Just ’cause it’s free doesn’t mean it won’t offend

Colin Powell has said, “Free speech is intended to protect
the controversial and even outrageous word, and not just comforting
platitudes too mundane to need protection.” It is unfortunate
that, after his performance at the United Nations in 2003, Colin
Powell likely has about as much credibility in Europe as James Frey
does with readers, because everyone in Europe could stand to take
heed.

We in this country are used to both taking freedom of speech
completely for granted and assaulting it from all sides at the same
time. The right wing objects to mockeries of Christianity, like the
upcoming “Will and Grace” episode that will feature a
Christian-themed cooking show titled
“Cruci-fixin’s.” The left objects to particularly
boisterous outlets of religious expression ““ and if you
don’t believe that, then you haven’t spent much time in
the throngs that surround Preacher Dan.

People forget, when it is their opinions being mocked, that
it’s free speech that not only forms the foundation for our
democracy, but is also the tool that allows us to better
communicate with and understand each other.

Of course, we can’t use free speech to better communicate
with each other if we’re all acting like children.
Europe’s secular and Muslim populations are finding that out
right now, as the maelstrom of controversy surrounding twelve
cartoons published in a Danish newspaper a few months ago has
become a worldwide issue. In September, the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten ran a series of cartoons depicting the Muslim
prophet Muhammad with a bomb for a turban and other images meant to
mock intolerance among Muslims. Infuriated not simply by the
inference but by the fact that any image of Muhammad is considered
blasphemy in Islam, Arab diplomats tried to get the Danish prime
minister to apologize. He has refused to do so, saying that the
newspaper is allowed to say what it wants.

The issue has erupted over the last week. Other European
newspapers have published the cartoons as an expression of their
commitment to the right of free speech. In return, Arabs have begun
a massive boycott of Danish products (crushing the dreams of
thousands of little Muslim children hoping to get the new
Pilgrimage to Mecca LEGO action playset), have issued warnings
telling Danish citizens to leave the Middle East, and have set fire
to the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria. I haven’t seen a
response that ill-advised since Katie Holmes said
“yes.” Hey-o! Let’s review that in case you
missed it ““ some Arab citizens are protesting cartoons
insinuating that they are all a bunch of camel-riding terrorists by
… setting fire to an embassy.

Let me make myself clear, however ““ the cartoons were
offensive. It was a poor decision to run them in the first place,
and the decision of other media outlets to “stand up for free
speech” by rerunning them smacks of rebellious trouble making
intended to tweak already brittle European-Muslim relations more
than principled solidarity. To have license to offend, the
offensive material must be either particularly insightful,
particularly clever, or at least particularly funny.

These cartoons were none of the above.
“Cruci-fixin’s”? That’s funny. But these
cartoons were a crude attempt at making a crude point, and Muslims
all over the world have a right to be offended. However, they
don’t have the right to demand that editors of these papers
be fired (as the editor of one French paper that ran the cartoons
was) or to physically set fire to anything.

In this case, somehow flying in the face of geometric
possibility, everyone seems to be on the wrong side of the issue.
At least by the rules of Western democratic society, any newspaper
choosing to show the cartoons should have the legal right to do so
without suffering such drastic consequences. But they should not
necessarily be completely forgiven for choosing to exercise their
legal right to publish crass material.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that such a clash of
values is sure to be an increasingly common occurrence as the
Islamic world and the Western world continue to collide with one
another in Europe, the Middle East and even in the United States.
Interestingly, most American news outlets have reported on the
controversy while refraining from showing the cartoons. CNN says it
has “chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for
Islam.”

It is intriguing to wonder exactly how the American public would
respond if these cartoons were shown. Most likely, the majority of
Americans would be fine with them, but for entirely the wrong
reasons. Most Americans probably don’t know enough about
Islam to understand that the cartoons are offensive. There would,
however, most likely be an outcry from the Muslim community and
from liberals. Rahmatullah Akbar, president of the Muslim Students
Association, said “We hold dearly America’s value of
free speech but there is a clear line between freedom of speech and
hate speech made in order to incite violence.” While
inciteful speech is actually not protected under the First
Amendment, these cartoons do not explicitly incite any violence
against Muslims. They were expressing a stereotypical point, but
nowhere did they advocate physically harming Muslims.

What students, even liberal students and students whose views
are being targeted, have to remember is that offensive speech is
still speech, and deserves to be protected. Does it deserve to be
published? That’s a decision each publication has to make on
its own, but it helps if the point being made is insightful, not
inciteful. Or at least funny. Hey, did you hear the one about the
two old Jewish men who walk past a Catholic church?

If you don’t know the punch line, e-mail Atherton at
datherton@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *