― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Anyone who has been watching the news over the last few days has seen the violent protests that have erupted all over the middle east. There are many reasons for it but one of the highest mentioned ones by the protesters is the film "Innocence of Muslims."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19625167
The content of the film in the end matters very little. The people who wished to silence the views expressed in it would have found another justification to do so, much like what Salman Rusdhie experienced when Iran's Ayatollah declared a Fatwa on him for writing the "Satanic Versus," (A book not even explicitly about the prophet Muhammad) and also other people who have done work explicitly critical of Islam.
The limits of free speech legally are an ongoing conversation. Much like a person cannot scream fire in a crowded theatre or commit libel against another, but that conversation should never be dictated by thugs. The threat of death for the sharing of an opinion should not even be on the table. It is savage and barbaric and has no place anywhere in society or in any group of people. Extortion is something that should play no part on how the courts and people define free speech's limits.
This is important because shutting down the conversation doesn't give the other a chance to correct the opinion through reason. As John Stuart Mill beautifully illustrates in the quote above. Freedom of speech means more than any one person's feelings. If someone is offended they can write why the person is wrong, they can mock the other person...they can do countless things that don't involve killing, violence and extortion.
Another point that must be brought up is why any one group should deserve special protection from being critiqued? Why should Islam and Muhammad deserve special treatment when Jesus, Buddha, Moses and countless others have been on the cutting board since people finally were able to critique these figures without the threat of death hanging over their head (blasphemy laws in Europe and the West that existed years ago). To whitewash their legacies is to a lie about who they were as flawed human beings.
Connected to this is the danger in those laws that once existed. Who is defining what "Blasphemy" is? Isn't blasphemy by it's very nature a thought crime? In all the places were such laws exist (Iran, all over the Middle East, etc.) Minorities suffer for it. There is no protection for Christians, Jews, Baha'i, Sufis, Ahmaddiya Muslims and Sunnis and Shiites (depending on which faction is in control of the government in regards to Sunnis and Shiites) and other religious minorities. They actually live in fear for their lives and can't speak about why they believe in their religion without getting targeted in many cases. This is directly tied to free expression (and also the separation of Church and State...which will be another blog post for another day).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirror.html?hp
The final piece I wanted to touch on was the liberal hypocrisy in regards to Islam. I consider myself moderate liberal and find it sad and hypocritical that the left is comfortable criticizing and mocking conservative Christianity, but never does so with conservative and radical Islam. This is hypocrisy that should be pointed out. No group is above criticism and radical Islam does have problems that should be brought up and problems that are worthy of satire and mocking, just like conservative (and Liberal) Christianity and religion as a whole.
Part of what tolerance and acceptance means is accepting views that make you uncomfortable. You have no right to shut another down simply because you are offended. Just as they do not have a right to keep you from expressing your opinion. That's what freedom of speech means. It means allowing a place for the views you disagree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment