From the Guardian's letters today:
It's time for the Guardian and other newspapers to stand up firmly for freedom of expression and to show us the offending cartoons.
So freedom of expression is protected by demanding that a particular item is published regardless of whether the publication thinks it should or not, apparently. To be honest, I find the whole furore really rather ridiculous, because all of those most exercised about it have lost sight of an important point, that it is an essential part of any given freedom to have the freedom to do wrong, or else the freedom in question rather collapses. I've not seen the cartoons, and have no desire to see them, but what I understand from other people's discussion of them, they're really rather gratuitously offensive. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be illegal to publish them: I might favour preventing publishing them if they were an incitement to racial hatred, but even if I'd seen them, I wouldn't really be in a position to judge that. That they are gratuitously offensive may of course mean that those who published them, initially at least, did something wrong in doing so, and consequently that condemnations of them for doing so would be entirely justified. People would be entitled to criticise someone for infidelities, but not establish legal prohibitions against them. The analogy with this situation is surely, ignoring for the time being Millian questions of the point at which general social action comes to have the same moral standing as a law, perfect.
Addendum, 05/02/06: Everyone, grow the f*ck up. This is not interesting. No one in countries which generally respect freedom of speech has been prevented, by the law, from publishing the cartoons, nor has anyone in such countries been prosecuted for doing so. Some people have exercised their right to freedom of speech to complain about the cartoons. So far, freedom of speech is not obviously being threatened. A really rather small number of the people who protested about the cartoons in Britain did so in a manner which any sane person would unreservedly condemn, and have been widely condemned for it, and will probably also be the subject of a police investigation to see whether they broke laws on incitement to violence, which, as no legal expert, I suspect they did. This is not a remotely serious threat to freedom of speech either. Alright, some repressive regimes doubtless desperate for any crumb of legitimacy have scrambled rather undignifiedly onto the bandwagon, but was there freedom of speech in any of these places in the first place, or indeed, was this much of a surprise? Hardly.
Addendum Addendum, 05/02/06: What Jamie said. And Chris too. Finally, what Ken said (now everywhere, but originally seen via)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Robert,
An interesting and dispassionate post. My goodness we need some cool heads about at the moment...
This is interesting though:
"That they are gratuitously offensive may of course mean that those who published them, initially at least, did something wrong in doing so, and consequently that condemnations of them for doing so would be entirely justified."
you might want to read the wiki article on this to get the background as to why the cartoons were published in the first instance
To me, this is a clear-cut case of an editor standing up for Freedom of Expression in the face of violence.
That feels like a battle worth fighting. Particularly if you feel that Freedom of Speech is the biggest single bedrock of post-Enlightment prosperity.
Thoughts?
Well, if they were trying to stand up for freedom of expression, by provoking boycotts, getting the editors of national newspapers in other countries sacked, and generally stirring up all kinds of shit, they've undoubtedly succeeded. I don't dispute their right to publish. However, I do think that they probably shouldn't have.
While I suppose there do have to be some kind of limits at the extremes (incitement, libel), some critics on the C4 news earlier were going on about how 'freedom has to be within limits'. I think making those limits too narrow destroys the freedom. It's like holding you prisoner in your own house, but saying you can move/act as you like within it...
Robert,
"Well, if they were trying to stand up for freedom of expression, by provoking boycotts, getting the editors of national newspapers in other countries sacked, and generally stirring up all kinds of shit, they've undoubtedly succeeded."
And in what way are the editors of JP responsible for the violent actions of individuals with free will, thousands of miles away, who have been whipped into a frenzy by their own Imams, acting on the advice of their governments, prompted by the misrepresentation of the cartoons published?
The ludicrous overreaction - torching an embassy is a very clear act of WAR - proves that the newspaper was right to publish. The protestors have played up to the stereotype will exquisite accuracy.
It is simply insane to suggest that just the threat of this type of violent, physical reaction does not act as very clear disincentive to anyone considering voicing concerns about the fringe elements that pervert Islam. Indeed THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF PUBLISHING. Criticism of ideas is central to the progress that has been made in post-Enlightenment (and possibly to a larger degree, post-Christian) "West".
We have to confront this and face it down. PEACEFULLY.
Ben,
"some critics on the C4 news earlier were going on about how 'freedom has to be within limits'. I think making those limits too narrow destroys the freedom."
Yes. But those limits deal EXCLUSIVELY with the threat to INDIVIDUALS, NOT IDEAS.
For example: "Communism Kills" (criticism of an ideology, NOT its adherents, which is legitimate, AND MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS EVEN IF UNTRUE) is rather different to "Communists are killers" (criticism of a wide group, rather than a single individual: possibly libellous, probably unwise), which is different from "Person A, who is a Communist, is a killer" or "Person A is a killer BECAUSE he is a communist" (which is libellous ONLY IF UNTRUE regarding the "killer" bit - the "communist" bit being irrelevant) which is again really WILDLY different to "Advocates of Communism should be beaten into submission", or even "Advocates of Communism should be ostracised and/or denied other rights and/or freedoms" (which is incitement to violence or other measureable, objective harm).
I don't give a toss about your feelings. You shouldn't give a toss about mine.
This is Primary 1 playground stuff chaps: "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me". We teach our children NOT to react to (indeed to ignore) name calling and not to resort to violence generally.
In this instance, the JP editor has responded to some broken bones (and the occasional murder, with a liberal sprinkling of police protection against realistic death threats) with some names, primarily to challenge the stone throwers. They have been met a response in stones.
I am staggered that you don't get this Robert.
PG
Sorry, I should clarify this:
"I don't give a toss about your feelings. You shouldn't give a toss about mine."
We have in fact moved beyond this into a realm where we do now take account of people's feelings. This is because we are civilised. We assume that violence is off the cards and that we are free to challenge ideas, and hence, we do not need to be tremendously forceful in our disagreements. We can put our position calmly, safe in the knowledge that the target of our thoughts will respond rationally.
It is the fact that our freedom to criticise and challenge ideas without recourse to violence that has led to the civilisation and prosperity that we now enjoy.
This is not the case here. The protestors on Friday with nice placards saying "Massacre those who slander Islam" (which you will note IS incitement to violence by my simple rules above) do not subscribe to the abhorrence of violence. They see it as a legitimate response.
I submit that this makes them "uncivilised". I don't give a toss about the feelings of people who are "uncivilised" and who seem to want to remove us from our "civilised" state. You shouldn't either. You should be challenging their ideas as hard as you can. Violence is OK for these protestors.
I would have thought that is a good reason for a confrontation of ideas, if only for individuals to decide with which vision of life they agree.
"And in what way are the editors of JP responsible for the violent actions of individuals with free will, thousands of miles away, who have been whipped into a frenzy by their own Imams, acting on the advice of their governments, prompted by the misrepresentation of the cartoons published?"
I didn't say they were. I said I failed to see the connection between attempting to protect the right to freedom of speech and creating a shitstorm by publishing cartoons. Does anyone have rights to freedom of speech as a result of the publication of the cartoons they otherwise wouldn't have? I don't think so.
"The ludicrous overreaction - torching an embassy is a very clear act of WAR - proves that the newspaper was right to publish. The protestors have played up to the stereotype will exquisite accuracy."
So, the reaction of groups to the publication of cartoons in Danish newspapers who have no legal power over Danish newspapers, nor any significant ability to physically threaten their staff proves that freedom of speech in Denmark was under threat.
If we were actually going to think about the likely effects on freedom of speech, not just in terms of legal rights but also in terms of the degree to which social norms support those legal rights, I suspect that it would be clear that by strengthening repressive regimes and extremists across the board, which was fairly predictable, the publication of the cartoons has decreased freedom of speech.
"Does anyone have rights to freedom of speech as a result of the publication of the cartoons they otherwise wouldn't have? I don't think so."
As a facetious comment that takes some beating.
I suspect that the Danes are now considerably bolder as a result of this stand - they can see that it has been recognised. Difficult to deal with whilst it is underground. So, whilst I don't have any empirical data to support such a claim, you have to admit that it is not exactly beyond the bounds of possibility.
And equally, you don't think that the protests in London have been illustrative? You don't think that this has got some pretty unsavoury stuff out into the open where we can all see it and start to discuss whether or not we really want to bend over to the morons who make the loudest noise?
Self-censorship is really insidious. It is grounded in fear. Fear is not conducive to Freedom of Speech.
The BBC Have Your Say notice boards were alive with support for the publication of these cartoons as a legitimate act in showing how much freedom of speech has already been eroded.
"So, the reaction of groups to the publication of cartoons in Danish newspapers who have no legal power over Danish newspapers, nor any significant ability to physically threaten their staff proves that freedom of speech in Denmark was under threat."
No. It doesn't. The death threats received by the illustrators and JP do though. The international effect is again merely illustrative of the kind of thinking (or lack of it).
"I suspect that it would be clear that by strengthening repressive regimes and extremists across the board, which was fairly predictable, the publication of the cartoons has decreased freedom of speech."
Alternatively, getting these hideous reactions out into the open allows moderates to decide which side they really want to be on.
As for strengthening repressive regimes, remind me how freedom of speech - the main, if not ONLY, bulwark against totalitarianism - errrmmm.... strengthens totalitarianism.
Where offence is met with violence, we stand with the person causing offence. We have to. The violent response is an attempt to shut down debate. I really struggle to see any other interpretation.
"I suspect that the Danes are now considerably bolder as a result of this stand - they can see that it has been recognised. Difficult to deal with whilst it is underground. So, whilst I don't have any empirical data to support such a claim, you have to admit that it is not exactly beyond the bounds of possibility."
So, no actual rights then. Just the possibility of increased boldness in making gratuitously offensive statements. Pardon me if I fail to regard this as a decisive victory for freedom of speech.
"The death threats received by the illustrators and JP..."
What death threats? I am aware that Jyllands-Posten's editor claimed that a children's book author claimed that they could not find an illustrator for a book about Mohammed because illustrators were worried they would receive death threats. That however, is not the same thing as actual death threats. If you are referring to the placards carried by some protestors in London, for example, I refer you to my earlier comment.
As for the strengthening of repressive regimes, ask yourself, is the Syrian regime now stronger than before the cartoons were published, or not?
"getting these hideous reactions out into the open allows moderates to decide which side they really want to be on"
"...the protests in London have been illustrative"
Which sides? Illustrative of what? I repeat, who has lost their right to freedom of speech? Who has faced a credible threat to their exercise of free speech? What great fight is being fought here? Might I suggest that something other than a concern about freedom of speech is the motivating force behind this whole ridiculous fuss over some crap cartoons in a foreign newspaper?
I've had enough of this. Just so you know, there will be no more discussion of this here.
In fact, I really regret posting on it at all. A total waste of time for all involved.
Robert,
"So, no actual rights then. Just the possibility of increased boldness in making gratuitously offensive statements. Pardon me if I fail to regard this as a decisive victory for freedom of speech."
Umm.... Exactly how much use is a right that you are too afraid to exercise?
Who has faced a credible threat to their exercise of free speech? What great fight is being fought here?
Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.
"What death threats? "
these ones. And these ones.
Might I suggest that something other than a concern about freedom of speech is the motivating force behind this whole ridiculous fuss over some crap cartoons in a foreign newspaper?
Wow.
Are you suggesting that criticising the use of bomb threats, which have a nasty ring of credibility to them, makes me a racist?
Presumably this makes Ayaan Hirsh Ali a racist as well?
From where I stand, the most detrimental effect of the capitulation of the MSM in the face of unreasonable behaviour from a minority of extremists is that it restricts the freedom of MUSLIMS.
I suggest that that is something worth standing up for.
Sorry, for Bomb threats read Death Threats in relation to Theo Van Gogh. Point is still valid.
Pedant,
when I said there'd be no more discussion, I meant for that to be an end to it. I was considering deleting your last two comments, but came to the conclusion that that would be rather unreasonable, especially without warning you. I would however, beyond the retraction I ask you to consider, really appreciate it if it was left at this, and warn you that I may delete any other new comments.
As far as the content of your comments goes, I'd quite appreciate it if you'd withdraw the claim that I suggested that your willingness to condemn the use of bomb threats made you a racist. I suggested no such thing. Indeed, by that logic, my own condemnation in the first amendment to the original post of the behaviour of some of those who protested in London makes me a racist. What I actually suggested was that your inability to show how anyone, in this case, had actually lost rights to freedom of speech might speak of some perhaps dubious generalisations as the generative force for your interest in the case. This is because the case seems to me like a fairly transparent non-issue.
I do not dispute that some bravery, if the threats are plausible, may have been displayed by those who published the cartoons. However, given people's obvious willingness to discuss and criticise Islam - the one thing that could not be said of what has happened in the aftermath of the cartoons' publication is that people have not been willing to discuss or criticise Islam - it seems to me that that bravery, if indeed it exists, is rather widespread. Given that, it can hardly be the case that fundamentalist Islam presents a serious threat to freedom of speech in Western Europe.
Robert,
"when I said there'd be no more discussion, I meant for that to be an end to it. "
So you get to fling some fairly outrageous accusations about then unilaterally shut down the debate.
"I was considering deleting your last two comments, but came to the conclusion that that would be rather unreasonable, especially without warning you."
Thank you. That is fair enough.
"What I actually suggested was that your inability to show how anyone, in this case, had actually lost rights to freedom of speech might speak of some perhaps dubious generalisations as the generative force for your interest in the case."
So you are indeed suggesting that I am not acting on principle and that I do have suspect motives. That is unwarranted and I resent the suggestion.
I particularly resent this suggestion given that it came on the back of your comment "What Death threats?". Even to ask this question shows that you did not bother to read the original wiki article in my very first comment. It shows that you are completely ignorant of the whole basis of the controversy.
That alone merits an apology.
I'm with Ayaan Hirsh Ali on this one. It appears that you are not.
PG
I note that no apology has been forthcoming.
In the light of this article by Flemming Rose in the WaPo, I hope that you - and your readers - can now see that your behaviour on this thread has been nothing short of scandalous.
Traditionally, it is customary to only apologise for imputing views to people which they do not in fact hold. Perhaps you'd like to explain the standard by which you assess the appropriateness of apologies?
Robert,
"Traditionally, it is customary to only apologise for imputing views to people which they do not in fact hold. Perhaps you'd like to explain the standard by which you assess the appropriateness of apologies?"
That sounds like a pretty good definition to me.
So when you say:
"What I actually suggested was that your inability to show how anyone, in this case, had actually lost rights to freedom of speech might speak of some perhaps dubious generalisations as the generative force for your interest in the case."
you are clearly inferring that I have some dubious generalisations for motives in this.
Unless you are prepared to assume that the writers of
this open letter are also using "some dubious generalisations", I think an apology is in order.
I also note that you have not even begun to address my reasoning for asking you to apoligise in the first place.
Here is the relevant section:
"So you are indeed suggesting that I am not acting on principle and that I do have suspect motives. That is unwarranted and I resent the suggestion.
I particularly resent this suggestion given that it came on the back of your comment "What Death threats?". Even to ask this question shows that you did not bother to read the original wiki article in my very first comment. It shows that you are completely ignorant of the whole basis of the controversy.
That alone merits an apology."
I read the Wikipedia article. It mentioned not death threats, but people being worried about getting death threats. I am currently wary of speaking out about the nefarious plans of the Martians for fear that they will vaporise me. Clearly a loss of freedom of speech has occurred.
" I am currently wary of speaking out about the nefarious plans of the Martians for fear that they will vaporise me."
I recommend publishing some critical cartoons.
You can count on my support.
Pedant,
I'd like to thank you for providing some, admittedly bittersweet, humour. The irony of conducting a smear campaign against someone for an allegedly unjustified, apparently insulting, comment they made to you whilst you were defending not just the right to insult people, but the desirability of doing so, is perfect.
Post a Comment