This cartoon shit is rigoddamndiculous
The following statement, from a no less reputable newspaper than the Washington Post:
“The publications caused outrage across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, becoming a showdown between religious tolerance and freedom of speech.”
This emphatically not a showdown between religious tolerance and freedom of speech, and it is journalistically irresponsible, or perhaps merely stupid, to say that it is. This statement implies that tolerance and freedom of speech are diametrically opposed, at opposite sides of some ideological spectrum.
In fact, they are not: they are allied. I submit that religious tolerance is not possible without freedom of speech. This type of cartoon that is necessary to create the kind of dialogue necessary for the West to understand and eventually embrace Muslim culture.
What’s most disturbing is that no major news outlet has argued that these cartoons were not intended to be disrespectful or hateful to Muslims, but rather to highlight the fact—thrown into starker relief than ever by the recent month’s events—that Islam has been perverted by violent ideologues bent on rolling back Western freedoms, even in the West itself.
OK, I take it back. What’s actually most disturbing is that British Prime Minister introduced legislation prohibiting disrespect of religious faith. Excuse me. The whole fucking point of free speech is being able to do exactly this. I am disgusted by my leaders even more than I was one month ago, and that’s saying something.
I never thought I would excerpt the Washington Post, but from what I’ve read regarding this issue, they have said it best:
The cautions for us are clear enough. Setting limits on free speech -- whether by the "speech codes" on college campuses or attempted intimidation of everyone else by the presumed elites -- is political correctness run amok. Free speech, after all, is like virginity: either you have it or you don't. Our First Amendment, unique in the world, does not guarantee speech in good taste, or speech that is responsible or reasonable. It guarantees only that speech shall be free. Our own government is no less subject to temptations to nibble at this guarantee.
“The publications caused outrage across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, becoming a showdown between religious tolerance and freedom of speech.”
This emphatically not a showdown between religious tolerance and freedom of speech, and it is journalistically irresponsible, or perhaps merely stupid, to say that it is. This statement implies that tolerance and freedom of speech are diametrically opposed, at opposite sides of some ideological spectrum.
In fact, they are not: they are allied. I submit that religious tolerance is not possible without freedom of speech. This type of cartoon that is necessary to create the kind of dialogue necessary for the West to understand and eventually embrace Muslim culture.
What’s most disturbing is that no major news outlet has argued that these cartoons were not intended to be disrespectful or hateful to Muslims, but rather to highlight the fact—thrown into starker relief than ever by the recent month’s events—that Islam has been perverted by violent ideologues bent on rolling back Western freedoms, even in the West itself.
OK, I take it back. What’s actually most disturbing is that British Prime Minister introduced legislation prohibiting disrespect of religious faith. Excuse me. The whole fucking point of free speech is being able to do exactly this. I am disgusted by my leaders even more than I was one month ago, and that’s saying something.
I never thought I would excerpt the Washington Post, but from what I’ve read regarding this issue, they have said it best:
The cautions for us are clear enough. Setting limits on free speech -- whether by the "speech codes" on college campuses or attempted intimidation of everyone else by the presumed elites -- is political correctness run amok. Free speech, after all, is like virginity: either you have it or you don't. Our First Amendment, unique in the world, does not guarantee speech in good taste, or speech that is responsible or reasonable. It guarantees only that speech shall be free. Our own government is no less subject to temptations to nibble at this guarantee.
posted by Michael Deuser at 3:50 PM
0 comments
