[Dialogue] Free Speech

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film,  and 
the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish 
publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of 
the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some 
thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, 
and your comments are most welcome.

Free Speech
Sept. 2012

The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined 
in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some 
even argue that it was a driving force for those 
who settled from Europe where people were 
sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions 
on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought 
and died in part over the principle that anyone 
could voice any opinion, however contrary or 
disruptive to the established view of the 
majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 
1 of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no 
laws abridging 
 the freedom of speech..” – first 
introduced to Congress in 1789.)

In consequence we have all sorts of opinions 
making their way across the country, sometime by 
airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by 
Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those 
who believe in the immanence of the second 
coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the 
reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, 
and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All 
are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution.

Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, 
then of propriety. One simply does not speak up 
in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One 
needs to consider the consequences of one’s 
speech on others, not simply the desire to 
express one’s opinions. The editors of the Danish 
newspaper that published caricatures of the 
Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that 
insight: their exercise of “freedom of the press” 
violated no legal strictures, but brought 
considerable financial loss and suffering to 
Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the “freedom” end?

Perhaps there are some “common sense” guidelines. 
One may be free to walk wherever one pleases, but 
when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on 
the path, one limits one’s choices. One may be 
free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it 
is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And 
one does so without blaming the snakes or the 
gators or the poison oak – they’re just acting 
the way they are. It’s in our best interest to keep out of their way.

This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter 
books with the slogan of Hogwarts School of 
Witchcraft and Wizardry: “Draco Dormiens Nunquam 
Tittilandus.” (“Never tickle a sleeping dragon.”) 
One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly 
unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose.

Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and 
the makers of the recent film, both obviously 
anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, 
and have violated no law in their work. But they 
have occasioned a great amount of violence and 
suffering that could have been both anticipated 
and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives.

That may be the key point. Our forefathers were 
willing to fight and die for their freedom. 
Current practitioners seem outraged when their 
“freedom” occasions threats and violence. Maybe 
they are not as committed as they’d like us to believe.

This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble 
dragons or snakes or alligators or poison oak, 
but it is certainly to acknowledge their 
sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. 
Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the 
taboo extends beyond members of their religion. 
Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. 
The alternative is to face the consequences.

In a global society, one needs to consider 
sensitivities of many potential audiences before 
expressing controversial opinions. This is not to 
say one must compromise one’s principles or alter 
one’s opinions. But it is to say that one needs 
to be willing to take responsibility for the 
outcome of one’s pronouncements. Freedom without 
responsibility is quite limited.

Of course “free speech” does have limits and 
controls, even in the West. Child pornography is 
illegal and blocked from the Internet and from 
publication. It seems that the public is 
unwilling to tolerate some types of expression 
that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds.

It seems like “free expressions of opinion” that 
occasion physical harm to others might also be a 
candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, 
but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble 
with the principle that “Your freedom to swing 
your fists ends where my nose begins.” Might that 
not also apply to statements that insult, demean 
or otherwise vilify other people?

John
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120918/9a5d5cd4/attachment-0004.htm>