2006-02-09
"Cartoongate" and the Clash of Civilizations
"And before we shake our heads at how backwards Muslims are for wanting to silence those who would insult the founder of their religion, let's remember that our hands aren't exactly clean when it comes to freedom of the press whenever it might threaten our core interests. Indeed, the US has admitted targeting al-Jazeera bureaus, and has arrested, detained without trial, and even killed reporters (accidently, of course) for daring to report news that challenges the official American version of events, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
From the article:
"To cite an equivalent American example, should a newspaper print an op-ed calling African Americans "niggers" just because it's legal to do so? Of course not. Nor would any newspaper worth the paper it's printed on print something similarly insulting about Jews. Or publish pictures of President Bush naked in the shower, or Princess Diana being autopsied, or any of an infinite variety of images which, while surely within the bounds of free speech to publish, serve no journalistic purpose.
So while it should be legal to insult people, one can ask what purpose is served by printing a picture of the founder of Islam as a blood-thirsty terrorist. How is doing so fulfilling any role of the newspaper in a free society? "
Nadir: I think that you make a very good point here. I will think this over.
This is really a pretty good point. The New York Times has often printed the Piss Jesus and the Scat Mary, because they know that the offense taken by US christians is limitted to the institutions displaying the artwork, and does not extend to news outlets reporting on the displays.
US news outlets do self-censor themselves on behalf of many groups who would express keen outrage. This is certainly true. And many US groups -- from the right and the left -- stand ready and eager to loudly demand appolgies, retractions, and banning of many expressions of thought, from Bill Mahr on his ABC show stating that the 911 terrorists were not terrorists, to Rush Limbough also on ABC stating that Donovan McNabb was overrated due to sports reporters wanting for black quaterbacks to do well.
We Americans who advocate free speach, and who are outraged by the response of the muslim tyrants, really must examine ourselves first. We cannot change other people; we can only change ourselves. I am rare in the US in my toleration for all views being expressed, without damanding censorship and censure for those who express ideas that "offend" me. Thus I must admit that the US voting population mostly comprises people who have a punchlist of verboten ideas for which they demand censor and censure. It does not matter that *TO ME* the image of mohammad with a bomb on his head is tame (I who constantly make Jesus jokes, which painfully offend people around me, including my latest unwed baby mama), whereas other images highly offend me to the point of hyper-ventilating (such as confederate flag bumper stickers).
I must admit we as a nation regularly impose social censorship and censure on a list of verboten images, words, and ideas. So why not open this list to include some images, words, and ideas considered verboten by muslims, whom we collectively claim to be welcoming into our nations as immigrants, and into our international democratic alliance as sovergn nations?
Now, let me be clear: I oppose the existance of that social vertboten list. But I must admit that it does exist, and we Americans collectively honor it, despite free speach absolutist weirdos like me. So these crazy muslims might correctly and logically ask: Why do you accomidate the crazy christians, crazy multi-culturalists, etc. (all of whom are tyrants, albeit non-violents ones), but not us?
Thus I think that I might be moving into Nadir's camp, though perhaps not for the reasons that he has stated (though maybe my reasons are simply restatements of his reasons).
I break this issue into two parts:
1. Should crazy muslims be added to the current western Verboten list, along with the censorship demanded by various other crazy anti-freedom groups such as crazy christians and multi-culturalists? Yes, since such a list exists, we must treat crazy muslims just as we treat other crazy members of otherwise liberal societies.
2. Should such a list exist? Hell no. But I do not think that we opponents of this verboten list should focus our efforts on denying new additions to it.
I think that these are two seperate questions.
I am certain that the US military has never targetted western reporters. As for considering the targetting of Al Jazeera, US officials have done nothing more than engage in a useful and logical internal debate about whether or not to regard Al Jazeera as a propaganda mechanism of the enemy, as every US war effort has done in the past (the most famous example: Tokyo Rose). Looking here is a poor source of examples of western democracy practicing censorship.
Paul, good to see that you are moving away from the dark side.
For me, it's just about polite "civilized" society. While you may curse and insult your friends to their face, there are certainly instances where that behavior would be inappropriate. We all self-censor because if we didn't there would be fights breaking out every five minutes.
Why start a fight for no reason? Because you want to insult someone and they don't like being insulted? Just because you have the right to insult them is no reason to pick a fight.
The European media is picking a fight with Islam, and that is potentially a dangerous situation for everyone. Restraint is called for on all sides here.
Nadir: I agree with some of what you say here, but not all of it. I certainly agree that we all "self-censor", and that this is an absolute requirement for sensible living. When I edited that international journal, "Rethinking AIDS," I self-censored all the time. If I got a letter saying, "Those fags all desearve to get AIDS," except perhaps to take the opportunity to counter the point.
On the very touchy subject of receptive anal intercourse, I knew that a large fraction of gays treat criticisms of that act (in terms of it causing immune-suppression) the way that a lot of liberals treat advocacy of school vouchers: as a surrogate for being "homophobic" (vs. "racist" for school voucher promotion). Thus I treated that topic very lightly, thought I was one of the AIDS Rethinkers who regard that practice as one of the contributing factors for AIDS.
And during my tenure as the Head Honkey In Charge of our beloved Ben Carson program, I used to give regular sermons. There were some ideas, such as school vouchers, that I carefully avoided mentioning, due to my assessment of how the audience would respond. As you know as an artist yourself, I am compelled to "push the limits" of what my audience will accept, and try to get that limit to expand via my presentations (as you do with your music). We do not do this simply for its own sake; we have powerful reasons for why we have this compulsion. I am very happy to say that although I have repelled some people with my artistic compulsion, I have also changed the lives of other people, causing them to accept such comments (and thus others) without falling to pieces. Even you and your wife find yourselves in a position that you certainly never would have expected: being driven to the airport tomarrow mornging by a friend who consistantly calls both of your dads gay. Though I have not convinced you of my larger point (that such comments are innocent), I am happy that you guys have taken some baby steps forward (in my view).
You might think that me calling everybody's moms whores merely represents an infantile compulsion to offend people. However, I deeply believe that the world would be a much better place if people's toleration for the words of others drastically increased. Yet of course in my Ben Carson sermons I don't call everybody's mom's whores, due to self-censorship, which even I employ, in a similar way that when people come to a Distorted Soul concert you don't start blasting them with jazz, or absolutely overt leftist exortations.
HOWEVER: I absolutely oppose any efforts to beat, kill, imprison, or boycott *other* editors who choose to print statements like, "fags deserve to get aids," speakers who use the "n" word, etc. This is where I remain seperate from you. I detest the protesting muslims, and the extent to which I detest them is proportional to the penalty that they wish to inflict upon those who violated their free speach strictues. If the world would finally listen to me, there would be publications that chose not to print the "n" word or cartoons of jesus and mohammad buggering and feleting each other, and some that did, but there would be nobody trying to prevent anybody from doing so.
Also: I absolutely advocate the antagonizing all of the tyrants, christian and muslim alike. But I opppose any magazine self-censoring on behalf of one group of speach tyrants but not another.
Post a Comment