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

Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....

[rowyn]

So when you say "self-censorship" do you mean something like "I'm glad most Western papers refused to reprint the cartoons" or more like "I wish Western governments would make it illegal to draw images of Mohammad"?

Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....

[ex-strangess744.livejournal.com]

I know this is going to offend you, but more to the latter, though "illegal" is ham handed for this case, I think. More like, lean on the major media outlets. Remind them that we have a nasty snake slowly bleeding to death in the corner, and prodding it while it can still bite is _stupid_. Bribery (of the publisher, since some editors still have ethics) if all else fails. An actual law or official policy on the book would tip our collective hand after all.

Yes,it is extremely dangerous to trust the government to exercise this sort of influence and use it +only+ for "the right reason" (itself a highly debatable definition). And US policy in Iraq and Israel is far more inflamatory than any ripples from "offensive cartoons". But I don't see any way to have a policy that allows Israel to exist or that intervenes in Iraqi government (to prevent a civil war, a laudible goal) which _doesn't_ inflame Moslem opinion. The whole situation is a powderkeg while we're still in transition away from oil.

Normally, I don't believe in "sweating the small stuff" on international policy anymore. (yes, quite a shift for me.) But when so much is out of our hands on something this big, I think we have to grasp at the few things we have control over.

However, such measures would _have_ to be paired with some sort of firm and meaningful oversight from someone _not_ connected to the executive branch. Preferably a quasi-independent office of the judiciary would be best, immo.

Perhaps I am being unrealistic in assuming a quiet but firm manipulation of publication could be arranged at all; I guess I'm just stating that I don't think many (if any) of the rights in the legal system are _absolute_.

However, it is possible that we're still too immature as a society to create organs to enforce self discipline and prudence in the exercise of deciding what is an exception and how to deal with it.

I suppose much as I hate the State, given that it's not going to go away, I'd prefer it act firmly in the cases where it is obvious the welfare of the State is at stake. And I'm willing to risk mistakes, because our collective behaviour already creates attrocity in the rest of the world; we might as well get the most benefit out of it that we can.