In addresses to the United Nations in September, the representatives of several
predominantly Muslim countries, as well as the secretary general of the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), called
for a ban on
expression offensive to Muslims and other religions.
Most claimed that they were supportive of free speech, but that hate speech needed to be stopped.
The
question is not whether there should ever be restrictions on expression.
No country provides for completely unlimited free speech. Even the United
States, with its famous First Amendment, has several significant limitations on expression - the canonical example
being that it is illegal to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie
theatre.
Most people support the principle of placing limits on unfettered speech. Some widely accepted examples include (limited and well-crafted) laws regarding slander and libel, truth in advertising, and uttering death threats.
Given that reasonable limits exist on speech, the question is: Does mocking Islam's Prophet fall outside the bounds of acceptable expression?
Most people support the principle of placing limits on unfettered speech. Some widely accepted examples include (limited and well-crafted) laws regarding slander and libel, truth in advertising, and uttering death threats.
Given that reasonable limits exist on speech, the question is: Does mocking Islam's Prophet fall outside the bounds of acceptable expression?
No.
A cheap, tawdry YouTube video languished unseen until an Egyptian TV station translated it into Arabic and promoted it. Similarly, a two-bit religious huckster with an insignificant following gained the attention of the world only when media outlets spent weeks hyping his threat to burn a Koran. Who is more responsible for their infamy? A few individuals on the fringes of society, or the politicians and media that brought them from obscurity into the forefront of international relations?
Granted,
these people are being deliberately provocative. Granted, these people are
contributing little if anything to public knowledge or debate. Granted, they
hold views that reasonable people find revolting. However, they also have the
right to do all these things.
As a matter of public policy, one cannot be held hostage to the violent outbursts of others.
One might not support a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, but one cannot legitimately claim that abortions should be outlawed because many "pro-life" activists are provoked into assassinating doctors.
Freedom of speech is a foundational building block of human rights. Freedom from offence is not.
Free speech means that everyone -
from 9/11 Truthers and vaccine denialists, to born again fundamentalist
Pentecostals and God-hating rabid atheists, and even including Conservatives
and Liberals, Democrats and Republicans - can take to the public square, make
their arguments, and spew venom at their real or perceived enemies.
Many of
the points made by the OIC, ironically, actually argue against its stated
position. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, states,
“We are not saying stop free speech; we are staying stop hate speech.”
Mockery and satire cannot reasonably be deemed hate speech, though calls for
"Death to America!" might qualify. When the OIC claims that "A line
has to be drawn at incitement," any observer should ask which is the
greater incitement: editorial cartoons, or calling for the death of
cartoonists? “You have to see that there is a provocation." Certainly,
Mohammad is a revered figure for many; but a movie trailer video mocking the
Prophet is no more an excuse for violence for devout Muslims than the film
"Anonymous" (which posited that the famous playwright was a fraud)
would be for passionate Shakespeare aficionados. And certainly, the “international
community must not become silent observers.” The international community should
rally around the right of provocative cartoonists, incompetent directors, and
childish reverends to say what they will.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that a genuine ban on blasphemy or disparagement of religious figures would place the greatest strictures on the faithful themselves. Numerous religious texts explicitly insult and denigrate other faiths. Raymond Ibrahim, Shillman Fellow at the David Horotowitz Freedom Center, argues that consistently applied religious defamation laws would quickly ban the Koran. What is a priest or imam to do, if blasphemy becomes a crime and as a result the Bible and Koran become illegal texts?
Perhaps the greatest irony is that a genuine ban on blasphemy or disparagement of religious figures would place the greatest strictures on the faithful themselves. Numerous religious texts explicitly insult and denigrate other faiths. Raymond Ibrahim, Shillman Fellow at the David Horotowitz Freedom Center, argues that consistently applied religious defamation laws would quickly ban the Koran. What is a priest or imam to do, if blasphemy becomes a crime and as a result the Bible and Koran become illegal texts?
