Cry baby
I generally try to avoid politics on this blog for the obvious reason but something happened yesterday. I got into a free speech argument with someone and I did not expect him to take the position that he did. I’m sure you are aware of the two pieces of news that have been going around the last couple weeks: the Danish Cartoons, and the writer who was imprisoned by Austria for denying the holocaust. Despite the Danish cartoonists and that writer being stupid, I saw these cases as free speech issues. The Danes and the writer had a right to say what they did. Of course, I say this with the American idea of free speech.
“If you live in Austria you have to respect their law, stupid or not. It’s that simple. If you don’t like it, you can leave.”
That is an absurd line of thought. A stupid law is a stupid law and should not be left on the books, much less be obeyed. Before Lawrence, were we supposed to not have sex just because there was a law on the books? Were blacks supposed to accept school segregation before Brown? Or what about women’s suffrage? Prohibition? Slavery? The Austrian law prohibits the denying of the holocaust. But that’s a censoring of political speech. It’s putting forth an idea. As much as I hate to use the slippery-slope argument, but if a legislature is allowed to censor one area of political speech (denial of the holocaust), what can stop them from censoring another (dissent to the party in power)?
In the end he said that the cartoonist and writer were both in the wrong because their speech was “dangerously provocative.” It invited violence. Clearly, he is right—the result of their publishing was violence. However, whatever happened to blaming the actual perpetrators of violence? The cartoonists didn’t tell the mobs to burn down embassies and kill westerners (as well as their own people). The writer didn’t tell Christians to start attacking Jews again.
It’s just crazy to me that we are being expected not to “offend” anybody.
posted by David @ 5:18 PM
3 Comments:
We all straddle a fine line any time we open our mouths: who will I offend with THIS? There are those who seek to offend and others who do so accidentally.
I think part of the question is this: what is the intent? We have levels of intent when it comes to murder (first degree, second, etc.). But can we show leniency for someone whose actions are done with no intent of malice?
Theoretically, you could say, "I don't mean to offend anyone by denying the existence of the Holocaust but I believe it to be a bunch of hooey" but if you know that what you're saying is against the law, can that not be considered intent? They say that if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk and kill someone there's a certain amount of intent there.
You should read an essay by David Brin called "The Dogma of Otherness." Very interesting.
I really liked this post and I agree with you. Even though I disagree with the writer who denied the holocaust, it should still be his right to say it. Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it right. It doesn't mean that people should blindly follow it without some attempt at change.
Brian, I don't think that "intent" would be a good criterion to judge whether a speech is appropriate or not. Take the Danish cartoons. Did the cartoonist intend to incite muslims or did he do it to point out a view that Islam is destructive? Then there is the intent of those who republished the cartoons. Did they intend to exacerbate the situation, or did they want to show their readers the cartoon in question? It's all subject to interpretation.
Cynthia: Hi. Yeah, I don't appreciate what the writer did, nor the cartoonists, but I think they have the right to say it without fear of being killed or imprisoned. Thanks for commenting!
Post a Comment
<< Home