American Consulate Attack in Libya

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Here is our quandary. We cannot and should not allow ourselves to be maneuvered into backing off from a commitment, a strenuous commitment at that. Yes, other nations may have blasphemy and regardless of my feelings about them (and, for the record, I think they make about as much sense as laws against interracial or interfaith marriages and for much the reason) they are entirely entitled to have whatever laws their culture may dream up. That said, what we should not do is turn over the filmmaker or try to muzzle him or ourselves in order to appease the people turning out into the streets.

It would be one thing, perhaps, if he traveled to Pakistan or some other nation with blasphemy laws, did something in country that violated their laws, and then was turned over to the authorities for trial. He'd be in that nation as a guest and while I'm not comfortable with the idea of an American citizen being tried for something that isn't a crime in the States, so be it. But whether or not others like the idea, he *does* have the right to make any film he wishes and we should not be shy about defending the principles of free speech even while we condemn the xenophobia of this movie.

Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.

Protester: "The elites of our nation line their pockets while the poor starve! Is this justice?"

Judge: "You have insulted the elites of our country who care about the poor as much as anyone. I know, I'm an elite. Guilty!"

Protester: "The homosexuals of our great nation are arrested and for what? For loving another person? Why is this a crime? Because a holy book says it should be?"

Judge: "You have insulted the religious sensibilities of many pious people in our nation who believe that the holy book is perfect to its very last letter. Guilty!"

Can we say that people in such a nation have free speech? In all nations, people have the right to praise the government, lionize the rich, express their piety and respect for the traditions of women staying home and having babies. In other words, you don't need free speech to support the status quo or lift up the powerful for praise and adulation. What you need free speech for is to do the opposite and I just don't see how *any* country can be said to have free speech if you cannot say things that would be offensive to the majority and/or those in power without fear of punishment.


Cheers
Aj

What a beautiful post Aj.

In particular, I like how you developed the idea of what free speech, as a tool that is used in a democratic society, can be understood as fully as possible. I think it is so important to internalize the concept of what free speech means and the responsibility that comes with it. The ability to address offensive issues without fear of reprisal and punishment for bringing to attention the very items that affect humans in social, cultural, political, educational situations (to name just a few).