Free Speech More Important than Hurt Feelings
April 9th 2008 00:38
I just finished reading a truly disturbing article on the Canadian news site canoe.ca.
It seems that a summit of Muslim leaders have decided to launch a legal assault on the very foundations of free speech and freedom of expression. Such is the small mindedness of these decisions that "Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad." Cartoons. They want to take legal action against free western nations for cartoons which they found offensive.
I trust in the strength of democratic governments not to cave in to this kind of idiocy, but I write this article in earnest entreaty of my fellow countrymen, and others in the west, not to let this kind of insidious horse-shit take hold of your minds and start to seem fair and liberal, don't let it start to seem 'tolerant.' It is the opposite of tolerance. It is sometimes easy, in a time where Muslims and Islam are often caricatured and treated unfairly in public perception, to think that maybe it would be okay to censor ourselves just a little, to not be so offensive - to hold certain things sacred - but therein lies the danger! We cannot and should not self-censor under pressure. Self-censorship out of fear is the first step towards legal censorship. If we allow ourselves to say that one thing is too sacred to make fun of, - say the Prophet Muhammad - even to the point of protecting it by law, then we open the floodgates for the realignment of church and state, and for the loss of any true free speech that we have.
When we see a statement like President Abdoulaye Wade's (Senegal) that "freedom of expression should (not) mean freedom from blasphemy" we should vomit our liberal hearts out. That is EXACTLY what freedom of expression means, it is almost the case par excellence of freedom of expression. The ignorance displayed in this man's words is almost beyond my grasp and, if people with such suckfish black souls come for us through the courts, we should fight them like warriors with every power of intellect we have, until they skulk back to their theocracies and cry.
I suggest that, as a matter of national pride, we here in Australia and you throughout the Western world, should start featuring images of Muhammad in every cartoon, every artwork, every movie, every work of graffiti, and every tattoo. Only this kind of arrogant, irreverent and downright offensive action can truly show that we will not be talked down to by those who would undermine the very foundations of our society.
To the summit in Africa that wants to take free speech to court, and to anyone who supports such an idea, I present my middle finger, my blasphemous tongue, and a big "Fuck You" to Muhammad.
Hope you're all angry for the right reasons,
A. Hine
for the full article: Really Long Link
It seems that a summit of Muslim leaders have decided to launch a legal assault on the very foundations of free speech and freedom of expression. Such is the small mindedness of these decisions that "Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad." Cartoons. They want to take legal action against free western nations for cartoons which they found offensive.
I trust in the strength of democratic governments not to cave in to this kind of idiocy, but I write this article in earnest entreaty of my fellow countrymen, and others in the west, not to let this kind of insidious horse-shit take hold of your minds and start to seem fair and liberal, don't let it start to seem 'tolerant.' It is the opposite of tolerance. It is sometimes easy, in a time where Muslims and Islam are often caricatured and treated unfairly in public perception, to think that maybe it would be okay to censor ourselves just a little, to not be so offensive - to hold certain things sacred - but therein lies the danger! We cannot and should not self-censor under pressure. Self-censorship out of fear is the first step towards legal censorship. If we allow ourselves to say that one thing is too sacred to make fun of, - say the Prophet Muhammad - even to the point of protecting it by law, then we open the floodgates for the realignment of church and state, and for the loss of any true free speech that we have.
To the summit in Africa that wants to take free speech to court, and to anyone who supports such an idea, I present my middle finger, my blasphemous tongue, and a big "Fuck You" to Muhammad.
Hope you're all angry for the right reasons,
A. Hine
for the full article: Really Long Link
| 64 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
In a religion which still considers apostasy a crime punishable by death, the challenge must come from within its ranks.
Just like the intellects of the Enlightenment who were slowly able to erode the power of the Church, it is the free thinkers of Islam who will lead the Reformation. Turkey has already announced it is planning a re-assessment of the Qu'ran. Women activists like Malalai Joya in Afghanistan are slowly improving the plights of women and the poor. These actions are far more significant to the social progress of the Islamic world than the depiction of Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban.
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
I think it is good that there are forces for change in repressive Muslim societies, I was simply saying that no one anywhere, and especially not from outside, should try to legally quash freedom of expression in the west.
Perhaps you disagree, and think we should lock dissidents up, or bankrupt them. I dunno.
A. Hine
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I was highly annoyed and offended to see a crucifix suspended upside down in urine and titled "Piss Christ". Seeing a portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant crap was also offensive to me. I didn't kill anyone because of it. I didn't make any death threats over it. I do object strenuously to my tax dollars paying for such charming works of "art", however.
Freedom of speech is the most important right we have (next to life and liberty, of course). I have no problem with anyone expressing their views in a public forum. It is disturbing to hear insurrection preached by Imams on street corners. It is irritating to have tax dollars pay for disgusting "artwork", and people with idiotic points of view badgering me on my blog isn't fun, either. (Ruby). But freedom must be free for everyone or it means nothing. Don't expect me to agree with stupidity and don't spend my tax dollars to create garbage.
Nicely done Alex.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
A. Hine
P. S. Ruby, how do you fin old Melbourne town? I've just moved down here.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
alex, there is a fine line between exercising your freedom of speech and using it as an excuse to propogate hatred, which has no useful function whatsoever.
melbourne's nice enough, thinking of going back up to sydney though at the end of the year. where did you move from?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
that being said i agree with advertising, broadcasting, and printing standards which prevent slander and defamation of individuals and groups . . . im talking about racist, sexist, and homphobic political messages and campaigns, news materials that constitute vilification and hatefulness . . . these standards are usually enforced by the broadcasting and publishing companies to avoid law suits, they may be overseen by an authorising body
i think we also need to acknowledge the difference between arts and news . . . if a cartoon is commissioned by a publication and appears as news commentary in circulated media then it is the responsibility of the publisher over what content he/she thinks is appropriate . . . if a reasonable publisher unintentionally caused offense with their content they usually offer a retractional/apology . . . if a cartoonist displays a collection of drawings at an art gallery the work should be considered in the context of having artistic merit in design and composition etc
in conclusion, no there should not be a specific law to ban the depiction of muhammad, nor should there be laws against blasphemy etc BUT i think the media as an industry should have some ethics and not purposely offend the beliefs of others
in australia our ABC is the government run tv station and whenever they air a program depicting aboriginal people they put a brief warning stating that images of aboriginal people living and dead may follow as it is part of their culture that those images may be distressing to some
like-wise when confronting images of war, torture, animal-cruelty, or child-abuse is about to be aired most respectable programs use a bit of sensitivity and warn of the images to follow
its a shame the muslim leaders are so stirred up, i can only assume they didnt receive much sensitivity and respect when they complained to the publisher . . . i doubt they would win a law suit unless the images were blatantly racist or hateful in intent
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Morgan, I agree with some of what you say - outright vilification and racism etc. should not be published in mainstream newspapers or pushed on TV - it couldn't be anyway, not successfully, because the letter writing contingent would annihilate its propagators.
That said, I don't think people should self censor to avoid offending anyone - the "cultural sensitivities of minorities" is a very broad term and it would be hard to report in an unbiased manner without offending someone.
The cultural sensitivities of a Neo-nazi, for example, might be offended by articles claiming that the third reich was somehow bad, the cultural sensitivities of some Muslims might be offended if an article appeared condemning Sharia law as barbaric, some Christians might be offended by an article debunking the bible - do you see my point? Which sensitivities do we "respect", and which not? Unless we invoke some higher power, I don't see how we can justify respecting the image of Muhammad, but not that of Jesus - who is mocked frequently in our culture, thankfully without too much protest - how do we decide to respect the Buddhist point of view, but not the Wiccan, or the Satanist, or the Communist?
As I see it, "offence" is not enough to start censoring or self-censoring - perhaps outright slander of specific individuals could sneak through, as it is closer to a direct harm, but not mere 'offence' cause by expressing one's viewpoint. Argument is better than censorship in all cases.
I don't burn JW pamphlets just because they offend my intelligence and humanity; neither would I take a lawsuit against a book entitled "Fuck You Alexander Hine" (it would probably be great publicity). If people are offended they can write a letter, kick up a stink, and try to get their own view heard as a counterweight. But it is a coward who wants society to protect them from ever being offended.
I am not saying we should strive to be offensive (at least not in major newspapers, TV news etc.), only that we should strive to tell the truth as we see it, whether or not it offends people.
A. Hine
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
and i know you only said nazis and satanists as examples but i guess we all just need to use a little common sense when thinking about who is likely to complain and why
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
I don't believe in any gods, I don't believe any humans are/were divinely inspired, I don't believe any of that (no offense) horse shit - so it seems perverse for me to be restricted by everyone else's superstitions. It would be one thing if we were locking Muslims in a room full of pictures of Muhammad, but this is just some cartoonist coming up with an idea that involves Muhammad and drawing it. That is a reasonable and normal thing to do - the problem wasn't the cartoon: it was the maniacal fruitcakes who thought it was worth rioting over.
Sorry, but minority groups have protection from oppression, racism, ,violence - but not from any and everything they happen to find offensive. I say that anyone who riots over a cartoon deserves less respect, sensitivity and tolerance than others, not more.
Also, I included Nazis and Satanists because these are two groups whose freedom of speech is often attacked. I'm pretty sure there are countries now where it is illegal to deny the holocaust, ridiculous! What I'm saying is that many people who defend the outrage over Muhammad cartoons also seem to support laws against denying the holocaust....its either freedom of speech for everyone, or not at all.
Well, perhaps we just have a fundamental disagreement - in which case - I'm right, you're wrong....
A. Hine
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
*smiles* that was a refreshingly honest take on "lets agree to disagree" haha
denying the holocaust i would put in the same category as the flat earth society . . . stupid . . . i wouldnt expect news stories proclaiming either as fact in a mainstream publication . . . while you have the right to say it, discuss it with your friends, use it as inspiration in the arts, put it in a blog etc . . . BUT it really has no value and isnt newsworthy, its sensational maybe, its free speech sure, but as a publisher or producer it is your responsibility to steer away from things that are intended to marginalise minorities
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
With Islam, you are dealing with people to whom the concept of freedom of speech is utterly alien. This sort of freedom did not happen in the West overnight. It was a slow, painful progression hard fought by many men and women who did not live to see the fruits of their labour.
And you expect the Muslims world to come around to our way of thinking overnight?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It was the whole point actually.
And what's the worst thing I have ever said to anyone on Orble? That you make me sick? Well you do. And for good reason. As you are proving yet again.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Nice try.
I'm going to bed now. Sweet dreams. Try not to hate too much.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
So, which is it, should freedom of speech be used as an excuse to express hatred or not?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Apparently you have never attended the funeral of a loved one. Lucky you. If someday you do, how would you like picketers carrying signs that accuse your dead loved one of supporting "fags" being a "whore" or a "slut" and saying that God hates your dead loved one? Supposed the deceased was your niece (who sleeps around and who you would encourage to kill her babies). Would it make you happy to have those signs paraded at her funeral? Would it make the rest of your family happy? Her parents? If so, then you can revell in the delights of hurting grieving people and feel proud that you're able to do so. If not, maybe you should shut up and think for a change. This isn't about how much you can hate me or anyone else who disagrees with you. (shocking though it may be!) It's about freedom of speech being abused in order to hurt others and whether or not it should be illegal. If the law doesn't permit people trying to save babies at an abortion clinic, it should not allow picketers to insult the dead and harm a family in pain.
The universe isn't all about you and your tantrums, Ruby. Sad, but true.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
You have inadvertently proven the point that I was trying to make to Alex- that people abuse the concept of freedom of speech to put forward their own hateful agenda. That is what the WBC is doing and that is what I meant when I said that freedom of speech is not just about the freedom to be obnoxious. Walking around screaming out "Fuck you" or in Fred Phelps case, "God hates fags", is not an exercise in free speech, it is an exercise in hatred.
But you told me that I didn't make any sense.
And stop making everything about abortion. The law isn't designed to stop people people picketing clinics, it's designed to protect the women from being attacked by those peace loving pro-lifers. They are allowed to picket all they want, they just can't get too close to the women.
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Anyways, let's agree to disagree
A. Hine
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Please don't lecture me. The reason I purposefully worked in offensive remarks, and I often do, is to make a point. One is that being offensive can be fun and constructive, and should not be discouraged or punished as a matter of principle (as the leaders discussed wish to do). Another is that when people try to suppress what they find offensive, those espousing it should not lie down and submit but should assert they're right to offend - which is, of course, coupled with the responsibility to bear being offended themselves. If these guys want to make blasphemy illegal, I say "Fuck you Muhammad, Fuck you Allah"
If you don't get it, that's fine.
"With Islam, you are dealing with people to whom the concept of freedom of speech is utterly alien. This sort of freedom did not happen in the West overnight. It was a slow, painful progression hard fought by many men and women who did not live to see the fruits of their labour.
And you expect the Muslims world to come around to our way of thinking overnight?"
Firstly, I am sure there are many Muslims who would take exception at being told that the concept of free speech is "utterly alien" to them - especially those Muslims who are working to promote democracy in their countries.
And Ruby, you have completely missed the point. At no point did I say that Muslims should come around to our way of thinking. What I was discussing was attempts by Muslim leaders to suppress free speech in the West - the free speech that was "hard fought (for) by many men and women who did not live to see the fruits of their labour." Now, would you lay off trying to feed me your lack of basic comprehension skills as argument.
Bye bye
A. Hine
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Our right to stand up and scream "fuck you, i won't do what you tell me!" didn't happen overnight and at any other point in our history would have seen anyone who dared try it dealt with quick smart.
I'm not saying that we need to cave in, just perhaps choose our words a little more wisely?
And lighten up dude. I was not lecturing you.
Cheers.
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
Sounds like lecturing to me, but oh well...
You did miss my point. Because I don't think we should tone ourselves down just because other cultures don't like us. I don't want the Muslim leaders to understand, my concern is with stopping them in their plans. This is why I advocated making a strong legal case against them, if it comes to that - you are confusing my secondary and primary points into one. My secondary point is that we in the West should continue being just as offensive, blasphemous, and un-Islamic as ever - especially if some summit of theocrats tells us we shouldn't.
In summary, let the lawyers use wise words to defeat any legal attacks from Islamic groups on free speech, and let us proles just go on swearing, drinking, having irresponsible sex, drawing offensive cartoons and all the rest if we want - because we have the right to. Or being nice, speaking quietly, being careful not to step on anyone's toes - because we have the right to do that as well.
If by choosing our words wisely, you mean avoiding blasphemy and not causing offense then it is identical with caving in.
A. Hine
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It's taken us a long time to get to this point and we don't want to go back.
But I guess I am also hoping that the Islamic world can somehow come around to our way free of thinking (eventually) and I don't want them to think that we are insulting them just for the sheer pleasure of it. But yeah, if that's a separate issue, sorry to beat you over the head with it.
Cheers.
Truce.
I like your writing.
No hard feelings?
Comment by Alexander Hine
Human, all too human thoughts, raving and dingustalk
Tones and Tremelos; music news and views
Music Toes
A. Hine
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm sure we'll find something else to argue over soon. I never could sit on my hands for very long.