I’m Dutch, we regrettably don’t have as strict a freedom of expression as the US appears to have. But yes, I think his freedom of speech should be protected, and as far as I can see, that is exactly what’s happening. Everybody can see that the movie can cause trouble, but nobody is preventing him from making and airing it.
I agree that we are really saying the same thing.
BTW, is there in fact a law in the US against burning the flag?
What I am saying, (and I think you will agree here) is that the flag (yours or mine, depending on the country) is a symbol of our country and our rights and freedoms.
But my right to honour the flag, to fly it all over my property, not to fly it at all, to hang it upside down or to burn it (if it is my flag and I am doing it on private property) . . . . . . any of these actions and anything in between is not just the SYMBOL of our freedom, it is in fact the very EXERCISE of our freedom.
Nobody can order me to honour America or Canada, or their flags. I do so willingly.
When you pass a law coercing me and limiting my freedom of expression (and flag burning is a political statement) then you are turning the SYMBOL of my freedom into an instrument of oppression against me.
And much as it breaks my heart to do so, I would react to the law by breaking it. Just to show that I do not hate my country or its flag, I would have a brand new one handy after the barbecue, run it up the flagpole, and salute.
Valteron’s post 10 spoke for me, mostly. No one could say anything, or through art express anything, that would make me actually want to kill them. Insult me, my wife, kids, country, church, whatever - I won’t be pronouncing any fatwas. It just wouldn’t happen - sticks and stones, and all that. Voltaire had it right. As soon as we start picking and choosing what is and isn’t acceptable free speech - with the obvious and long-understood exceptions about libel, slander, “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” etc. - everyone’s freedom of speech will be in jeopardy. In the marketplace of ideas, the best answer to speech with which you disagree is more speech of your own, not murdering the other guy. The sooner everyone around the world gets that, the better.
And, may I add, I think most Muslims around the world think as I do. The jidhadists and radical Islamists are only a relatively small percentage of all Muslims.
It is interesting that in the US there were some protests and letter writing campaigns against movies like The Golden Compass, Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ but there were no riots, assaults or vandalism AFAIK. Orthodox Islam doesn’t permit images of the prophet Muhammad so these films had to be creative with the camera work. Even South Park was censored by Comedy Central from showing Muhammad but it was OK for them to show Jesus getting crapped on by George Bush or to have an episode of a statue of the Virgin Mary menstruating.
I do respect their religion and their right to practice it as they see fit. But if someone outside of their faith does something that is offensive to them then I think they need to face the reality that not everyone believes what they do. The world is a big place and different people are offended by different things. Face up to it and accept it. The edict about images of Muhammad were written at a time when the only way it could be done was an individual drawing or painting that could be seen by a handful of people. They never anticipated mass media. Join the 21st freaking century already!
Is it OK for a paper to self-censor for reasons other than avoiding violence? Newspapers do this all the time. If you read one of Gary Larson’s books (I think it was The Prehistory of The Far Side), you will see cartoons that got rejected (in the 80s) for things like using too much bathroom humor. Presumably nobody would have rioted if these comics had run, but they might have done things like written nasty letters to the papers or canceled their subscriptions (or, if they were an advertiser in the paper, pulled their ads). They should have every right to do those things if something in the paper offends them. And the paper should have the right to self-censor to avoid offending their subscribers or advertisers, as a strictly business decision if nothing else.
Personally, I think papers ought to self-censor to avoid offending people who can express their disapproval without using violence, but not show that consideration to those who do use violence. Of course, I see some problems with this approach from a practical standpoint…
One comment from the blog entry you linked:
*Hello, I am a media watcher from the Netherlands. All I can say is that the ‘importance’ of Geert Wilders in the international media is extremely exaggerated and an almost entirely one sided affair. Comparing him with for instance an intellectual like Salman Rushdie is simply ridiculous.
The problem in this is that Wilders, who runs a political party (PVV) with only one member, namely himself, has never accomplished anything except for polarising our society. Also a proven fact is that he founded his party with help from the Dutch extreme right (neo-nazi’s). Here we have a man who is in favor of administrative detentention, wants to prohibit half of the quran, demands for muslims to be deported, and a prohibition for muslims entering the country, ánd wants to abolish the European Human Rights agreement. Yet he calls his party Party for Freedom. Facts you will not read in the international press.
And most of all not about what he is doing for our country in parliament. Though there is a logic in this, since he still hasn’t achieved anything yet. And now this “film”. Whoever dares to call a 10 minute amateur video on Youtube a “film” must be somewhat on the megalomanic side, don’t you agree?*
By the way Son O’God was funny! You know, humorous. Satirical.
Actually, it’s a “nuclear option” deterrent against any attempt by offended Muslims to have his work banned as “hate speech”.
Should you censor articles on Muhammed? Yes-ask the editor of “Jyllands Posten”-the Danish newspaper-he got a death sentence (not carried out)-that would deter me!
Should you? No. Would you? Probably, yes which is why editors and journalists can’t be allowed to stand alone. An open society must allow any and all articles on Muhammed just as it must allow any and all articles on Christ, Moses etc. etc.
What should be done is the opposite. Every paper should run them and keep running them until the radicals get the message. We will not be cowed by fear tactics. That threats will be met with more cartoons and humor. Toss is editorials and stories showing the goofiness of the radicals and then maybe the message will be received.
I might as well call down the flames here…
While I agree that free speech is absolute, and I feel that we are fortunate that the “anything goes”/total tolerance we have in the West is amazing and admirable and ideal, I think people who intentionally poke tigers with sticks should not be surprised when the tiger finally reacts and kills them.
Let’s say I want to goose-step up and down in front of the Wailing Wall screaming, “Heil Hitler!” at the top of my lungs. Should I be allowed to do that? Probably. But should I be surprised when the crowd beats me to a pulp? No.
There are some things that push people’s buttons, regardless of whether or not such a thing would push OUR buttons. Is it “good” to go around taking photos of Amish people’s faces, and then plaster them on giant billboards throughout Lancaster County with the words, “FUCK YOU, AMISH! IN THIS COUNTRY, WE TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE’S FACES!” No. It’s a dick move.
So unless you have a really, really good reason for it, don’t be a dick.
I guess it really comes down to (to bend Voltaire’s quote): I would defend your right to say anything important, even if I don’t agree with it, but I’m not sure how hard I would defend your right to say something just so you can be a dick.
a bettter analogy woud be if someone decided to mock the Amish by publishing a few cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper…
…imagine the riots that would ensue at embassies aroung the world…
Not sure an avant-garde picture was really a dickish move. So the artist who created piss Christ basically deserves to die?
My take is this.
If you’re my neighbor (literally or metaphorically), and it really pisses you off if I put a cartoon of Mohamed in my front window, then I probably won’t, even though I can, and even if I want to, because that’s what good neighbors do. Similarly if I really wanted to shit on a statue of Jesus on my front lawn; while I maybe could, it’s worth it to me to withhold that expression of my freedom to speech in order to help maintain peace in my neighborhood.
So, I don’t really get the idea that specifically because a particular communication is going to make some people very angry is the precise reason why we should do it. Does anyone interact with other human beings based on that premise?
Based on the blog linked to by the OP, it seems that the filmmaker’s community would rather he not be a total ass, thereby avoiding a possible (likely?) outbreak of violence. No one has destroyed the film, nor banned Wilder from showing it to whomever he likes. If TV stations choose to not broadcast it, or even if the gov’t decides to prohibit TV stations from broadcasting it, his fundamental freedom of speech will not have been violated. I know nothing about Dutch law, but here in the States (and I assume in Canada as well) the airwaves are regulated by the FCC, and you just can’t broadcast whatever you like whenever you like.
Saying:
. . . is unnecessarily aggressive and picks a fight where there isn’t one. You assume they don’t understand our ‘concept of freedom’ (of speech, I assume), and that they need to be shown and/or taught a lesson (also referring to my initial quoting of you). I think you’re wrong to think that they don’t “get” it. Our freedom of speech in the US is far from absolute as is. The fact that a different culture draws the line differently should come as no surprise, nor does it mean they are absolutely wrong. If I wanted to show porn on network TV during after-school cartoons, I’d expect a backlash as well. Should someone else come and teach me a lesson about free speech by mixing porn in with my cartoons? Will they be serving some higher purpose, or will they just be being assholes?
Sure, and I value very much the fact that there are people who push the boundaries of freedom of expression so that the issue remains at the forefront of our minds. However, stepping away from a philosophical ideal, speaking is not always the right thing to do, for a myriad of reasons based on context and circumstance.
Of course, the irony here is that the maker of the film in question doesn’t seem to care much for free speech himself (from the link in the OP):
The Canadian Islamic Congress has launched two human rights complaints in Canada due to this McLeans magazine article by Mark Steyn, which is actually an excerpt from his book entitled “America Alone.”
It’s too long an article for me to quote anything, but the human rights commission has apparently agreed to investigate. Apparently “the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” Please read. I don’t find it anti-Muslim; I find it factual.
I was going to mention the Steyn-McLeans case as well, as it is extremely relevant to this discussion.
There’s a huge difference between “deserves to die” and “don’t be surprised if people get violently angry.” The hypothetical Nazi at the Wailing Wall doesn’t deserve to die—but he shouldn’t be surprised if people want to kill him for his actions. A person who walks through Harlem or Watts screaming, “FUCK ALL THE NIGGERS! GO BACK TO AFRICA!” likewise doesn’t deserve to die. But he shouldn’t be surprised if people respond violently.
Hate speech? Not in my opinion.
Anti-Muslim? Somewhat, in tone if nothing else.
Factual? Debatable.
That essentially sums up what I meant by my earlier posts better than I could have said it. Well done.
I frankly don’t see anything debatable at all in the facts presented, news-wise or demographic-wise. 