I wish I had gotten around to addressing this a few days ago, but didn't. Anyhow, it concerns a pet peeve of mine, this whole response from the administration to the video that supposedly (but which they now know otherwise) caused all of these protests and violence around the Middle East. First the U.S. embassy in Egypt condemned the video. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also condemned the video. And then there are the claims coming from many that respect for other religions is a cornerstone of America's democratic system.
Some people have also insinuated that the person/people who created this video are engaging in the excess of free speech, doing the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. The administration also "asked" Google to reconsider their policy of allowing the anti-Muslim video to stay up on the Internet.
Well to respond to all of this:
1) Rather than condemning the video, why didn't the administration either, or at least in addition to the condemnation, also stand up for our principle of people having a fundamental right to freedom of speech?
2) People are wrong in their claim that respect for religions is a cornerstone of American democracy. Tolerance for other religions is a cornerstone, but not respect. This becomes quite apparent in all of the ways that Christianity and Christians get mocked and offended all the time. This can range from plays to skits on comedy shows to comedians such as Bill Maher to "artists" who create "artwork" ranging from "Piss Christ" (where a cross of Jesus Christ was put into a jar of urine), a statue of Jesus covered in dung, portraying the Virgin Mary as a whore, etc...note if any Christians were to complain about any of this, they got the free speech argument.
Free speech is free speech. You are free to mock, make fun of, and criticize a person's religion as you please. The difference here though is that Christians across the world do not start rioting and killing people over minor offenses. In saying that, I am not claiming that Muslims themselves all do either. I am no expert on Islam, so I make the default judgement that most Muslims are peaceful, and it's just a portion of them that are violent. There are about 2.2 billion Muslims in the world, which means even if only five percent of them are the violent kind, that's about 110 million people. So in terms of sheer numbers, there's a sizeable enough number of the radical kind of Muslims in the world to create a lot of havoc.
3) Making the video is not the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Doing that makes people behave in a way that is not of their own free will. They think there is a danger and thus respond accordingly. Criticizing a religion, on the other hand, is far different. In that, the people who do the violence and the rioting are acting of their own free will. They are choosing to respond in the way that they are.
One could say, "Well, true, BUT you have to be a moron to not think there's a risk that such a video could cause violence." That is true, but even then, the onus is still on the people doing the rioting, not on the video maker. Any suggestions about seeking to ban making fun of Islam out of fear of the potential for violence is putting the blame on free speech as opposed to the radicals themselves who choose to act in this manner.
The other major problem is that one would have to ban any and all speech regarding Islam period. You would not be able to so much as criticize Islam, as even this can set off people doing violence. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, produced a film called "Submission" which criticzed Islam for its repression of women. he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Morrocan Muslim. And let's not even get started on the issue of cartoons, such as the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, or the cartoons by Lars Vilks. Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (one featuring a Muhummad with a bomb in his turban, apparently the most contentious), was attacked in his own home by an axe-wielding Muslim who wanted revenge (over a cartoon!).
Now when you're dealing with people this radical, who resort to rioting, murder, assassinations, bombing embassies, and so forth, over criticism and minor mockery, then the only way to (hopefully) prevent them from rioting over speech would be to ban all speech about Islam altogether. Which will be very dangerous if that ever happens, for multiple reasons, ranging from allowing radical Islam to ascend to being an ever larger threat to Western civilization to the fact that when push comes to shove, Western civilization folds on what is supposed to be one of its most cherished principles.
4) Who do the government think they are in trying to intimidate a private company into clamping down on free speech? Google is perfectly within its rights to take down a video if it feels it is violating its Terms of Service. The government is not. When the United States government, who have the power of the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department, etc..."asks" a private company to do something, there can be quite the implied threat there.
As it is, Google says that the video does not violate their Terms of Service and will be allowed to stay up. I think it would be very bad if they had folded. But Youtube has loads of videos making fun of all religions, so it would be hard for them to make the argument that the video violates their ToS as well.
It is of extreme importance that the Western world show strength in the face of these extremist Muslims. They are not going to grow to like the West for weakness, or perceived weakness. I am not saying to just blatantly insult Islam, as people's lives are on the line, but when it is criticized, and when people do happen to insult or mock it, their speech must be protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment