they are. Opening your mouth is not an exact science, and it’s harder to do well if you’re looking over your shoulder at the same time. Consider an analogy from libel law. The constitution protects some false statements from libel suits, not for their own sake but to give attempts to tell the truth some necessary room for error. For similar reasons, a healthy political culture has to be able to shrug off some stupid or even offensive remarks. If your main concern is not to say anything offensive or subject to misinterpretation, a lot will go unsaid that is true or even possibly wise.
Posts Tagged Danish Cartoons
While laboring mightly on a post that examine the responses to the Danish Cartoons and the freedom of speech issues surrounding them, I asked myself would these be cartoons that I would either draw (if I could draw) or originally publish? I would have only gone with the one captioned “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins” because I think its at least funny (yes, I laugh at and have told St. Peter jokes – the ones that involve St. Peter and the Pearly Gates and people trying to get into heaven) and captures the western amazement at the thought that people who blow themselves up with innocent civilians think that the reward for such a heinous crime is an afterlife filled with sex with 39 virgins.
The others are all too bland and innocuous or inside jokes except for the one with the bomb in the turban which I don’t care for because it is too general. I understand that it may be an honest representation of the cartoonists feelings — that he associates Islam with bombers — but I think that subject is best tackled at length so that you can make clear that only the lunatic fringe of Islam are bombers but you worry that too many of the rest are at least sympathetic to such acts. Rather than be insulted by the cartoon, Moslems should examine why so many people outside Islam worry that the lunatic fringe is Islam. Hey, if they can demand a law that nobody in the world gets to insult the prophet , I think I can make the counter demand that they act in a way that doesn’t bring reproach on the prophet. And before you submit a laundry list of why you think that either the US or Christianity is just as bad as a defense, let me remind you that my dirty laundry does wash your dirty laundry clean, it just adds to the pile of dirty laundry.
But it wouldn’t have been because I was worried about offending anyone. I do try to think about what I say or write before I say it and the effect it has on others, but generally I try only to change the form so that it is an inoffensive as it can be and still be an accurate reflection of what I think, but that doesn’t mean that I can make it offense free. I need to curb my tongue out of love, not fear. I try to avoid being needlessly offensive [mighty big of you — thanks]. I don’t always succeed. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Danish Cartoons 2 part 1
Feb 7
Let me try to chop up the whole Danish Cartoon affair into bitesize pieces. Part one of 2 today examining the cartoons themselves, part two of 2 examining everything else tomorrow (I hope).
The Cartoons.
They get lumped together, but there are twelve different ones of varying quality and content that were published. Most of them are simple depictions of the prophet Muhammed or poke fun at the commisioning of the cartoons themselves. Only 4 have political messages and could be considered offensive beyond just depicting the prophet in and of itself. And considering the level of discourse in the media today, the level of criticism is pretty mild. They all suffer from the problems of any single pane cartoon – they are essentially soundbites or slogans, and not a fully developed argument.
I’ve found essentially 3 objections to the cartoons, the first being that the commisioning itself was wrong because it would be knowingly provocative, would produce racist or anti-religious work, and had no news value. The problem is that if you think political cartoons do have merit (which by and large I don’t), then it would make sense to commission them on a topic that is undercovered and provocative.
The second is that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Moslems and therefore should be avoided. I think there is some merit in this — and to explore it personally I need to substitute my own religions symbols and think about that case. But I also think you have to look at why there is this taboo on the depiction of the prophet Muhammed and that is to prevent the false worship of him. It seems to me that by having such a rigid taboo without the appreciation of why it leads to the very thing that it seeks to avoid in the first place. The prophet is placed on a level that no other person is allowed, and his person with Islam itself.
Perhaps my blase response to the cartoons is that I’m used to seeing critical cartoons of Jesus (who by the way isn’t just a man but God when comparing what believers of both religions believe). Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, so my response as a Christian is to worry about the critic’s soul, not their punishment.
The third is that by using the prophet in a political cartoon, the religion itself is attacked, and not the believers. IOW it’s one thing to say that there are a few wild eyed crazy terrorsts who happen to be moslems, but another to say that Islam turns its adherents into wild eyed crazy terrorists. While this is a distinction about the point of the cartoons, I don’t see it as making a real difference in the response. Why is one worse than the other? And aren’t political cartoonists free to criticize a religion as well as particular adherents?
The Fake Cartoons
In addition to the twelve cartoons that were actually printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, three cartoons (here, here, and here (which as you can see are of a much insulting nature) were added by certain Danish Imams when they circulated them in Arab countries. The Imams declared that the cartoons were the work of Danes even though they hadn’t been published with the others. It now appears that they have pulled a Dan Rather and have been caught peddling phonies.
The first photo is what the Imams claimed was a Danish cartoon, the second an AP photo of the winner of a French pig squealing contest discovered by who else, a blogger.
No doubt the defense will be the same, fake but accurate.
I have no idea if the imams were duped or if they made the cartoons themselves, but my BS detector votes for them being deliberate hoaxers. The only thing that argues against them drawing the fakes is this fact, pointed out by Paul Belian (linked above):
Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.
I’d have to believe they would commit such a blasphemy. Again, I have no idea, but it is as far as I can see the onlyfact that argues against the imams drawing them themselves.
So the response we are seeing isn’t to just what was published, and given the contents of the fake cartoons, the response isn’t to what was published at all, but to fake cartoons either made up or provided to radical Danish imams who then circulated them in several Arab countries.
Those are the facts. I hope to get to implications and speculations tomorrow.
Danish Cartoons
Feb 6
I have to admit I’ve been puzzled by the whole Danish Cartoon ??? I don’t even know what to call it. Controversy seems too mild a word when buildings are burning and people are dying. Debacle implies that the Danish newspaper did something wrong, or at least something worse than what every other newspaper does, and that is to continue publishing political cartoons, an artform that (in the US at least) is simply wretched, worn out, and cliched. Who can take them seriously anymore? Crisis may be the best fit, but that depends on whether anything is learned or changes (on either side) or if after awhile the whole thing settles down to the status quo ante.
So how did we get here? The Brussels Journal provides a pretty good overview of the whole affair (there, I’ve made my decision on what to call it for now):
Do not think that by now you have heard all that there is to say about the “Danish cartoon” crisis. Last September, a Danish paper noticed that some cartoonists were frightened to depict Near Eastern topics. They seem to have sensed that being funny leads to serious trouble. So the paper made some effort to get such material. The result was twelve drawings [see them here, halfway down the page]. Some are good, others so-so. Still others are not especially funny. When perusing the material before the cartoons became the story, I thought that they depict an “Islamic type” in different situations. The best one seemed to be a scene at the gates of heaven. Incoming suicide bombers (“martyrs” if you insist) are told by the gate-keeper: “Stop, we ran out of virgins.” Another favorite is several women in burkas that follow a turbaned fellow. The rectangular eye-hole cut out of the black cloaks is transferred over the eyes of the (unenlightened?) man. In time it was discovered that the caricatures show the Prophet. That is a no-no if you are a Moslem. As time passed there was, rather than boos, a bit of protest. When it intensified, other papers reprinted the cartoons to show what the outcry is all about. Thereupon the insulted protestors defending the messenger of peace became violent. Considering that Islam claims to be a creed of mercy, peace and benevolence, its discontented are surprisingly violent. All of which makes one wonder what would happen if the faith would not have peaceful forgiveness in its core.
And they are one of the few places you could see the cartoons over the past four months. So by all means, go and read up on the subject there if you are interested.
The contrast between the anger of those upset and the silliness of the simple cartoons can serve to distract us from the important issues confronted here — at core what can I expect of and what can I demand of my fellow man. Normally in religion the questions are about the relations between man and God; here despite the religious angle the questions are about the relations between man and man, and the different beliefs on that subject that are informed by the overall culture, not just religion (and it can be mighty hard to separate the two). Christopher Hitchens agrees with me, just at greater length and with a different view of religion.
The fault lines are not just between West and East; there are fault lines within the West as well, and are well explored by Jeff Goldstein:
“This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations – which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain – could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.”
Actually, I think that arguments in the abstract don’t cause anyone but college professors to get excited; it takes something simple and concrete like satirical cartoons to set everyman’s heart to pounding.
I expect there are fault lines within the East as well, its just as a man of the West I’m not the best judge of them.
And I have to wonder, with all the provocations to chose from, why this one?
Another view is that the cartoons are an excerise in racism, freedom-of-speech a dodge to hide it, and that the Prophet Muhammad is not a current figure who would be an appropriate target for political cartoonists. Apparently symbolism is lost on some people.
Cassandra, not surprisingly, has girded her loins for intellectual battle:
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than the Danish cartoon kerfuffle. But for all the overwrought fulmination about freedom of expression, what the Coalition of the Outraged hate to admit is that unfettered speech in the Western world is more sentimental fiction than reality. By law and by custom, Western society has always recognized all sorts of limits on the right to speak freely. A notable example is the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, which recognizes that certain words and ideas are so inflammatory that society’s interest in maintaining order outweighs the individual’s right to express himself without limitation. Another, the criminalization of ‘hate speech’, places paramount value on the feelings of certain identity groups while allowing others to be insulted or attacked with impugnity. A third, cultural bugaboos, are equally problematic in that they allow rappers to casually drop words like ‘nigger’ but mandate that everyone else use silly euphenisms like ‘the n-word’ as surrogates for an appellation so shocking that only the pigmentally gifted may utter it without rending the fabric of the universe in twain.So it would appear that protestations to the contrary, our own tolerance for free speech has definite limits. The question then becomes not, “Does a free society recognize any limitation on speech?”. Of course it does. The sticking point becomes “Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it?” And therein lies the rub. The mainstream media regularly exercise self-restraint… but only when it suits them. As I observed earlier regarding the JCS controversy, media self-censorship is at best a hypocritical exercise:
She doesn’t stop there my friends, but of all people I don’t want to steal her thunder.
And as far as the cowardly response of the American Press to spare our delicate sensiblilities by not showing the cartoons, what am I as a Christian to learn? That there is a double standard when handling Islam or Christianity? That we would be better off killing abortionists, blowing up abortion clinics, burning down movie theaters that show movies like Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ, offing Dick Wolff or any other TV producer when he shows Christians in a negative light, or anyone else who disrespects us because then we would get respect? Then would our feelings would taken seriously? We’ll never know, will we, because we wouldn’t be Christians if we did. There’s an idea for a movie – The Latest Tempation of a Christian.
Maybe, just maybe we should applaud some obscure Danish newpaper for having the audacity to commission cartoons these cartoons, and by doing so have caused not just turmoil in Islamic lands but soul searching in Western lands . We live in interesting times.
