Walt has been silent for the last couple of days, pondering the ramifications of last week's atrocities in France and the implications for freedom of speech. My musings were concretized [Eh? Ed.] earlier today by an e-mail from one of our assiduous readers, who writes:
I initially felt that satirizing Mohammed was part of free speech. But then I thought how I was irritated years ago at some art exhibit that showed a crucifix sitting in urine or something like that. I felt it was tacky, unnecessary and insulting to Christianity, even to me an agnostic.
Now I am thinking, why are they going out of their way to insult Islam? What can be gained except alienating millions of fanatics who are just looking for an excuse to explode. Your thoughts please....
Walt had the same thoughts on seeing Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ". My initial reaction was that the "artist" should have been shot (or perhaps crucified), or at the very least prosecuted under anti-blasphemy laws. There are such things in several US states, in the Alsace-Lorraine region of France, and also in the Criminal Code of Canada, but, needless to say [Why say it, then? Ed.], no-one ever gets prosecuted nowadays.
The prevailing orthodoxy is that any organized religion is fair game... unless of course it's Islam! I disagree. So, it seems, does our reader. And we are in good company. Today the Pope himself put aside his who-am-I-to-judge and we-must-be-tolerant lines. Freedom of speech, he said en route to the Philippines is all well and good, but religions must be treated with respect, so that people's faiths were not insulted or ridiculed.
Walt is reminded of the old saw about freedom of speech not extending to the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre -- words which have become a popular metaphor for the dangers of complete freedom of speech. Those words were written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenk v. United States, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2223.
What has been lost, over the years, is the understanding that the result in that case was the affirmation, by the Supreme Court of the United States, of the conviction of Charles Schenk under a statue which, the appellant argued, was in violation of the First Amendment.
Justice Holmes' view, which he never changed, was that expressions of honest opinion were entitled to near absolute protection, but that expressions made with the specific intent to cause a criminal harm, or that threatened a clear and present danger of such harm, could be punished.
I think a good case can be made that the publication of cartoons intended to be offensive to members of a religion not known for its tolerance of disrespect to its prophet gives rise to the near certainty of violent retribution. That's exactly what happened in Paris.
Should I then rethink my criticism of the lamestream press for not showing the cartoons that brought down the wrath of the Muslim fanatics? Their excuse was that they didn't wish to further offend the Muslims. I'd buy that, except for a nagging feeling that if it had been Christians or Jews who had been offended, the response would have been quite different.
Further reading: "MSNBC's Maddow Shows ‘Piss Christ’ But Not Latest ‘Charlie Hebdo’", by Eric Scheiner on cnsnews.com.
Should religions (or any other institutions) be exempt from criticism? Certainly not. But there is a line to be crossed when thoughtful, even biting, criticism is simply mockery and blasphemy -- which, it turns out, was the stock and trade of Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech/expression is not absolute. Bill Donohue was correct -- while there may be a legal right for the Charlie Hebdos of the world, there is not a moral right.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Joe!
ReplyDelete