[Dialogue] Free Speech

[Del Morril]

Very much appreciated and well-expressed for these times we are in.

Del

 

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at lists.wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:07 AM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: [Dialogue] Free Speech

 

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/20120918/39e37923/attachment-0001.html>