Are Radical Imams Going to Redefine Freedom of Speech?

September 19, 2012 4:07 pm 7 comments

Mohammed cartoons.

Now there are threats of violence directed against France for the publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammad in violation of Islamic law.  This is simply the most recent manifestation of a worldwide effort to censor freedom of expression and make it conform to the most radical interpretation of Islamic tradition.  The bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie was recently increased and this distinguished author remains in peril.  Theo Van Gogh was murdered for violating Islamic Law.  And numerous people have been killed as the result of cartoons being published in Denmark and a video shown on YouTube.

I have seen several minutes of the stupid little film that has, arguably, incited so much violence and the deaths of four distinguished public servants, including a United States Ambassador who was uniquely sympathetic to Islam and Arab interests.

There is nothing good that can be said about the low budget film.  It has little redeeming social value and the world would be a better place if it had never been made or shown.  Nevertheless, it would be wrong, and under American law unconstitutional, to censor or punish such despicable expression.  Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views.  It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.

There are several exceptions recognized under American law to untrammeled freedom of expression.  These include falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, fighting words and speech that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence.  Even if these exceptions were applied to anti-Islamic expressions that would not solve the problem.  It is easy to argue that a video such as the one on YouTube could be banned without doing much damage to freedom of expression, but that would only be the tip of the iceberg.  The radical Imams who incite the violence would not be satisfied until they could decide what could be seen and heard. They want to become the ultimate judges, juries and executioners when it comes to anything that relates to Islam or its prophet.  But religious fanatics who are easily offended by those outside of their religion who violate the rules of their religion cannot serve as censors in democratic societies.  The threat or fear of violence should not become an excuse or justification for restricting freedom of speech.

Those who blame America for allowing what some Muslims regard as blasphemous speech must come to understand that by not censoring such speech, the government does not place its imprimatur upon it.  That may be difficult to understand for people who have come of age in repressive regimes which do not permit any expressions disfavored by the government.  In such regimes, the publication of bigoted materials can be taken as representing the views of the government.  For example, when Iranians newspapers publish anti-Semitic diatribes, the views expressed in those diatribes are the views of the government.  Not so with democratic states.  Indeed it is probably true that more anti-Semitic material is published in the United States than in Iran, simply because so much is published here and almost none of it is subject to any kind of restriction or censorship.  That does not make the United States an anti-Semitic country, but rather a country in which there is freedom to express anti-Semitic views.  It does make Iran an anti-Semitic country, because all views that appear in the media must be approved by the government.

Some who are now calling on governments to censor expressions that are deemed offensive to Muslims point to the fact that some European governments do censor Holocaust-denial speech.  It is false comparison.  First, only a tiny number of governments—most particularly Germany, which was responsible for the Holocaust— censor Holocaust-denial speech.  The vast majority of countries, including the United States, impose no such censorship.  As far as I know no Muslim or Arab country censors Holocaust-denial speech.  To the contrary, several such countries, led by Iran, promote such hate speech.  Second, the Holocaust is a fact that no reasonable historian can dispute.  The kinds of views that have caused the recent violence are expressions of opinion regarding an historical character about which historians vigorously disagree.  Finally, I for one would like to see an end to the censorship of Holocaust-denial speech.  Let those like Ahmadinejad who insist on lying about the history of European Jewry be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.  Truth does not need censorship to defend it.

So let us not allow those who employ violence to initiate a debate about the limits of free speech.  Democracies should not allow themselves to be held hostage to violent extremists.  Having said that, freedom of speech also requires decent people to condemn those who abuse freedom by needlessly insulting the religious beliefs of others or by being insensitive to the havoc they may be causing by exercising their freedom of speech.  This film should be condemned in the marketplace of ideas, but the writings of Salman Rushdie and the publishing of political cartoons should not be condemned.

Individuals have the right to pick and choose which expressions to condemn, which to praise and which to say nothing about.  Governments, however, must remain neutral as to the content of expression.  And governments must protect the rights of all to express even the most despicable of views.  Finally, the international community must use its collective power to apprehend and punish anyone who commits violence in reaction to expressions with which they disagree.  Being offended by freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for violence.

An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared in Ha’aretz.

7 Comments

  • rodney allsworth

    O so true,–Truth does not need censorship to defend it.-and then- Being offended by freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for violence.- first, if the Muslim religion was the truth that they claim, why do they have to defend its -god-prophet-, if their god is at all god he doesnt need them to defend him, if he needs defending he’s not god at all.

    rod qld

  • If I don’t believe in a god or in a religion, then that might be so insulting to them. In fact, Bible, Quran and Tanakh have these passages saying that the unfaithful should be killed, as well as those that’d try to ‘convert’ you… so, what the hell? Where’s that freedom?

    • Sorry there is nothing in the old Testament about hurting, humiliating or killing Christians or Muslims…..The Koran …and its believers…celebrates the hurting, humiliating and killing of Christians and Jews…Check out how tolerant Mohammad was with the Jews of Quaraza…Does decapitation give you a clue?

  • Jews of the world, unite in affirming often
    “ISRAEL IS GODS PROMISE TO THE GENERATIONS” “ISRAEL IS THE LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS”.

  • To use one of Prof. Dershowitz’ favorite Yiddishisms, it takes some kind of Chutspah (or as Bill Clinton might say, brass) for these characters to be demanding apologies from western democracies when their governments, newspapers, schools, writers, spokesmen, and populace regularly and continuously spout the most venomous anti-Jewish commentary,including calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. But all others must be sensitive to their religious sensibilities and concerns. This idiocy is being forced on us because as one of their wall posters said, there are one and a half billion of them. They have a sixth century mindset and act accordingly. When people fought religious wars back then, there wasn’t much concern for civilian casualities; they had wars of extermination. Now, such wars are only contemplated by the Islamic fanatics who take comfort from the fact that their enemies aren’t ready to reciprocate in kind (we only see such behavior in their internecine battles, such as is ongoing in Syria or happened in Iran-Iraq). As psychologist have repeatedly taught us, the only realistic method for curtailing such behavior is tit-for-tat. Unfortunately, this doesn’t square with liberal sensibility, although the Allies didn’t hesitate to respond in kind against the Germans and Japanese during WWII. Pundits incessantly complain about the “cycle of violence”, but the terrorist mindset will not be squelched unless there is a real fear of consequences. Appealing to the rationality of fanatics and their sympathizers (which appears to encompass much of Islamic society) is ineffective and self defeating.

  • It’s not just radical imams as extreme leftists like HaAretz would like you to believe!
    Freedom of speech is incompatible with Islam and its law, the Sharia.

  • Sorry Alan…your guy Obama and his sidekick Hillary are more concerned with not hurting the jihadists’ feelings than defending the US Constitution….the initial statement from the USEmbassy in Egypt was US policy…If it wasn’t, then you fire State Dept employees the way FDR fired Joe Kennedy Sr…that statement made clear that Obama and Hillary care more about sharia than the US Constitution…You cannot “distance” yourself from the statement unless you fire the people at the embassy..

Leave a Reply

Please note: comments may be published in the Algemeiner print edition.


Current day month ye@r *

More...

  • Book Reviews Opinion Robert Gates’ Memoir is a Jaw-Dropping Read (REVIEW)

    Robert Gates’ Memoir is a Jaw-Dropping Read (REVIEW)

    Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates’s memoir follows the classic form, telling the story of his years at the Pentagon during the Bush and Obama administrations. He focuses on what he did and experienced personally as secretary, neither writing a broad policy treatise nor recounting the entire history of the administrations in which he served. In so doing, Gates provides penetrating insights about the inner workings of US national security decision-making. Had I been George W. Bush, I would [...]

    Read more →
  • Beliefs and concepts Book Reviews The Media, Israel, and Anti-Semitism (REVIEW)

    The Media, Israel, and Anti-Semitism (REVIEW)

    Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed from A-Z by Lee Bender and Jerome Verlin (Pavilion Press, Philadelphia, Pa. 2013) Sophocles said, “What people believe prevails over truth,” Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed from A-Z is ideal for the arm chair reader who would like a basic grasp of the terms used in the mainstream media’s presentation of the Arab-Israeli situation as is reported today. This is a book whose time has come. This is a book where the reader gains a [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Blogs William Shatner’s One Man Show Keeps Him in the Limelight (INTERVIEW)

    William Shatner’s One Man Show Keeps Him in the Limelight (INTERVIEW)

    JNS.org – On Thursday, audiences around the country can feel what it is like to be William Shatner, the Jewish actor best known for his portrayal of Captain James T. Kirk on “Star Trek.” Shatner’s one-man show “Shatner’s World”—which was on Broadway and toured Canada, Australia, and the United States—will be presented in nearly 700 movie theaters nationwide for one night only on April 24. Sponsored by Fathom Events and Priceline.com (for whom Shatner has famously served as a pitchman), [...]

    Read more →
  • Blogs Book Reviews The Origins of Palestinian Refugee Relief Efforts (REVIEW)

    The Origins of Palestinian Refugee Relief Efforts (REVIEW)

    Romirowsky and Joffe’s book Religion, Politics and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief is an important volume for those interested in truly understanding the origins of the Palestinian refugee issue. Utilizing a treasure trove of newly released documents, the authors link UNRWA’s (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine) origins to the Quakers/American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). For those readers who thought they knew most of the Middle East story, Romirowsky and Joffe’s version provides another twist. The authors meticulously [...]

    Read more →
  • Sports Israeli Soccer Team Faces Prospect of International Ban

    Israeli Soccer Team Faces Prospect of International Ban

    The Israel National soccer team could be facing a World Cup ban, and other soccer sanctions, unless it alleviates travel restrictions and increases field access for Palestinian players and coaches. The head of the Palestinian Football Association is pushing for international soccer’s governing body, the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), to issue a ban on Israel competing internationally, claiming Israel’s restrictive travel for Palestinians is equivalent to a form of oppression. “It’s not only the athletes,” Jibril Rajoub explains. [...]

    Read more →
  • Beliefs and concepts Book Reviews Jewish Author of ‘Eat to Live’ Dishes on Health Care, Nutrition, Disease Prevention

    Jewish Author of ‘Eat to Live’ Dishes on Health Care, Nutrition, Disease Prevention

    JNS.org – While the national debate on “Obamacare” rages on past the recent March 31 sign-up deadline, bestselling Jewish author Dr. Joel Fuhrman says the “current disease care model of what we call ‘health care’ cannot possibly be sustained.” “There is simply not enough money available to support a system in which the lion’s share of expenditures is devoted to acute care, with virtually nothing being spent on preventive medicine, i.e. health care,” Fuhrman says in an interview. “To make [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Jewish Identity ‘Tears of Color’ Art Exhibit Shows Struggles of Israelis With Eating Disorders

    ‘Tears of Color’ Art Exhibit Shows Struggles of Israelis With Eating Disorders

    JNS.org – “This is how I want to be—without fear. Independent. I want to be like a bird. I want to spread my wings.” So reads part of the description beneath one of the 30 paintings on display until the end of May at the ZOA House in Tel Aviv. The collection represents the first-ever art exhibit of its kind: an exhibit created entirely by Israelis in treatment for eating disorders. Dubbed “Tears of Color,” based on one of the [...]

    Read more →
  • Beliefs and concepts Book Reviews Overprotective or Loving? Daughters Reflect on Jewish Mothers in New Anthology

    Overprotective or Loving? Daughters Reflect on Jewish Mothers in New Anthology

    JNS.org – Rachel Ament noticed that she and her friends often shared humorous anecdotes that were typically variations on a theme: overprotective, worrying Jewish moms who smothered them with love. That included Ament’s own mother. “My mom is probably every Jewish stereotype scrunched into one,” the Washington, DC, resident tells JNS.org. “At the root of all these stereotypical, worrying, overprotective moms, is love.” A social media writer for Capital One, as well as a freelance writer, Ament decided about three years [...]

    Read more →



Sign up now to receive our regular news briefs.