Those Cartoons Again

[rowyn]

So, here's my take on the Danish newspaper's cartoons and the responses to it.

*insert random frothing at the mouth about the importance of free speech to a free society here*

...


No, really. When I first heard about it, I considered the tastefulness of making a point by deliberately violating one of the tenets of Islam. But by now I've heard enough people dissing the cartoonists that I no longer feel any need to. Now I want to draw a picture of Mohammad myself. I don't know how I can draw a guy who's been dead for over a millenia and who was deliberately never depicted while alive, but hey, I'm willing to try! By all means, let me offend you!

*insert more frothing here*

Anyway, I read the White House press briefing on the subject, which wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been led to expect, so I'm going to reproduce the relevant portion here.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I haven't seen what the regime in Iran has said. I think we've made our views very clear when it comes to the regime. But in terms of the issue relating to the cartoons, we have spoken out about this very issue. We condemn the acts of violence that have taken place. There simply is no justification to engage in violence. We call for constructive and peaceful dialogue based on respect for all religious faiths. Those who disagree with the views have the right to express their views, but they should do so in a peaceful manner. And we urge all governments to take steps to lower tensions and prevent violence, including against diplomatic premises, businesses and individuals.

And let me just make a couple other important comments. We have talked about the need for tolerance and respect for people of all communities and of all faiths. And that's important for everyone to heed. We have also said that we understand fully why Muslims find the cartoons offensive, and we have spoken out about that. In a free society, people have the right to express their views, even when they are offensive and wrong. We support and respect the freedom of press, but there are also important responsibilities that come with that freedom. And that's why we continue to urge tolerant respect for people of all faiths.

We also urge all those who are criticizing or critical of the cartoons to forcefully speak out against all forms of hateful speech, including cartoons and articles that frequently have appeared in the Arab world espousing anti-Semitic and anti-Christian views. So I think those are the points that we would emphasize when it comes to this very issue.

So, okay, Mr. McClellan does note that 'hate speech = bad' (although I note that he doesn't quite make the leap of saying the cartoons in question were hate speech, mmm, governmentese, read what you like in it) and that "we understand fully why Muslims find the cartoons offensive". But at least he also says the most important part:

In a free society, people have the right to express their views, even when they are offensive and wrong.

Yeah. And you know what? Those people boycotting Danish products and stomping on Danish flags and threatening Danish tourists and burning Danish embassies? Their message is, uniformly, not merely "I find these cartoons offensive" but rather "The Danish government should have stopped them from being published."

And no FREAKIN' way do I have any sympathy for that.

*concluding frothing here*

Comments

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

One point of contention I might have, though, is that you've thrown "boycotting Danish products, "stomping on Danish flags", "threatening Danish tourists" and "burning Danish embassies" together, much as I keep hearing people deriding the "protests" that have been going on.

By all means, let them protest, and let them boycott. I have a right to boycott whomever I please, for whatever petty or noble reason I can dream up. Threatening people and burning somebody else's property, though, that's just plain wrong. (Stomping on Danish flags - well, "flag-burning" is an issue I don't really want to get into.)

I would note that several articles on the topic have indicated a general confusion on the part of many of these protesting Muslims, suggesting that they don't understand that the Danish government DID NOT sanction or sponsor any of this. I think some of them have this idea that newspapers are voicepieces for governments or somesuch. (Surely they couldn't have gotten such an idea from any of the free press in certain Middle Eastern countries.)

And I doubt that many of them are really thinking out who should have stopped the cartoons from being published. What they are protesting is that they got published - which would imply, of course, that they would rather they did NOT get published, because they are offended by their existence.

And I'd rather that the "**** Christ" so-called piece of artwork did not exist. (You know, the one with the crucifix in a certain amber-colored liquid.) I'm not going to burn down any embassies or issue death threats against the artist, though. (And contrary to what Ted Rall might think, I don't think that the majority of Christians would do such a thing.)

[rowyn]

I actually did lump them together for a reason, even though there's obviously a big difference in severity and legality of the action.

Of course I don't think it should be illegal for people to boycott products or to stomp on flags. If they want to boycott Danish products, I'm not going to stop them or suggest that anyone else should make them stop. Whereas threatening people, beating people up, burning embassies, etc, are all acts which should not be tolerated.

But my point is that I don't think any of the responses above are appropriate ways of expressing that the cartoons were offensive. If I do something that offends your sensibilities or your religion, your ire should be directed at me. It should not be directed at my government or my fellow citizens for their failure to prevent my offending you. Boycotting the paper, or the paper's sponsors, would be reasonable responses and I could sympathize with such an approach. But by targetting the country as a whole, they're trying to pressure the Danish government into censoring its press. And that is an unacceptable end, in my view.

But point taken about the protesters not understanding what they're protesting. I agree that most of them have little comprehension of the situation and probably do assume that anything that happens in Denmark is specifically sponsored and encouraged by the Danish government.

However, that ignorance of reality doesn't make the protesters any more right in what they're doing.