The cartoons depicting prophet Muhammad in the Danish news and the ensuing outcry, controversy, and violence is amazing. I was intrigued by SuShee’s postings:
Soll man Respekt vor Religionen haben? Nein. ¹
Presse- und Meinungsfreiheit betrachte ich als universale Werte und betrachte als Ziel erstrebenswert diese – genau wie freie Wahlen und Gleichberechtigung der Frau, Abschaffung der Todesstrafe und ein Folterverbot – als unverrückbare Menschenrechte – nein: Menschenpflichten. ²
And Faiza’s reaction (well, her son Majed’s reaction):
This petition is very important because it’s an attack against one-fifth of the population of the world (est. 1,300,000,000 Muslims in the world today), and it’s important because it breaks the code of ethics of the International World Federation Council of Media and Media-People, which explicitly prohibits any action or behavior that might raise the risk of discrimination against any group of people based on their religion, sex or any social differences. ³
I think it is obvious that reacting with violence to these words is foolish. Then again, if a child teases his younger sibling with eloquent words, we are not surprised if the younger child reacts with violence: It doesn’t know how to defend itself verbally. So the lack of education, or the lack of appropriate channels to react verbally may explain the violence somewhat – but not excuse it.
But what about the right of the newspaper to publish those cartoons? I believe that the freedom of the press has limits. The freedom is there for a purpose: To allow criticism, including art, satire, parody, and many other forms of expression. It does not allow slander or discrimination, etc. So the question is: Are these cartoons the kind of expression we want to protect, or are these cartoons the kind of expression we want to forbid?
I don’t think the DeclarationOfHumanRights addresses these issues:
As to article 7, it remains open to speculation whether such cartoons would count as a violation of a person’s dignity, or degrading treatment. I think we need to look elsewhere for better guidance.
+--------------------------------+ | Aside | +--------------------------------+ | I even found school material | | on the UN site: Lesson on | | discrimination based on race | | (2-1/2 to 4 hours).) | +--------------------------------+
Lesson on discrimination based on race (2-1/2 to 4 hours)
In Switzerland, the Rassismus-Strafnorm (Art. 261bis StGB) prohibits the public discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion in Switzerland. It is based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Internationales Übereinkommen zur Beseitigung jeder Form von Rassendiskriminierung). There’s a fundamental difference, however: The Swiss law includes religion, whereas the convention does not:
Rassismus-Strafnorm (Art. 261bis StGB)
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Internationales Übereinkommen zur Beseitigung jeder Form von Rassendiskriminierung
Assuming for a moment, that we make the connection and do treat religion in this respect similar to race: Do the Danish cartoons nullify or impair “the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life?”
I don’t think so. There are many jokes about Jesus, too. When I was in primary school, I heard the following and was quite impressed: Jesus walks in the desert and meets an old man, crying. The old man explains that he is looking for his son, and that he has holes here and here, and points at the palms of his hands and his feet. Jesus opens his arms and cries: Father! The old man also opens his arms and cries: Pinocchio! :D (Wikipedia:Pinocchio)
Anyway, I think that we need to look at these cartoons in context: Where they intended to discriminate? Or where they intended to criticise? Looking only at the cartoons themselves, they don’t seem to deserve the attention they have been getting. Of course people have the right to be offended, to not buy Danish products (I don’t buy Israeli products, for example), or to express their anger. But the violence and the simplifications on all sides are a total waste. There are more important issues that need solving.
So at the moment I think that if a cartoon is trying to point out how suicide bombing and a religious life are self-contradictory, or if a cartoon wants to point out that killing people because of religion must be a misinterpretation of that same religion, then I support that. If a cartoon is intended to illustrate how alien and backwards a subcommunity in a country is, or how primitive another religion is, then clearly that is not the kind of speech I want to protect. The cartoons, the text, the local politics, everything needs to be taken into account.
Based on what I read, it seems that the Danish newspaper in question was in fact trying to provoke. That’s sad. You’d think we already have enough problems without having to go around provoking people. I also don’t like the backlash where new cartoons show up in newspapers, jovial holy men surrounding Muhammad, saying something funny. They’re trying to be nice, while at the same time emphasizing that they are unwilling to relinquish their right to depict the prophet. That seems unnecessary.
More analysis: TelePolis writes about the cartoons. ⁴ They quote from MarcLynch’s posting about the cartoons ⁵, and from OlivierRoy’s essay ⁶. I subscribed to Marc Lynch’s feed.
#Islam #Comics
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
I saw that JanneJalkanen linked to http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ ¹. The weird part is this: 1. Is this for real? 2. Interesting that politics seem to be so much in the hands of individuals these days.
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-06 15:40 UTC
---
StefanKrempl writes about the motives behind the makers of the Danish newspaper in his blog. ² It seems that they were indeed out to provoke, and goes on to criticise how the Danish government failed to handle the situation, basically only seriously considering the facts on the table when economic sanctions were pronounced. He also quotes a line from Die Zeit where they point out how ironic it is that countries like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are now seen as defenders of Muslims, even though they are ruthlessly opposed to freedom of expression within their own borders. I guess the irony is that both are values, and implicitly one of them is judged to be far more important than the other.
Keller himself writes: “Etwas mehr Besonnenheit bitte.” (A bit more consideration, please!) He also laments that both sides seem to be firmly entrenched in a discussion of values, happily joining the “clash of cultures”.
He also quotes “Paragraf 10 des Pressekodexes, wonach «Veröffentlichungen in Wort und Bild, die das sittliche oder religiöse Empfinden einer Personengruppe nach Form und Inhalt wesentlich verletzen können, mit der Verantwortung der Presse nicht zu vereinbaren» sind.” I guess that is the German equivalent of the “International World Federation Council of Media and Media-People” code of ethics. I didn’t find an URL for that, though. Does anybody know?
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-06 17:24 UTC
---
If it was a provocation, it was a necessary provocation.
It started because an author writing a childrens book about Mohammed could not find anyone to illustrate it. He only managed to find one who would do it anonymously.
This caused the newspaper to ask 40 illustrators to make a drawing of mohammed (as you know only 12 did) to accompany an article about self-censorship.
Why couldnt the author find anyone to make the drawings? maybe because of the satanic verses or maybe because a jewish lecturer was taken for a ride and beat up (Copenhangen, 2004-10-04) because he was known to hold lectures where he read out loud from the Koran.
My opinion is that it should be possible to make fun of all religions. You should be able to post your Jesus joke without fear of repercussions.
I believe there’s a difference between having the possibility to make fun of all religions and publically ridiculing minorities (and thereby actively provoking some of them). It really depends on the context a lot, and I therefore don’t find this “a necessary provocation.”
As for the background, StefanKrempl says:
Klar ist inzwischen, dass die ganze Aktion durchaus als bewusste Provokation der Chefredaktion angelegt war, [...] und man daher mit der Argumentation “es geht doch nur um die Verteidigung der westlichen Meinungsfreiheit” vorsichtig sein muss ³
I’d really have to know more about the background of that article to say more.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-07 15:30 UTC
---
Yeah, but who decides the context?
If you do let go on that slippery slope...
– AadityaSood 2006-02-08 14:07 UTC
---
Of course this is a slippery slope. But any difficult issue involves that. If you are involved in the pro-choice (abortion) discussion, homosexual marriages discussion, abstinence education discussion, or any other tricky business in the USA, for example, anything you say can be taken out of context and used to paint a distorted picture of you. Does that mean you should not voice your opinion? No. It just means that you should be careful.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-08 19:57 UTC
---
TelePolis writes about the cartoons, too. There an article about the reaction of (Christian) religious fundamentalists in Germany to a play where Jesus is shown as a homosexual alcoholic ⁴ and counter-provocations in Iran about the Holocaust ⁵. Interesting times!
The fundamentalists in Germany are trying to improve censorship to protect against defamation of their own religion. I didn’t know there even was a law about it, § 166 (1): “Wer öffentlich oder durch Verbreiten von Schriften (§ 11 Abs. 3) den Inhalt des religiösen oder weltanschaulichen Bekenntnisses anderer in einer Weise beschimpft, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.” ⁶ (My translation: Whosoever publically insults religious ideas or messages in a way that is prone to disturb the public peace, shall be punished with prison up to three years or with a fine.)
The article also says that there was a court case in Germany prohibiting the publication of a crucified pig based on the above law. That was news to me, too. The “improvement” fundamentalists are looking for is to remove the requirement “prone to disturb the public peace”, arguing that so many people these days are no longer Christians, basically rendering the law useless: Not enough people would feel insulted, thus there’s never a disturbance of the public peace.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-09 12:05 UTC
---
Offensive speech IS Free Speech that I want to protect. Especially in the form of paper printing and electronic posting: These are some of the most easily avoided forms of communication. (Whereas, say, a march down the center of a city is not avoidable. It’s another class of thing.)
I think it’s a good thing that this has happened, because I think it’s a growth moment for the world. For the Islamic: “Welcome to a world where not everyone is Islamic.” It was a necessary step. “Welcome to the global village. Please leave your anger that someone’s doing something you don’t like, at the door. No, you can’t control people everywhere, you can’t even make them respect you.” It’s a growth moment for ourselves as well: We are learning that we need to be careful about what we say and do, that there are people all over that are watching us, and we are learning to think about our own sensibilities (how many people ridiculing islamic people are also uptight about flag burning?) in a more global way.
I see it like the whole world, moving into the city. I think the end result will be greater tolerance, on all sides, all around.
– LionKimbro 2006-02-10 02:33 UTC
---
Let me talk about the protection of offensive speech, first. I think we see here that we’re coming from different legal traditions. I firmly believe in limits to free speech. Our freedom ends where it impinges on somebody else’s freedom. Our right to free speech ends where it impinges somebody else’s right to live in dignity. This why we have laws against slander, defamation, and in some countries we have laws against the discrimination of whole groups of people based on race, ethnicity or religion. The United States have also adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This is just one of the examples where the USA also believe in limits to free speech. This is why it is important for me to determine, whether this cartoon does impair the fundamental rights of Muslims in Denmark to live a life in “dignity and equality inherent in all human beings”.
As I wrote in my article, I think that there are not enough grounds to forbid the publications of these cartoons. What I can’t understand, however, is the smug satisfaction at the gratuitous provokation. Since when is provokation and ridiculizing a means to achieve education and enlightenment? Is this what wise men do?
So if this is a “growth moment” for all parties involved, it’s sad thing it had to happen in the first place, and a painful experience. And I’m not so sure how much people really learn, here. Because there’s a lot to learn. Denmark, for example, used to be a very liberal country, but now their government is on the far right as far as I am concerned, with harsh immigration laws and xenophobic politicians.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-10 07:52 UTC
---
I think people should be humiliated when they do what is wrong, and praised when they do what is great. This is all a change in “social dignity.”
“Personal dignity” is a personal matter, and untouchable by the public. (By definition.)
Social dignity is crucially important, and it’s very important that individuals or groups are able to chastize one another.
Otherwise, we should get rid of our notions of SoftSecurity and “manners.” They are an intentional space between law and individual control.
There are laws against slander and defamation not because of dignity, but because we believe in fairness. You cannot be accused of slander, if what you say is *true,* for example.
If you want to criticize a company or individual, then as long as what you are saying is true, then you are protected.
Should it be otherwise? No. Because many individuals and companies are not worthy of social dignity. So it is a question of the *fairness* in social dignity. Not a “guarantee” of social dignity.
In the United States, it is actually legal to make disparaging statements about a race, or an ethnicity, or a religion, or any other group. *And this is really good.* It means you can speak your mind.
There’s a few Muslim groups that are **really** screwing up the social dignity of Islam. But Muslims on the whole: They’re not shutting them up. They’re not dissociating themselves. Why not? I think they’re selectively open minded to what those groups are saying. That lowers their social dignity, in my books. Now, I’m going to voice that. Because the social dignity works through voice.
Look, this whole conversation couldn’t even happen, if your ideal laws were in place. Is that a healthy situation? **I don’t think so!**
What would happen instead? I wouldn’t be allowed to have this conversation with you. Whatever positive thing, that we both agree with, at the other end of this conversation: It can’t emerge.
Instead, what do you get? You get a bitter Lion. You get an *angry* Lion. You get *zero* dialog. What you get is **xenophobia.**
If anything is going to get us out of this, *peacefully,* it’s going to be dialog. So dialog is **exactly** what you shouldn’t be restricting. Dialog is **exactly** what you should be promoting.
And, if you’ve ever been part of a circle dialog type system, you know then that there’s a place for people to speak their minds, to speak their fears, and even, sometimes, to shout at the top of their lungs, **”I HATE YOU!”** You know? There’s all these things.
And it just has to come out, and it has to be a process.
I earnestly believe in Free Speech, and Dialog as the path to Peace.
I feel like you’re trying to be Liberal. You’re playing: “Let’s be nice, let’s not offend one another, let’s have a stable world.” But look, what is your deeper feeling? You’re saying that it’s sad that this has come up at all, and that you don’t see people learning, and that you think things are going downhill.
Now look at what I’m saying: “Let’s strive to be nice, but we need to understand each other’s worldviews, too. This is going to entail a period of not being nice. But let’s not kill each other, either. Let’s speak our minds, and let’s do inter-group dialog. Let’s hear what the other side has to say, not stifle it all in a guise of manners.” And a little deeper in, you get: “Hope. This is a necessary step. We’re getting aquainted with each other. We can make deep progress here.”
Xenophobia is so totally in line with censorship. Xenophobia (and other forms of alienation) will **increase** when you tell people they can’t speak their mind.
You can’t have an honest conversation when there’s a law against it.
– LionKimbro 2006-02-12 00:14 UTC
---
I think there’s a difference between being allowed to voice your opinion and criticise, and being allowed to insult and disparage. As in face-to-face interaction, I will let people criticise me, but not insult me. *I don’t think that being able to insult actually improves anything.*
Insult and provokation is not a necessary precondition for a conversation, “honest” or otherwise. *There is no dialog under these conditions.* There’s just shouting and hate!
Shouting and hate have a place in our private lives. *But not in our public lives.* Not in journals, newspapers, TV stations, radio, and other forms of mass communication. Let everybody swallow their hate, control their anger, and *speak up when they’ve calmed down*.
We need *free speech to watch over our governments*, to watch over the powerful, to reflect ourselves as a society. You can do all that *without resorting to hate-speech*.
I don’t take it in my personal life, I don’t accept it in my business life, and I don’t want to accept it our media, either. There are limits: Not arbitrary limits, but *limits discussed and adjusted in parliament and in our courts*. They are an expression in our society of what we take for granted in our lives. The people agree that free speech has benefits for the role of media as the fourth branch of our state after the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The people also agree that everybody has right to live a life in dignity, and therefore the people impose limits on free speech via the other branches.
What I find really disturbing, however is this: “But Muslims on the whole: They’re not shutting them up.“
Doesn’t this *make you cringe*?
It hurts me to read something like that.
I *absolutely refuse* to take responsibility in all the actions of all the idiots that call themselves Christians. There’s no “clan liability” (Sippenhaftung) in our culture. We are not responsible for the crimes of our siblings, our parents, our partners, our fellow citizens, and our fellow Christians.
Yes, some parts of SoftSecurity also work via group pressure. But imagine this: A Christian vandal defaces our wiki. Should we ask a fellow Christian to engage the vandal, to distance himself from the vandalism? It makes no sense. It’s a ridiculous notion.
Perhaps I’m just splitting hairs, overreacting. But this is the test I make: Replace a term such as “Muslim” with other similar terms such as “Christian” or “Pagan” or “Homosexual” or “White” or “Black” and see whether the statements seem outrageous. If they do, then they must be expressing some hidden prejudice against the original term.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-12 00:57 UTC
---
I disagree in so many ways:
I’ve *taken* the “replace Muslim with Christian” test, and it’s counted harsh against the Muslims. I’ve asked myself: “What’s the Christian response to someone defacing a cross, not just in picture, but statue form,” and the response is: “Very little.” You can bash Christianity in pretty much any which way, and there’s going to be very little reaction.
There aren’t going to be scenes of big masses of people rioting, you’re not going to see broken embacies, and you’re not going to see people saying, en masse: “That person shall be put _to death!_”
On the contrary, it’s just pretty much an ordinary state of affairs.
I’m not saying there’s something intrinsicly wrong with the Koran, or Islam, the religion. I’m saying that I think that Muslims are, by and large, living a backwards way of life, and that they need to get with the times. And, in fact, I think that’s exactly what’s happening here. It’s just: It doesn’t happen instantly.
They’re going to get used to the concept that people don’t think the same way as they do, all over the place, and they’re going to get used to not controlling everything that happens around them. And it’s going to be scary for them, and it’s going to be scary for us. But, in the end, I think we’re going to get along well together, and everything is going to be fine.
These Muslim kids have grown up before without their faith being challenged. Now it is painfully clear that there are people who think differently, and people are going to talk about those things. Of the kids, there’s going to be some percentage that thinks: “This is totally crazy, and the adults are talking nonsense.” They will find each other, network, and organize. This is the struggle within Islam. We are the environment.
Your particular thing about the Christians: If Christians were deeply networked & organized, then yes: It is their job to perform distancing. If it’s just: “You know, here, there’s this cult, and we’re not really with them,” then, of course, there is no distancing necessary: The distance is already there.
But in modern day Islam, there is not this distance. People are actually *very* sympathetic to these vies. And so, the people are in a challenge: “Do you believe this way? Or do you believe that way? Do you *really* think that people should be put to death for drawing Mohammud? Or do you think that that’s extremism?” And so that’s the challenge, and that’s where the distancing comes in. They haven’t actually made up their minds, themselves, and they are sympathetic to both positions. That’s the point.
No, socially shutting people up doesn’t make me cringe. It’s **legally** shutting people up that makes me cringe. Now *that* is where things get scary!
We need Free Speech not just to defend against governments and corporations. We need Free Speech to watch over **all** power groups. This includes religions, and groups, and educational institutions. All of it.
I know you have this high code of “acceptable” and “not acceptable” conduct in public. I commend it, even. But, you know: That’s just you. There’s a lot of people who disagree strongly, and will make good cases otherwise. I disagree with it. There’s times for shouting and anger. Either because you’re hurt, you’re angry, or the two in the same thing.
– LionKimbro 2006-02-12 01:53 UTC
---
I’d really like to talk with you via voice about this; Is there a good time for you on Sunday? We could talk by Skype for free. 😄 What’s your time zone called? Mine is “PST.” (or “PDT,” I forget which it is right now.)
I can call by cell phone, as well.
This is a conversation I’d really like to participate in, but I need a partner.
– LionKimbro 2006-02-12 02:52 UTC
---
English not being my first language puts me at a severe disadvantage on the phone. 😄 I’m also not sure how much either you or I are willing to move on this subject. If at all, we’d be moving in circles, repeating the things we’ve said, extending our examples, but fundamentally we’d not really be prepared to compromise because this is not an issue of finding a workable compromise in politics, but about fundamental way of seeing the world.
In other words, if you don’t agree with me, I don’t think there’s anything else I could say to you that would convince you. Nor do I think that anything you say would change my way of seeing the world in this respect.
I’d rather just drop it.
As time goes by, I will no doubt have the opportunity to revisit this page, and I’ll reread this discussion, and maybe I’ll have grown older and wiser, and there will be an opportunity for change, then.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-12 14:03 UTC
PS: I must have rewritten this entry about five times before even saving it once.
---
Okay.
I disagree; I actually have a lot of room for repositioning. That’s *why* I wanted to talk with you; To sort out my stand, to see if I could persuade you, and to see if there’s any territory we’re not finding.
I feel bad, as if I’ve insulted you, or as if I’ve given the image that I am an immoble stone.
I honestly and sincerely believe in the power of dialog for transformation, and I don’t just mean “You convince me” or “I convince you.” This is a space where I could actually do with a bit of exploration, and it’s easier to do with others than by myself.
I think you’ve misunderstood things I’ve written, and I suspect I don’t really understand your position. I feel fairly certain that you’ve understood something different by the phrase “shutting up,” other than what I intended.
Ah well.
I hope I get to have this conversation with *somebody,* at some point in time.
– LionKimbro 2006-02-13 00:50 UTC
---
Alex writes:
Let me talk about the protection of offensive speech, first. I think we see here that we’re coming from different legal traditions. I firmly believe in limits to free speech. Our freedom ends where it impinges on somebody else’s freedom. Our right to free speech ends where it impinges somebody else’s right to live in dignity. This why we have laws against slander, defamation, and in some countries we have laws against the discrimination of whole groups of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
I’m going to post here because, both, free speech is one of my top priority political issues, and second, I’ve never understood the motivations behind the European legal tradition that Alex agrees with, and I’m hoping I’ll understand it better by talking about it.
First, some background on me: I’m really, really into totally free speech. I think speech isn’t free enough in the U.S. I think slander laws are bad. Also, this is one of my top political issues.
Next, let me quote something that I agree with Alex about:
“Shouting and hate have a place in our private lives. But not in our public lives. Not in journals, newspapers, TV stations, radio, and other forms of mass communication. Let everybody swallow their hate, control their anger, and speak up when they’ve calmed down.���
I agree with this – but I don’t think the law should enforce this.
Why? I guess there are 2 reasons I want free speech:
1. Basic “freedom”. I don’t like being told what to do, I don’t like telling other people what to do, but I especially don’t like being told what to do by a faceless committee of hundreds of thousands of people that I can’t really argue with.
Therefore I think it’s really important that the government not be allowed to tell me not to do something unless what I’m doing is obviously REALLY harmful. I think it’s terrible when people say mean things to each other. I have been made very unhappy in the past when people have said mean things to me. And when I actually see people doing that, I try to discourage it when I can. But I don’t think there should be a law against it. And I think it’s silly to differentiate between speech and writing (what’s next, distinguishing between written English and written software code? oh wait..)
1. Practicality. Limits on speech are impractical for the same reasons that patents are impractical; they require too much computation to interpret the law. I am very afraid of our governments going sour and us having to change them (some would say the U.S. government passed this point awhile ago). I feel that the European laws limiting speech are an invitation to fascism, not necessarily today, not necessarily in our lifetimes; but it’s only a matter of time.
Alex thinks we can distinguish between speech that is serving to reign in our governments and speech that is bad. Even if in principal we can, making us do so has all sorts of horrible consequences.
First of all, very often powerful people and governments will WILLFULLY MISINTERPRET the laws in the way that benefits them. Even if a speech law doesn’t quite say you can’t criticize the government, the government will still pretend that it does. Example: the governor of California, Arnold Schwartzenagger, sued to block sales of dolls of him wearing a suit and a machine gun. Example: George Bush tried to use the law to get people to take down a website parodying him. Example: corporations sue people who report bad benchmarks about their products. Example: The U.S. government outlaws providing “material support” to organizations that IT considers terrorist, including operating their web site or fax machine. Example: corporations sue to prevent people from publishing their prices during sales.
Second, even if you think you will win in the courts, the mere possibility of going to court prevents most people from criticizing.
Third, sometimes dialog has to be insulting and offensive. There are plenty of people who are genuinely INSULTED if you tell them that you think that the U.S. is violating people’s civil rights in the way it treat “enemy combatants”. There are plenty of people who are genuinely OFFENDED if you tell them that you think the Bible is not the word of God. In some jurisdictions these people constitute the majority. So some important discussions simply cannot take place if you are not willing to say things that you know will offend lots of other people. And in some jurisdictions it is THOSE PEOPLE who control the courts and the governments, so you can’t rely on “well they think it’s offensive but the courts will know better”.
– BayleShanks 2006-02-14 00:38 UTC
---
So I guess I would support anti-hate speech laws if I could be assured that those laws would always be intepreted the way I interpret “hate speech”. But I think that is impossible. I think that when those laws are on the books, they will invariable, eventually, be used to silence speech that I would interpret as “necessary dialog” and even speech that I personally would consider “necessary criticism of the government”.
– BayleShanks 2006-02-14 00:41 UTC
---
I’d say +1 BayleShanks
– AadityaSood 2006-02-14 05:39 UTC
---
Bayle, it seems to me that you’re choosing *freedom of speech as the lesser of two evils*, the other being a failing judicial branch. If the courts were not manipulated by the rich and powerful, if the courts were not able to decide what constitutes a genuine offense based on the law, then allowing any kind of speech does seem like the lesser evil:
1. Great: Courts work, free speech
2. Good enough: Courts work, restricted speech
3. Lesser evil: Courts don’t work, free speech
4. Evil: Courts don’t work, restricted speech
It is true that we sometimes have court cases here where a magazine or a politician is accused of taking satire too far, or insulting an individual, but it is *not a problem if those cases are resolved fairly*. And remember, of course, that our speech is not restricted when it comes to reporting court cases. ;)
These cases also provide interesting points of reflection where we as a society can reconsider whether we still agree with the laws. If we don’t, we can push for initiatives to ammend the constitution and start the process that will hopefully lead to better laws. (Unfortunately Switzerland doesn’t have initiatives on the level of the law, only on the level of the constitution, and no high court that compares the law with the constitution, but that is a different issue.)
A working legal system would also be able to determin in each and every case you listed, what the appropriate reaction is. I certainly hope that not all of these cases were lost.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-14 08:13 UTC
---
Another, unrelated comment about the cartoons themselves:
They don’t seem any more insulting than your usual satirical cartoon. For example, I’ve seen plenty of cartoons of President Bush which are just as insulting as having him wear a hat with a bomb. I can’t call any particular one to mind but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is one of him looking like a cowboy, pointing a missle at some innocent people or something like that. I’m not terribly fond of Bush myself, but even if I were, I might be annoyed at that, but I would realize that that’s what satire does. I doubt I would ask the newspaper to apologize.
I understand that the people being “insulted” haven’t said, “i approve of satire”, they haven’t said, “it’s okay, you can make fun of me just as you would yourselves”. But nevertheless I am surprised at the strength of support they are getting in the West, since people in the West ARE accustomed to seeing satirical cartoons like this. I don’t find these cartoons “repugnant” – if I did, I would have a lot of problems with all of the other satirical cartoons too. And there are plenty of things that I think are funny that other people find in bad taste (”black humor” about death and misfortune, heavy metal albums with lyrics about demons, etc); I don’t think I am ethically required not to support or republish such things just because they offend others.
Now, certainly, with the cartoons, religion is involved, and you certainly expect people to get mad about things involving their religion even when they otherwise wouldn’t. But my personal feeling is that it is in these cases ESPECIALLY when you must be careful not to persecute people who have a strange sense of humor.
I’m not sure that I would personally choose to republish these cartoons, if I were the editor of a newspaper (although I might) But right now I don’t feel that those who do are doing anything unethical – maybe unwise, maybe unhelpful, but not unethical. The way people talk about these cartoons one would think they were a lot more offensive than they actually are.
Also, I think it somewhat ironic that the argument is over whether to republish the cartoons. How can people form an opinion on this question without seeing the cartoons? And doesn’t this need to see the cartoon itself argue that republishing is a service, not something bad?
– BayleShanks 2006-02-17 09:10 UTC
---
OK, back to the more abstract question of free speech. I don’t think the problem is that courts are not doing their job. To reiterate what I said above:
(1) Government’s should only tell me not to do something when that “something” is really really bad, and saying mean things isn’t bad enough
(2a) Even if the courts rule correctly, due to checks and balances they are never powerful enough to single-handedly stop curb abuses stemming from the executive branch’s subtle misinterpretations of the reach of censorship laws. A related problem is that public opinion will be swayed by the executive branch’s misrepresentations of what the laws mean.
(2b) Even if you think you will win in court, the fact that going to court is involved intimidates people into silence
(2c) It’s just too darn hard to even draft a law that censors “bad speech” without also censoring “good speech”. The root problem is that sometimes some people are offended at what other people consider an important truth.
(it’s even possible that “what is offensive” is hopelessly subjective. although i like to think i can distinguish “useless, mean speech” from “potentially useful speech”, maybe the algorithm i use internally refers to other knowledge in my mind.
For instance, if Joe offered some suggestions for how to run the country, and someone said, “Don’t listen to him, Joe would rape a 12-year old girl sooner than he’d call his own mother” about one of my friends, I would consider it “useless, mean speech”. But if they were talking about someone named Joe who murdered his mother and who is a serial rapist, I would (sadly) consider it “potentially useful speech”.
But this is not as extreme as you might think. It is analogous to the problem of whether to permit someone to say that they think Mohammed was a rapist. Whether or not Mohammed was a rapist is certainly germane to political decisions, especially in countries that are considering looking to Islamic law for inspiration. Yet I bet some people still think it is offensive, useless speech. I conjecture that whether they think that depends on how certain they are that Mohammed is or is not a rapist.
Similarly, in some countries/eras, “God does not exist”, “We are not the chosen people, contrary to what you say God told you”, “God did not give you dominion over me”, etc, would be considered offensive under the same algorithm that I use to determine what is offensive — if the mind that algorithm is contained in was sure that all of these statements were utterly and obviously false.
(sorry for the rapist examples, but it was necessary for them to be offensive since we are discussing offensive statements) )
– BayleShanks 2006-02-17 09:57 UTC
---
I’m not sure what to say. If we’re going to reiterate what we said above, then there’s little point in continuing the discussion.
I think first of all we need to agree on the point of the discussion. What is the point? It seems that we both agree that free speech has harmful effects. It seems that you see three reasons for imposing no limits on free speech, based on your first message above: 1. misinterpretation, 2. the risk of being taken to court will discourage some speech, 3. some speech is or needs to be offensive and insulting. I replied that misinterpretation and the fear of courts is a sign failing courts, not inappropriate laws, and I don’t believe in the last point. In your last message, you seem to believe that there are high costs involved with censorship, but you don’t list them (1), you extend your claim of failing courts to failing governments in general (2a), you repeat that the possibility of going to court discourages speech (2b), you say that it is difficult to draft just laws that differentiate between speech we want to support and speech we want to forbid (2c).
I’m not sure what you example is supposed to illustrate. Perhaps the difficulty of drawing the line. Unfortunately you used an example from a different discussion: The discussion about the Mohammed cartoons that started this page. But with respect to that discussion, I already said:
Do the Danish cartoons nullify or impair “the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life?” I don’t think so.
You don’t mention my two additional points: That context and motivation is important, and that the world has better things to do:
Based on what I read, it seems that the Danish newspaper in question was in fact trying to provoke. That’s sad. You’d think we already have enough problems without having to go around provoking people.
I therefore suggest we abandon this example, as it seems to detract from the free speech discussion.
Back to the question: What’s the point we are discussing? Whether there should be any limits on free speech? Since there are already a lot of limits on free speech, even in the USA, I wonder where we ought to start, then. Trademarks, patents, copyright? Slander? Nazi propaganda, calls for massacres in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia? Pilloring people for being child molesters, uncovering secret agents, protecting whistleblowers?
I need to know what exactly we want to discuss, if we want to discuss any such issue at all. As I said to Lion, I actually fear that we won’t be making much progress at all, and slowly repititions, distractions, expansions, and strawmen will wear us down. I guess I’ve given up on “convincing by arguments”. It just takes too long. Teaching yes, entertainment yes, sharing yes - but not a change of opinion.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-17
---
I don’t have a need to continue the discussion right now (maybe in the indefinite future/WikiNow, though, someone will think of something else to say). Although I do believe in “convincing by arguments”, sort of for the reasons on PassagesOfPerspective; I feel that debating has an effect on the “ideological landscape” or “memetic landscape” of our society even if none of the immediate participants change their views during the debate. I reiterated because I didn’t understand how your views connected to mine (i.e. why you didn’t find my reasoning convincing); i read your previous post as, “yeah, but we’ll fix the courts then it’ll work”, but i didn’t think my argument had much to do with bad courts, so i reiterated to make that clear, so that i could hear your response to the other points.
but now i guess i understand why we disagree a little better, correct me if i’m wrong:
1. you think that misinterpretations can be fixed by fixing courts. you are unconvinced by my contention that “even if the courts are working correcting, even if the laws are correct when interpreted correctly, misinterpretable laws are bad (for the reasons i described above)”.
2. likewise, you think that “chilled speech” via fear of going to court stems from a fixable problem with the court system, whereas i think it is inherent in the nature of government and so can only be ameliorated by making the law so clearly permit anything even resembling good speech that it would be ridiculous to imagine being taken to court for it
3. you aren’t convinced by the hypothesis that it is impossible to draw the line between good and bad speech.
4. you aren’t convinced by the hypothesis that offensive speech is sometimes necessary (or at least, you think that the way you classify “bad speech” is good enough such that there is zero intersection between your set of “bad speech” and the set of “necessary speech”)
you didn’t mention (did you?) my first reason, which is based on my feeling that the bad effects of bad speech just aren’t dire enough to justify telling individuals what to do. but i am assuming that you don’t think this is an issue because you think my criterion for “how much bad effects something must have before we consider telling an individual what to do” is just too high of a bar – you are comfortable with people being told what to do for smaller benefits than i am (i am assuming this only because i’m a libertarian and it seems to me that your typical person would disagree with a libertarian on that issue; your typical person seems to be less disturbed about the idea of a government telling people what to do than i am). is that correct?
so i have what i needed from the discussion – a slightly better understanding of the other point of view (and hopefully the chance to pass on a slightly better understanding of my point of view).
– BayleShanks 2006-02-22 11:24 UTC
---
Interesting summary. 😄 I think I agree mostly. Let’s check:
1. Yes that is correct. From discussions with my lawyer and master of law friends, I learnt that the law is *intentionally* vague, and thus many people will go to court that would not need to go to court if the law were more specific. On the other hand, this drawback makes the laws future-proof. If they are vague, they need interpretation. Interpretation depends on context. As society changes, the interpretation of the law can change, and thus the legal system can adapt without the text itself needing to change.
2. Not only are working courts an assurance against abuse of the system, since the ambiguity of the law seems to be intentional, as explained above. Thus, there are chilling factors in all areas regulated by the law: Property rights, housing, environment, education: Wherever the law regulates something, there is a margin of “error” – or the freedom to adapt, depending on your point of view. To aim for certainty in one aspect (speech) seems like a misunderstanding of the premises upon which our legal system is built. And indeed, all the fundamental rights for free speech did not protect American society against lawsuits: Porn publishers, radio operators, cable TV operators, phone services, manufacturers of VHS recorder – all of them walked the thin line between legal and illegal and many had to go to court. The courts are were we – as a society – solve our conflicts in non-violent ways.
3. That’s right. We make these kinds of decisions all of the time. Whenever the courts have to decide between guilty and not-guilty, there are many things to consider: Mental sanity, age, the history that led to the situation, human factors, and when all is said and done, *in dubio, pro reo*. Again, to aim for perfection here is to misunderstand how the system works.
4. Absolutely right. If there is no intersection between necessary and offensive speech in my personal life, I don’t understand why there should be in public life.
At the end, you emphasize your dislike of being told what you are allowed to say or do. I dislike it as well. And yet, we both accept copyright as a necessary limit on our freedom of speech. We both accept the protection of minors as a necessary limit on our freedom of speech. The same is true for trademarks, threats of violence, and many other things.
If forced to choose which of the following limits you were to abandon, which would you choose? 1. Don’t discriminate minorities. 2. Don’t corrupt minors. 3. Don’t damage business interests. 4. Don’t damage a work of art (a work is protected as part of your personality in continental Europe, not just as an economic interest). It seems to me that the protection of minorities against discrimination is just as important as any of the other limits on free speech.
“Being told what to do” and telling other people what to do is not how I see it. “Being protected from abuse” and defending other people from abuse is how I see it.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-02-22 17:10 UTC
---
Oooh, an interesting conversation ! Shame I’m coming over late :P I was following this case pretty closely at the time, and was surprised at the number of people in the West (including Clinton 🙁 ) who took position against the cartoons.
I’m against the idea that speech should be banned if it’s “offensive” - I don’t understand how Europe came to have that kind of legal tradition; even setting aside the question of how practical it is to implement, I don’t want “bad speech” banned (Which seems to be a stronger position than Bayle’s).
I don’t see those cartoons as “discrimination against minorities”; to me discrimination is stuff like companies that only hire people of the right colour, or buses for coloured people, or kids being beat up at school for being jewish or effeminate, or the defendant’s skin colour influencing the jury more than the evidence. Those Danish cartoons don’t come close to any of those.
As for slander, trademarks, nazi propaganda, and call for genocide, hmmm - I don’t see any reason to ban nazi propaganda; the rest are not really related to “offensive speech”, though they’re pretty interesting questions themselves 😄
(Oh, and Lion, I believe some slander laws may even restrict speech that’s actually true, though I’ll need to look that up)
– EmileKroeger 2006-03-03 12:29 UTC