In Defense of Free Thought

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Robert Scheer

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-24.htm

<snip>

Since when has it been accepted as a crime to challenge mainstream historians, even when, as in this case, the challenge is without foundation? Should a deeply wrongheaded view, even one motivated by vile malice as Irving's critics claim motivates him, lead to incarceration? The case made for criminalizing speech in the West is usually based on the concept that it is not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater -- or incite violence. The argument for jailing Irving is that denying the Holocaust is equivalent to stoking the fires of anti-Semitic violence. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," stated the head of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust, by way of defending the Austrian verdict.

But by that standard, the artists who drew the cartoons depicting Muhammad should also be arrested, as well as their editors and publishers. Critics of the Danish newspaper that commissioned the Muhammad cartoons claim that its editorial slant is anti-Muslim and that they were attempting a deliberate provocation. So should the paper's editors be prosecuted? After all, people have died protesting these inflammatory cartoons. Will Austria and the other nations that ban anti-Semitic books now ban expressions judged by Muslims to be unacceptably hostile to their religion? Unfortunately, they may do just that out of political opportunism, given the rioting and trade boycotts that followed the publication of those cartoons. But they would once again be wrong.

[PurpleChez]

1. I didn't live through Naziism as Austria and other European countries have

so I can't presume to judge their motives. And I certainly don't want to be mistaken for sympathizing with holocaust denial. But I am deeply troubled by the idea of someone serving significant prison time in a modern, western nation, because he expressed an unpopular idea. Your comparison with the Prophet cartoon situation is dead-on as far as I'm concerned.

[fjc]

2. I respect that, but I have a question.

The mainstream press in this country did not publish the cartoons, I think, precisely because there was already people dying from rioting in the streets of a half dozen cities. What purpose would have been served by re-publishing them? I'm not defending the violence. I'm only wondering, if I were a newpaper editor making such decisions, if I'd want to fan the flames any further.

[PurpleChez]

6. Self deleted

[PurpleChez]

7. I respect THAT, and I also have a question.

I hope that didn't sound mocking, because I actually agree with a lot of what you said. I personally thought that the cartoons were not insightful, clever, thought-provoking, or posessed of any real artistic or intellectual value. I think that they were published knowing that they would set off a furor, although I'm sure those responsible did not intend for anyone to die. Still, I wonder if you (or I) would have been so concerned about not fanning the flames if the protesters had been Christians fundamentalists in the United States. Would any of us at DU alter our behavior to appease angry Baptists?

[fjc]

8. Virgin Mary in dung? Crucifix in a glass of urine?

These were published or displayed as "art" or something in this country and I don't recall alot of protest on the part of what I'll term the "progressive" community. So, no is the likely answer to your question. I think you're correct in your assessment of the value of those cartoons. Was that a good reason for not publishing them? No. A better reason would be if it was known such worthless trivia as the cartoons would cause a major cultural meltdown in what to most of us is a backward culture obsessed with the mythology of their religious heritage. But my question is still different. Why should the American press re-publish them in the face of such a response? Just to put the "free press" in their faces? I think that kind of thing only succeeds in reinforcing the low esteem in which the West is already held by many in that part of the world.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Agreed. Publish something...

...when it's worthy of publishing, not because somebody dares you to, or not to publish it, and not to prove a commitment to the concept of free speech. Publications committed to freedom of speech have nothing to prove, their track record should make their commitment self evident.

[PurpleChez]

10. I agree. But if blame is going to be assigned I still think that the bulk

has to go to the protesters, and many (I'm not including you in this) seem ready to lay it all on the newspapers.

[fjc]

11. But that's my point here.

It's not the newspapers, at least, it's not the American press. I thought the publication of the cartoons was an act of irresponsible journalism. But surely the response is so out of proportion to its importance as to reveal the people making it to be the extremists idiots they are.

[PurpleChez]

12. My wife was once involved in the academic study of religion,

and when she first heard about the cartoons and the furor surrounding them her reaction was along the lines of "You don't depict the prophet, not even respectfully -- we should expect such a backlash." But then we got to talking about how it was really, really sad that we "expected" such behavior from anyone. Your point was very clear. I was just going off on my own for a moment. I'm not an Islam-basher. In fact, there is much about Islam and Islamic society that I hold in great esteem. But I'm becoming more skeptical when people say "this isn't the true face if Islam." Because at this moment, in many parts of the world, it is. Just as the Crusades and various Inquisitions were the face of Christianity at one time. Those movements may have been out of step with the underlying principles of the religion in question, but at the time they were the dominant, outward expression of that community. And if there were voices of moderation they could not compete.

[fjc]

13. Not an Islam basher

Where that kind of fundamentalism is concerned, there is no line between a critic and a basher. Historically, one of the big reasons we have a doctrine of religious diversity and tolerance in this country is because the sectarians got tired of killing one another. Sadly, it appears we all have to wait for Muslims to arrive at that crossroads. Meanwhile, I think its best not to exacerbate the situation by trying to force them into modernity with blasphemy. I don't think it's gonna work.

[PurpleChez]

14. No, it won't

But it's sad to think how long it will take that change to evolve on its own.

[yurbud]

3. this is same problem I have with McCarthyism of any kind

If something is a bad idea, don't suppress it.

The marketplace of ideas will eventually filter it out, and in the case of bad history, he had about zero support in academic circles.

So what are we really afraid of? It seems to be a uniquely conservative impulse to say that bad ideas can "infect" you, but I think they are more concerned with setting th precedent so they can suppress "bad" ideas that happen to be true.

[zonmoy]

4. Unfortuanately the marketplace of ideas needs some way

for the ideas of the least powerful not to constantly get shouted down by the most powerful.

[yurbud]

5. yep--it works in academia (for now) but every place else not so well