So it has been pointed out to me (thanks Ali) that my statements on the cartoon controversy are somewhat misleading. In particular it might seem like I think that it was a good idea for Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons. I was (and still am) trying to avoid coming to a conclusion on that issue just because predicting all the consequences of any international event is so damn hard. However, if I had to make a judgement now I would be inclined to say that the initial publication of the cartoons was a mistake. In particular had I been the editor in charge at Jyllands-Posten I would have either published only positive cartoons of mohammed or, more likely, published a set of cartoons mocking all major world religions. Such an action would have made the statement while avoiding provocking anti-ethnic sentiment or encouraging a grossly hatefull attitude toward islam. However, I believe strongly (much like the professor here seems to believe) that religions (to the extent they make claims about factual historical occurences like resurrections and guys talking to god) are just another false belief and that excluding religious belief from criticism under the guise of tolerance inappropriately sends the messages that these beliefs are reasonable (for more on the reasons that giving religious beliefs special consideration is dangerous I highly recommend “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris).

Of course if goes without saying that if Jyllands-Posten published these cartoons with the intent of whipping up hatred of a religious minority such an action would be dispicable. However, the explanation that they gave claiming their intent was to inspire debate on self-censorship over depictions of the prophet even in positive lights seems at least facially plausible especially given the fact that many of the cartoons are quite respectfull or critical of the project itself. Not having information casting serious doubt on this explanation I think it would be hasty to accuse them of anything except an unwise deciscion. In particular I am hesitant to say that the paper should not have published these cartoons as this suggests that beyond just having negative consequences the choice actually violated some reasonable societal standard of acceptable speech and this is a much sterner standard than just having bad consequences. Assuming Jyllands-Posten had the frame of mind they claim I think their publication is more similar to a hypothetical situation where Michael Jackson came out of the closet than a newspaper publishing an editorial rant claiming blacks are inferior to whites. Just as it would be unwise for someone suspect of child molestation like Michael Jackson to admit his is gay as it would further negative stereotypes of homosexuals so too it might have been poor judgement for Jyllands-Posten to publish the choice of cartoons that it did but in neither case should we deem this error in judgement beyond the pale. There is a great deal of difference between directly making harmfull statements and not properly weighing the consequences of people’s interpratations of your speech. This is the same reason we don’t blame the parents of the protestors for choosing to teach them islam in such a fasion which made them liable to be offended by such charecterization.

However, once the cartoons were published and there were protests against the Danish deciscion not to legaly censure Jyllands-Posten I think it was important not to reward such protests. Had the protests merely been against Jyllands-Posten for publishing I probably wouldn’t have reposted the cartoons but given the boycott against Danish products in general I think it was an important point to make that getting really upset at criticism will not (and should not) protect your religious beliefs from criticism. In other words the justification to republish the cartoons is the same as the justification for not negotiating with terrorists (no suggestion of moral equivalence), don’t encourage demands for censorship. Besides the deciscion facing the republishers was significantly different than that facing Jyllands-Posten. Given the context given by comments from the vatican and other officials a deciscion not to republish the cartoons sent the message that religious beliefs deserved special protection from criticism. Of course it would have been better if the solidarity publications also published cartoons critical of christianity and judaism as well (and I’d be more than happy to do so if someone wants to send me some) but they hardly have the obligation to put additional non-newsworthy items on their pages. To be absolutely clear let me emphasize that I think there was absolutely nothing over the line or inappropriate about the pure content of the cartoons, however, it is quite possible that expressing this content that particular context could have negative repurcussions.

Finally I should point out that while I am greatly concerned about things like the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (which failed to pass in England only because Tony Blair didn’t bother to stay around to vote) which would have made insulting, abusive or reckless speech about a religion illegal (language taken out in the ultimate version) the ability to critisize islam should not be our greatest fear. Political correctness and this unfortunate attitude that just because something is a religious belief it is beyond criticism will only go so far in protecting minority viewpoints. What I am truly worried about is what over at Volokh they called censorship envy. In other words once we start restricting, or even deeming unacceptable, speech critical of islam in the admirable goal of avoiding ignorant hatred other larger groups will demand the same protection on issues they find offensive. I think we already see this happening with the UK’s ban on glorifying terrorism, an ambigous term which could very easily be interpreted to make it illegal to argue that Palestinian terrorism in response to Isreali occupation are justified. I suspect part of the reason this statute was passed was to avoid criticism that labour was willing to restrict the rights of UK citizens to critisize islam they would not act to make speech that offended Britons by glorifying the London bombins illegal. While I certainly don’t agree that Palestinian terrorism is justified this claim, as an abstract philosophical point not a call to violence, is certainly within the realm of political/scholarly discourse. After all if you believe that terrorism will be effective in gaining a Palestinian state, the Isreali occupation is as morally bad or worse than British colonial occupation of the US, and the US revolution was justified, three not particularly extreme views you are inevitably lead to this conclusion (though I tend to doubt all three points).

In other words it is always the minorities who suffer the most when freedom of expression is abrogated and I am afraid that all the calls to restrict statements that offend the islamic faith will ultimately backfire on muslims. Nationalistic and christian groups will demand equal protection for speech that offends them and ultimately juries will punish minorities not majorities. However, the question is how will the minorities and majorities form. The worst case scenario is a return to racial hatred or a ganging up of public opinion against Islam. Admitedly I have probably underestimated the likelihood of this scenario because in the circles I occupy (Berkeley among others) it is unthinkable and it is inordinate respect for religious belief which is more likely to restrict expression. However, I am just as concerned that the impression of greater protections (legal or pragmatic) for Islam will fuel the anger as I am that things like the Jyllands-Posten cartoons will inflame it. At the very least particular criticism of Jyllands-Posten seems an inappropriate focus when anti-immigrant rags are a common feature of European politics. Given the dichotomy between the reactions to these everyday ethnic attacks and the strong criticism of the cartoons, particularly from religious sources, I cannot avoid the conclusion that far from being a proportionate response to a publication that might inflame racial tensions the response by Americans and Europeans to the cartoon controversy reveals a inappropriate deference to religious sensibilities that would not exist if we were talking about other sorts of beliefs like political affiliation.