***
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
by The Editorial Board
May
6, 2015
There is no question that
images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify
as protected free speech in the United
States and most Western democracies. There
is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify
murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make
this clear to their followers.
But it is equally clear that
the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland,
Tex., was not really about free
speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
That distinction is critical
because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet
Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical
weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a
furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The
current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over
its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a
case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for
“valorizing selectively offensive material.”
Charlie Hebdo is a
publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians
and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind
the Texas
event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by
hatred for Muslims.
Whether fighting against a
planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or
organizing the event in Garland,
Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or
anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to
death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.
Those two men were would-be
murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie
Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the
Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations
like the Garland
event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more
fuel.
Some of those who draw
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a
blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is
advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who
have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was
motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment