The current debate demonstrates the subtle line between freedom of expression and inciting to riot. Everyone engaged in the debate agrees that freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to a free and democratic secular society. Likewise, all agree that freedom of the press entails responsibility to exercise the right responsibly and the right of the recipients to be offended by the publication. There will always be tension between these two principles and disagreement over what constitutes "responsible" exercise of free expression rights. In addition, the exercise of the right of free expression in a responsible manner is contextual, and not absolute. The context may involve the speaker, such as a keynote speaker at a large public rally or a major newspaper or network media organization. The context may involve the audience, such as an audience in a darkened theatre, or a large group whose hostile sensibilities have already been raised.
Whether they choose to admit it or not, newspapers and other media who publish material are different from an individual uttering a statement on a street corner. As a matter of practice, newspaper editorial policies have required corroboration before printing a story, to protect the credibility of their news organization. On editorial commentary matters, special care is taken to explain that "opinion" rather than fact is being published. News reporting is a combination of free speech and commercial speech. The Danish government initially refused to step into the current controversy, stating that it would not apologize for the publication of the offensive caricatures because they were published by a "free press." Their failure to think through the issues resulted in their being dragged into the conflict involuntarily. The flaw in the Danish government response is that "freedom of the press" or speech refers primarily to "prior restraint." In other words, the government cannot censor free expression by preventing its publication. The government can, however, sanction or comment upon speech or publication after the fact, if the expression recklessly or intentionally caused harm to the public.
In the current world environment, western leaders [the most arrogant of them being George W. Bush] have maintained a stream of bellicose and disparaging rhetoric against Islamic governments, and in some instances against all Muslims by implication. The invasion of Iraq, the public condemnation of the Hamas victory in Palestine, the attempts to bully the Iranian government, constant sniping and disparagement of Syrian and Jordan people and their leaders, abuses and torture of Muslim detainees, and desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, all have contributed to an atmosphere of hostility toward Muslims. That prevalent atmosphere precludes examination of the cartoon publication as a single or isolated event. Whether intentionally created or not, the global Islamic community perception of being disrespected and under assault is a plausible and reasonable reaction. The decision of other newspapers to republish the cartoons after the clear negative reaction from Muslims could reasonably be seen as further provocation.
There needs to be some level of tolerance for offensive speech, However, we understand that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be criminal and likely to cause injury to the audience trying to escape. Screaming "attack" to a large group on the verge of rioting would be unlawful incitement to violence. Can knowing republication of images with knowledge of the action being a defamatory, disrespectful and insulting attack on the Islamic religion and sensibilities of its adherents be easily justified?
I am not aware of anyone who openly advocated for violence in the protests against the defamation and desecration of the image of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim clerics have denounced the violence and called for peaceful protest. Inflammatory rhetoric from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice blaming the reaction of the crowds upon "outside agitators" and urging governments to crack down on protesters neither explains adequately nor helps the situation. Peaceful protest is also a fundamental tenet of a free and democratic society. This Bush administration obsession with creating and demonizing a vaguely defined "enemy," conduct that easily dissolves into a bigoted stereotype of Arabs and Muslims generally, is part of the fuel that has created the inflamed situation.
We know from experience that certain situations involving "freedom of speech and assembly" are fraught with danger and likely to threaten public safety. A neo-nazi demonstration in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood tends to be regulated extremely tightly, or disallowed and redirected to other less dangerous public areas. Hate speech is also something that has seen regulatory intervention on similar grounds to the theatre panic provocation or riot incitement examples. So the Danish government could have chosen to step in to condemn the publication of the offending images. Denouncing the CHOICE to publish, while acknowledging the RIGHT to publish, might have helped to diffuse the situation without abridging freedom of the press. An apology explaining that neither the Danish people nor their government's views were represented by the publication or its message could have helped. The Muslim community would still have been justifiably offended, but the issue would perhaps have been placed more in perspective.
A more difficult question lies with news media that have chosen to republish the offensive cartoons after witnessing the reaction to the inflammatory and offensive pictures. The initial publication could conceivably claim cultural ignorance and insensitivity, but those who republished the cartoons clearly cannot. Claiming support of freedom of the press seems a bit too facile and disingenuous. The more likely reason was profit motive because it is a hot current topic that could drive sales or increase ratings. This is where publication by the news media veers closer to commercial speech than to the core principle of freedom of expression.
However, there is plenty of blame to go around. Danish Muslim clerics chose to spread word of the cartoons being published to the global Islamic community after failing to get a response that they considered satisfactory from the Danish government. In so doing, they too inflamed the situation with knowledge that the offensive images would spark protests. Responsibility for the consequent deaths rests upon their shoulders as well. The Arab press also has published without apology very anti-semitic cartoons that were deliberately offensive to Jews. So the current outrage must be viewed in light of this double standard.
There well may be agents provocateur in the protesting crowds. However, Muslims are not mindless cattle who can be driven to stampede for no reason. Were it not for the pervasive hostile atmosphere and the perception by many Muslims that their faith is being both distrespected and attacked systematically and concertedly, it is doubtful that the crowds could so easily have been driven to violent protest. Had immediate steps been taken to diffuse the situation been taken, the current escalated frenzy would not have been reached. A match thrown on the ground will do nothing. But toss that match into a pool of gasoline or dry grass, and don't be surprised by a conflagration.
No comments:
Post a Comment