Yes, free speech trumps religious sensitivity

I’ve lived and traveled in Islamic countries and most of the drivel that gets spouted about Muslims is just that, drivel.

I’ve watched some of the clips of the film — produced in the US by a self-described Israeli — that sparked this week’s deadly violence in Egypt and Libya.  It’s loathsome, racist stuff.  Actors in the film literally wear blackface as they portray the crudest stereotypes of Islam.

But I’m also a big believer in free speech and artistic license.

It’s essential that the hateful stuff that gets said and written about Islam in America, Israel and Europe be allowed expression.

We need to know where these pools of bias and bigotry are collecting.  We need to hear and understand their ideas and have the opportunity to challenge them.

As unrest was growing in Egypt and Libya, the US embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

[NOTE:  It is now clear that while the statement was issued as a response to growing unrest over the film in question, it was not a response to the murder of US officials in the Libyan embassy.  The previous paragraph has been changed to include this new information.]

The statement goes on to describe “respect for religious beliefs” as a cornerstone of American democracy.  “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

I think this was a missed opportunity to make clear to the Islamic world — which obviously has some fiercely-held common beliefs — that we in America have some bedrock convictions as well.

One of those convictions is that the right to speak and express ideas (even really bad ideas) trumps the religious sensitivities of other people.

In our society, the two things aren’t co-equal.

Your religious views (which you are free to hold) don’t occasionally or sometimes or in moments of tension trump my right to express my opinions, even if your religious views are really, really important to you.

We exist in a conversation, one where neither of us is allowed to tell the other to shut up.  That’s one of the reasons American politics are so noisy, and so wonderful.

I understand the temptation that US diplomats faced.  When Muslims in tinderbox places like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq or Libya are enraged by Western expressions and ideas (from political cartoons to literary novels to crummy films), the expedient thing is to express sympathy, compassion, cultural sensitivity.

But this kind of thing is, on its face, dishonest.

In fact, American society does not “reject the actions” of those who abuse the right of free speech. On the contrary, we defend those rights (and by extension, the freedom to commit those actions) constantly and vehemently.

Over the years, our Supreme Court has issued decisions supporting ugly speech, including NAZI marches, the burning of crosses, and the picketing of funerals by radical Christians.

The only exception is speech, quite narrowly defined, that deliberately and specifically incites audiences to violence.

Particularly in the face of violence and riots in the Muslim world, US officials should be unambiguous in their support for free expression.

By embracing mob thuggery, Islamic activists only make it that much clearer how important it is that civilized people protect speech and expression.

Who knows?  In time, our unwavering example might give Muslim nations a model for talking and thinking out loud about the increasingly painful questions facing their own troubled societies.

In fact, the one thing the Islamic world needs, more than anything else, is the freedom to debate publicly and freely about its strengths, its weaknesses, and its future.

If some Muslim leaders want to deny that freedom to their neighbors, through violence and savagery, that is far, far more offensive than a crummy film made by a crackpot in America.

68 Comments on “Yes, free speech trumps religious sensitivity”

Leave a Comment
  1. Verplanck says:

    Easy for us to say that free speech should rule, no matter what. Those statements diplomats made in egypt were trying to defuse a violent situation.

    The whole point of diplomacy is to maintain a relationship between different cultures and values. It’s not to push our beliefs in their face. That causes friction, and in this case, deadly violence.

    To call calming statements “expedient” is to underplay the very real physical threats our foreign service officers face.

    Would this have played out differently if the embassy said ‘whatever, Egypt. That movie totally deserves to be shown’? Probably. Probably would have been worse.

  2. Brian Mann says:

    I think the prepared response should be something like this:

    “While we condemn the content of the (book/film/article/cartoon/speech) in question, free, nonviolent speech is one of America’s most cherished human rights. We understand the value of free speech even more when confronted with brutal violence that would silence and suppress it.”

    –Brian, NCPR

  3. JDM says:

    Brian Mann: overall, this is very stated and well done.

    In your previous comment, you use the word “we” a little too freely, to my liking, in your first sentence (i.e. “While we condemn the content”) and more universally in the second sentence (i.e. “We understand the value of free speech”.

    I sign on to understanding the value of free speech. I doubt that every American would sign on to condemning the content of anything.

  4. JDM says:

    To clarify my last statement, “I doubt that we could every American to agree on that the content of a particular subject is condemnable”, but I think all Americans understand the value of free speech. (at least, I hope they do).

  5. Peter says:

    Anyone who reacts so vehemently to a portrayal – no matter how tasteless – of an important religious figure, has, I believe, a fairly weak faith.
    We’ve seen overreactions in various forms by religions of all stripes, so it’s not simply a matter of Islam, or Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other. I can’t count the number of times Jesus (in the instance of my faith) has been portrayed for the purpose of satire, low humor, high humor, or even insult. Most of the time I simply shrug, sometimes I think ‘even Jesus would get a laugh out of this’.
    I believe some religious folks need to focus a little less on the motes in others’ eyes… I also believe the little-known, and even-less-seen, and even-less-than-that-respected film was being used as cover for planned attacks by extremists with other intentions than simply protesting a Youtube video.

  6. hermit thrush says:

    In the wake of this week’s deadly attacks, the US embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

    not sure what you’re referring to by “this week’s deadly attacks,” but this statement really needs to be clarified. the embassy’s statement was issued before the attacks yesterday that resulted in our ambassador’s death.

  7. Mervel says:

    It goes back to fear of secularization. As a Christian I don’t think much of our a good portion of our modern culture, particularly the filth that flows out of most of popular media. But the right to free speech as Brian correctly points out trumps my feelings and sensitivities and it protects my right to openly talk about the shallowness and emptiness of a culture without God and His Son.

    God will judge the nations and I think Peter is spot on, the idea that God needs defending through violence would in fact show a weakness of our faith.

    Why do the nations rage,
    And the people plot a vain thing?
    2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
    And the rulers take counsel together,
    Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
    3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
    And cast away Their cords from us.”

    4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
    The Lord shall hold them in derision.
    5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath

  8. Paul says:

    I think that the folks that did the killing used the mob as cover. They don’t care about free speech or anything else they want to kill Americans.

    But I totally agree with the premise of this post. If defending our rights requires sacrifice (and it does) so be it.

  9. Pete Klein says:

    I watched the video and thought it to be stupidly comical.
    Do we really need to go around condemning everything stupidly comical when the true evil was in reaction to the video?
    Do we need to do this so that we aren’t murdered?
    If that is the case, then we are going down the road to give up all our freedoms.
    Must never say or do anything because if we do, someone will kill us.

  10. Mervel says:

    I think it is a nation in flux along with Egypt. The mentality of the mob is often not a representation of a country at all.

    But free speech is very scary for a good portion of the world. Even places like China are having a hard time adjusting to it, the internet forces free speech into an uncontrolled medium. You can’t burn the internet, you can’t really even turn it off, it goes back to control and the illusion of control. When you feel out of control you get violent. Mob rioting over slights to Islam that result in murders are not a new thing, they have happened all over the Islamic world.

  11. Mervel says:

    I do think if a country is not a country that practices free speech then we should respect that countries traditions when we are guests in that country.

    So burning the Koran or the bible is perfectly legal in the US, but it is not something that we should condone even in a guise of free speech if we do it in other countries. We should have apologized for the intentional burning of the Koran for example in Afghanistan.

    But the intent of the mobs and the murders and the fatwah’s (all the way back to Rushdie) is to make people think twice about saying anything about Islam, and sometimes I think it has worked. People in the public sphere and in the media are much much more concerned about offending Islam than they are about offending Christ, because they are afraid.

  12. Paul says:

    In much of the Islamic world the majority of the people do NOT want people to have a right to free speech in regard to Islam. This is not some right being suppressed by the ruling class, the majority of the ruled want it this way. They should have that right to that in their own country. Problem is we live in a global society and we disagree. They are going to have to learn to tolerate things they find offensive or tolerate their homes being torn apart by war if they continue to be intolerant.

  13. Kathy says:

    They don’t care about free speech or anything else they want to kill Americans.

    Agreed.

    For some reason, I have viewed this incident far more worse than just a free speech issue.

  14. Dan says:

    I also believe that genuine terrorists used this opportunity to commit murder, ruffle American feathers, and paint all Muslims with the same brush.

  15. Paul says:

    “free speech trumps religious sensitivity” yes, but many people in the world disagree and will no matter what we say or do. The best we can do is try and protect ourselves from them if they cannot control their anger.

  16. JDM says:

    “free speech trumps religious sensitivity”

    And even if it didn’t, killing someone who says something you don’t like isn’t justified.

    That’s where the “terror”, as in “terrorism”, comes from. For example, “You say something bad about my religion, and we will kill you.”

  17. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Bullshit.

  18. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Motherfucker.

  19. mervel says:

    The ONLY True God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and He loves every one of us and knows every hair on our head, including the guys who killed our Ambassador.

    Praise God! Free speech IS a wonderful thing!

  20. JDM says:

    Obama promised a better relationship with Muslims than his predecessor.

    Four years later, FAIL.

  21. Some vicious hatemongering theocrats puts out a vile video and some thugs live down to the worst caricatures of their religion. I half wish we could bring back internment camps and shove *all* theocrats and religious extremists there so they don’t continue to poison what’s left of civilized society.

    It’s a bit ironic. The verdict in favor of free expression about political correct sensitivity wasn’t so overwhelming when the issues in question were ones like Robert Mapplethorpe’s cross in a jar of urine or the proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

    But regardless of what theocrats of all stripes may think, free speech is a cornerstone of a civilized society. Violence as a response to speech is not acceptable. Period. It wasn’t at Sharpeville or Soweto. It wasn’t at Kent State or Montgomery. And it wasn’t at Benghazi.

  22. tootightmike says:

    Some of these right-wing pseudo-Christians believe strongly in the coming Armageddon, so strongly that they’re willing to assist in its arrival. Personally, I believe in heaven-on-Earth, and that’s the direction I’m heading. Come on along, it’ll be nice. The rest of you…don’t take the whole lot of us down with you, and don’t let the door hit you in the a**.

  23. mervel says:

    What does this have to do with Christians tootight?

    Christians didn’t make this nutty film, Christians didn’t go crazy in a mob killing our Ambassador, and Christians didn’t form a mob and kill anyone in poor Maplthorpes attacking and blaspheming of Christ.

    So what is going on?

    I mean is it so un PC to even mention Islam as a problem?

  24. mervel says:

    If we leave the Islamic world alone; and let them to their own demons; after they get done starving and killing each other and finding out that no one cares, we can come back in 20 or 30 years and actually be a true friend.

  25. Phil Brown says:

    As I understand it, the Egypt embassy issued a statement about religious tolerance in an effort to defuse a growing volatile situation. Seems perfectly reasonable, given the circumstances at the time. The notion that we were “apologizing” for America, as Romney claims, is bunk.

  26. TomL says:

    I have to differ, Brian NCPR. The statement by the US Embassy in Egypt was perfectly reasonable and appropriate. It is easy, sitting here in the North Country, to understand that we have free speech that tolerates vile propaganda against Muslims and Islam (or against Christianity, or Judaism, or Atheism), but that such vile propaganda isn’t official US policy.

    The farther you get away from the US, the less clear it is that the US doesn’t approve or condone of insults to Islam. Remember, the US did desecrate the Koran as part of interrogations in Gitmo and elsewhere. There have been numerous instances (Abu Gharaib being the most notorious) of Muslims being humiliated by representatives of the US Government. Sure, those acts were later condemned and in some cases people were punished, but the images and acts are what is remembered. So making an official statement that the US condemns insulting religion, while at the same time even more strongly condemning violence in reaction to such insults, seems reasonable and sensible. It is diplomacy – which is what the State Department is supposed to do. A statement about the superior sanctity of free speech would just come off as sanctimonious. And sanctimony is the last thing you need in a volatile situation. Save the discussion about the superiority of free speech over offenses against people’s fundamental beliefs for the time that tempers have cooled.

  27. mervel says:

    But insulting religion is a US pastime, so making an official statement that we condemn it makes no sense, it sounds phoney. I mean look at the filth that spews forth from the internet, are we supposed to make a statement every time it offends someone in an Islamic country?

  28. Larry says:

    Leave them alone? Apologize? Be reasonable? How’s that all working out so far? They speak and understand only one language and it’s time we started speaking back in terms they understand.

  29. TomL says:

    Who is the ‘they’ that only understand one language – the despicable terrorists who attacked the Consulate? I don’t think the statement was meant for them.

    Statements like that of the US Embassy in Egypt are meant for these people: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/libyans-denounce-acts-of-terrorism-slideshow/?_esi=1

  30. Verplanck says:

    I think obama’s statement on the statement last night was pitch-perfect:

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-cairo-embassy-tried-to-cool-situation-down

    “In an effort to cool the situation down, it didn’t come from me, it didn’t come form Secretary Clinton, it came from people on the ground who are potentially in danger,” Obama said. “And my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance, rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office.”

  31. Kathy says:

    Right now the US is walking softly and I agree in an angry situation it doesn’t help when we enter it with anger.

    However, hating the US is clear and seeing us annihilated is the objective.

    There is a difference between having a dispute with your next-door neighbor and him hating you and trying to destroy you.

    VP Biden said Obama carries a big stick. We shall see.

  32. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    This discussion proves that Americans are easily distracted. The point of all of this isn’t about free speech, the issue is that there are people who will try to manipulate the opinion of the American public by doing vile things that are designed to get people hurt or killed and to create problems for the United States overseas.

    This film was designed to fan the flames of hatred and was produced by a self described Israeli. I dont know if the person is an Israeli and I think it is a suspect fact, but if it is true I have to wonder if he understands the lessons of the Holocaust.

    It is clear from the comments here that Americans are not just completely ignorant of the Islamic world but ignorant of their own civilization as well.

  33. JDM says:

    So far, this weaker-than-Carter attitude that the president is showing is more likely to get us into a hostage situation that resolve anything.

    The party in Vegas last night probably wasn’t the best backdrop for this world crisis. It shows a president who is either 1)inept or 2)disconnected

  34. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    October Surprise!

  35. Paul says:

    “It is clear from the comments here that Americans are not just completely ignorant of the Islamic world but ignorant of their own civilization as well.”

    Enlighten us.

    Comments on the comments are pretty useless. Tell us what you think about the issues.

    Can we find a way to change the not so better side of our human nature and stop these kinds of things from happening?

    There really isn’t an Islamic world there is just a world and all sorts of folks live in it.

  36. Larry says:

    “They” are the people of the Muslim world who either want us all dead or all gone from the Middle East. “They” are all those across the Middle East who crave and accept our help but then turn on us. “They” are governments who take our money and then use it to finance our enemies. “They” are terrorists who live amongst us even as they plot murder. Enough?

  37. Ken Hall says:

    I find it interesting that the perpetrators of the attacks on our Embassies in a number of Islamic countries are insinuated to be “terrorists”. I would agree that the ring leaders are likely cut from the “Bin Laden cloth”; but, the actual foot soldiers are most likely simple, poor, true believers incited to violence by the ring leaders. In actuality I would be amazed if any of those actually involved in the violence had even seen the video/movie which ostensibly incited such. Poor people of faith are the most convinced of all true believers since they have virtually nothing but their faith assuring them of a final reward and are therefore most easily lead to accomplish desperate actions.

    I have seen no discussion concerning the reason “we” (the US, Europe, Japan, China,….) are so intent upon maintaining reasonable diplomatic relations with the Islamic countries. One word “OIL”. If it was not for oil we likely would have had little truck with the Islamic countries and their billion, or so, adherents to Islam would likely be numbered in the low 100dreds of millions.

    The situation between Western and Islamic countries is an ongoing complicated conundrum with no simple, easy answers or solutions. There is virtually no likelihood that combined actions on their part would enable “them” to annihilate “us” considering our massive special weapons arsenals; however, turning friends into foes could lead to an all out nuclear exchange resulting in the “Armageddon” that so many true believers of all faiths appear to be relishing the arrival of.

    Measured, reasonable, rational political policies and actions are the only thing keeping Armageddon at bay, jingoistic chest thumping will not.

  38. Larry says:

    I find it interesting that Americans still think that “Measured, reasonable, rational political policies and actions” will keep our enemies at bay. Israel, whose people understand all too well what it means to be the target of people dedicated to killing all of them, has made clear what their response will be to the development of nuclear weapons by their enemies, principally Iran. We, on the other hand, worry endlessly about antagonizing people who already hate us. Even the guy who feeds the tiger eventually gets eaten by it.

  39. Will Doolittle says:

    You can reject an action, condemn it, call it hurtful, hateful and counterproductive without making a law against it. If the neo-Nazis march on D.C. with the Klan, spouting hate, and the president says he rejects their actions, condemns them, and wishes they would stop it, I’m with the president.
    The First Amendment guarantees the right to be a hateful fool in your expressions, if you want to be. It does not guarantee your right to not be criticized or to have your actions condemned and rejected.
    There is nothing wrong with the statement from the embassy.
    There is also no justification for the murderous attack on the embassy.
    And why waste breath defending people who put out swill like this film? He has the right to do it. OK. But if every person on the planet condemned him for it, I’d be happy.

  40. JDM says:

    Well, well.

    “Stevens’ killing, the first for a U.S. ambassador on duty since 1979,”

    Let’s see. That would be when Carter was president.

  41. JDM says:

    Remember on the real 9-11, when everyone criticized Bush for staying a few minutes in the classroom after he had been informed that a serious event had just taken place?

    Well, this president flew didn’t seem too interested in staying in Washington the day after an ambassador was killed, and more uprisings were occurring. He flew to Vegas for a fund-raiser, as if he wasn’t the guy in charge.

    Inexcusable. And the polls will show it (and are already starting to show it).

    Obama has no idea what it means to be president. He likes being a candidate, but has no ability to be a leader.

    Unfortunately, for US, our enemies have figured this out.

  42. Mervel says:

    I really do think this is about free speech. It is important to not let very violent people scare us into self censorship when it comes to religion and in particular Islam.

    As far as Obama’s reaction goes I think it’s fine. I would actually wish we would have less of a reaction. These Islamic mobs are like children stomping their feet wanting to be heard and paid attention to. I say leave them to their own desires and of course we need to protect ourselves, but we did not have any relations with Libya for many decades and well, who cared? We can’t control these countries or their reactions to our free speech we shouldn’t try.

  43. Larry says:

    “There is nothing wrong with the statement from the embassy.”

    Yes, there is. It shows weakness and fear. The Middle East is a bad place to be weak and fearful and the unfolding events there illustrate the consequences.

  44. Mayflower says:

    I’m sharing a comment from a friend:

    “When I was a kid walking to school, I had to pass by a house with a very aggressive German Shepherd dog. It would rush out, leaping against the fence, barking and snarling, very determined to tear me apart. I confess that it scared me a lot. But, on really good days, the dog would be asleep on the porch and I passed by without trouble. And, on those days, it did not — ever — occur to me to go up on the porch and poke that dog with a sharp stick.”

    Americans value healthy and pragmatic common sense, as well as free speech.

  45. JDM says:

    mervel: “These Islamic mobs are like children stomping their feet wanting to be heard and paid attention to. I say leave them to their own desires”

    Tell the family of Chris Stevens that.

    They are killing Americans. They are not stomping their feet.

  46. Brian Mann says:

    Mayflower –

    As someone who makes a living occasionally walking up on porches poking mean dogs with sharp sticks, I disagree with your friend.

    Silence in the face of fierce barking dogs is a good policy for kids walking to school, but a bad policy for journalists and artists.

    –Brian, NCPR

  47. Kathy says:

    Hatred does not need a sharp stick to provoke them.

  48. Mayflower says:

    Fair enough. If a sharp stick is wielded with purpose — let us say, to alert the neighbors to a dangerous dog or drive it into the dog-catcher’s net — poking sounds reasonable, maybe even noble. So, I cheer the journalists and artists in their efforts.

    If, on the other hand, it is done for no reason except to make a cranky dog crazy — perhaps to encourage it to bite someone else — not so reasonable.

    The movie strikes me as the latter.

  49. Mervel says:

    JDM they are killing Americans who are in their country. Certainly we have a right to be protected at an embassy and this man was brave and a great diplomat. Our CIA station chief was kidnapped and tortured to death in Lebanon in the 1980’s, this is dangerous work in a region that in general is not our friend, but Reagan did not take it upon himself to invade Lebanon, basically another impossible morass, these people want to be noticed and the best way to get noticed seems to be to protest the great Satan.

    I say we should never be deterred from speaking our mind in our country about whatever topic we want, including pointing out the savagery of much of the Islamic world and how Islam itself seems to feed violence. In addition if we want to attack Mohammad or Allah that is our right as Americans. I wish these radical atheists would focus their billboards on Islam (they probably know it is not pc to attack Islam so they stick with Christians).

  50. JDM says:

    Reagan had the good sense to drop a couple of bombs almost on Gaddafi’s head after the incident, I believe took place in Germany, involving Americans.

    Gadaffi was not heard from for the remainder of Reagan’s term.

    The rest of the despots learned from that incident, and many refrained from testing Reagan’s resolve.

    Strength through power was the term. Obama hasn’t been able to earn respect by bowing his head lower than the despots that I can see.

Leave a Reply