So in a previous post I argued that all the criticism of google for  establishing a censored version of its search engine in China is unjustified.  Now some lawmakers want to make it illegal for US search engines to locate in China and probably prevent servers for blog content and other applications that might give the Chinese government leverage over free speech.  I believe that the bill would also attempt to prevent Google and Yahoo from offering censored search results for the Chinese (even on a server in the US) and prohibit the export of technology to let others do the same (no shipping China a box of servers and selling google.cn to some local company).  Ironically such a bill might have first amendments problems of its own.  Free speech rights have been understood not only to protect your right to say something but also not to say something, e.g., the government can’t force newspapers to parenthetically say “which some people believe is murder” whenever they mention the word abortion, and arguably telling a search engine that they can’t return some subset of their results when someone goes to google.cn would raise such an issue (though since the audience is not inside the US their is probably wiggle room).  Putting aside the interesting legal questions I want to discuss the wisdom of such a bill as well as the irony of passing such a bill in the current political environment.

Since I’ve already talked about the whole google China thing here recently I’ll put the rest of the post in the extended entry and give my front page a break.

ASIDE:  I just heard someone on the radio ask something like, “Does free speech mean we must endure insults to The Prophet.”  Of course it does.  Everyone is in favor of free speech except for…  the Chinese government included.  The central principle of freedom of speech is that being offensive is never grounds for banning speech.  Free speech except for religious, ethnic or whatever sort of speech just isn’t free speech (banning speech that is directly harmful, e.g., the fire example, ordering a hit etc.., is not about offensiveness and hence a truly different matter).

(more…)

ASIDE: Just in case you don’t believe the threat to free speech is real

I’ve posted several times on this issue but I wanted to take the time to reply to several points that I have heard in the media or that were made in response to my comments. In particular I want to clarify my position on the issue and try to distinguish some subtle issues surrounding this controversy. Before I do let me just remind everyone that the anger in the islamic world was greatly enhanced (perhaps primarily the result of) three fake cartoons (one of which isn’t a cartoon) and seems to be more a response to the widespread (though scarily far from universal) western unwillingness to punish/condemn the publishers than outrage at the actions of one newspaper. Also there is no reason not to believe Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons with the well intentioned goal of drawing attention to an important free speech issue. In fact compared to cartoons critical of other religious groups these images aren’t even particularly insulting. In fact it is far from clear that these cartoons are (objectively) offensive/insulting to islam at all. Most christian westerners wouldn’t find an image of christ carrying a machine gun really truly offensive if it was drawn to illustrate the supposed hypocrisy of our born again president pursuing war.

Despite the relatively mild content of the cartoons many people, including governments and politicians, have criticized the newspapers for publishing offensive content. The argument, made in the comments here as well, goes something like this. The newspapers and publishers knew that the cartoons were likely to offend some people even suggesting that they should have foreseen the violent protests and harm to property and life. Therefore since one should try to avoid doing things that cause other people pain or harm it was wrong for the newspapers to publish the cartoons. In other words Jyllands-Posten missed that day in kindergarten about not hurting other people’s feelings.

This argument is flawed in many respects, chief among them the fact that we don’t believe we should always avoid hurting other people’s feelings. For instance Martin Luther King’s protests in the south certainly offended a great many southern whites and we surely don’t think he should have avoided saying things racists found uncomfortable. Of course it was directly necessary that MLK offend people to achieve his noble end but there are plenty of other examples where we feel the same intuition. Does a gay man have an obligation not to come out because his orientation might give his christian community offense? Should a newspaper refuse to publish editorials favoring gay rights because some christians get upset? Is it wrong to write a letter to the editor urging support for Ralph Nader knowing that some businessmen will (perhaps incorrectly) interpret your support as an offensive attack, even if you think Nader’s cause is hopeless? Since many muslims seem to be offended by the unwillingness of the west to support a curtailment of free speech do bloggers (even those critical of the newspapers decision) have a responsibility not to state their belief that Jyllands-Posten shouldn’t face legal repercussions?

If you agree that it isn’t obligatory to hide your sexual orientation, reasonable political positions, or some other important form of self-expression just because you know some people will be upset by what you say why doesn’t Jyllands-Posten deserve this same defense. While this point would be compelling regardless there are plenty of public depictions of the prophet that have been deemed inoffensive by the very muslim groups that are protesting these cartoons, e.g., the supreme court fresco depicting law-givers. So in essence the islamic protesters (at least those who haven’t been mislead) are simply demanding that we not say negative things about their religion (hypocritically so as many other bloggers have documents pervasive anti-jewish and some anti-christian expression in islamic society). Since a demand for preferential immunity from criticism is clearly unreasonable it is no more right for European newspapers to keep these cartoons out of their papers because muslims raise a fuss than it would be for the New York Times to censor letters to the editor which criticize affirmative action because this offends some liberals. Any other position would just encourage groups to become more easily offended by rewarding them with the power to effectively censor critical opinions.

Even if you think that one has an obligation to avoid causing offense/pain even in these situations a criticism of the European newspapers is deeply unfair. As I observed the publication of the cartoons only indirectly caused this great outcry, the forged cartoons and misleading propaganda spread by some imams and perhaps the lack of near universal western support for curtailing freedom of speech were the direct causes of the offense and the violence. Certainly an argument could be made that the publishers of Jyllands-Posten should have known of guessed that this was a likely consequence of their actions but under this standard muslims are even more guilty. I don’t just mean the imams who fanned the fire or even the people protesting but anyone who teaches, propagates or otherwise supports a religion/interpratation that is likely to find cartoons like this so offensive. It is pretty obvious that sooner or later someone is going to depict the prophet in a less than flattering light so helping to propagate a religion that finds this offensive is just as knowingly causing pain and offense. Besides one could easily guess that people like me are offended by demands for censorship (self of otherwise) of this kind. Thus if Jyllands-Posten is morally culpable for publishing these cartoons then so is every parent who raised their children to be islamic.

The primary problem in this debate is a confusion between two senses of the word ‘should.’ We use the word both to mean one is obligated to do something as in ‘you should not commit murder’ and to mean that one choice might be somewhat better than another even though there is no obligation, ‘I know you’ve never met Kristen but you should send her flowers they would make her feel better.’ While in this later sense of the word it is true that one ‘should’ donate all your money to charity and become the next mother Teresa we don’t judge people to have an obligation or to be blameworthy if they do not. At best the argument that Jyllands-Posten should not have published the cartoons might establish that all things considered it probably would have been better if they had not. It can not establish that it was blameworthy or a violation of some moral obligation for them to publish the cartoons.

At the end of the day I think it is crystal clear that Jyllands-Posten did not do anything blame worthy. The question of whether it on the whole hurt or helped things is much more murky. The harms are immediate and clear to see while the benefits are diffuse and abstract but this doesn’t mean they aren’t even more important. I think the situation is somewhat analogous to a black person in the early 20th century south publicly claiming to be just as good as white people. His remark gains neither him or other minorities any benefits, in fact likely brings retribution. Nor does it bring any knew intellectual ideas to the table. By making this remark he offends many racist whites and even encourages violence and conflict. Yet despite these immediate and clear harms his statement probably does good in the long term. If one allows a misguided group to control the public discourse with threats of violence or even just offense important ideas are stifled, people come to believe what isn’t criticized is right and social change is forestalled. By stepping out and taking the heat for being critical of aspects of islam (or perhaps islam itself) Jyllands-Posten, like generations of blacks in the south who refused to completely knuckle under (though involving far less personal courage and nobility), makes it easier for others to express important ideas or change the culture. The exact same point could be made about gays coming out of the closet. In particular if muslims are forced to take the heat of criticism in the west the same way other religions and ideas must they will ultimately find it less big of a deal. In ten, twenty or maybe 50 years criticism of islam will seem less shocking to muslims the same way christians in the west now tolerate displays that would have outraged them just 50 years ago. While the violence and deaths are tragic I think the increased freedom of expression and hence possibility for religious reform this will offer to future muslims may very well be worth it.

Since this post is already too long I will address the racism argument below. (more…)

Someone asked for the cartoons so here they are:

Some time ago when I warned and the danger of giving the UN, or even some cooperative arrangement with the Europeans, control over the internet I suspect my concerns about free speech seemed paranoid and irrationally pro-american (trust me I’m anything but). Sadly, the reactions by Europe, the UN and other nations to the islamic cartoon controversy have demonstrated that the European and International support for free speech is even weaker than I imagined. I will try an do my part to combat censorship by supporting (if I can) the BUY DANISH campaign to offset the effect of the economic sanctions and boycott. Hopefully I can convince you to do the same in this post. Also while I support the idea of reposting the cartoons to show that calls for censorship will have the opposite effect (solidarity is such a weasel word) I think it would just be pretentious to think I would be doing more than wasting space here. So consider the cartoons reprinted here and if anyone reading this would actually be offended or outraged if I did post them send me an email and I will post them for you.

When I first heard about this controversy I thought it was kinda silly. Another moronic religious group getting upset over a silly and pointless (though still worthy of legal protection) publication of some cartoons. Sure the US state department criticized the publication as did the UK government through Jack Straw but this seemed like nothing but the standard governmental critique of statements they find disagreeable not a serious attack on free speech (even if both statements have been misquoted). However, a bit of research showed that the original publication wasn’t merely a pointless stunt like the Piss Christ display but was a reaction to the existence of an effective curtailment of free speech in Denmark by fear. Additionally while the reactions by the US and UK governments were unfortunately lacking in any strong defense of free speech many other European and international organizations actively attacked that.

However, a bit of online research revealed the true extent of the attack on free speech. Of course their was condemnation by islamic countries with some even imposing economic sanctions but that is unfortunately unsurprising. More disturbing was the fact that there was only weak and isolated support for Denmark’s stand on free speech from other governments with some first world countries like Russia and the Vatican suggesting that the right to free speech ought to be curtailed. Most disturbing though was the response of various European and International institutions. Parts of the UN are proposing investigating Denmark for racism with the Human Right’s Commissioner suggesting she is critical of the decision by Denmark to respect free speech. Parts of the Norwegian government are suggesting that this type of speech are banned by laws against hate speech (or at least trying to make it look like they believe this). The Council of Europe is explicitly criticizing Denmark and the EU has been making critical noises. Of course the EU did come out against any boycott of Danish goods and I suspect all of these organizations are at least somewhat internally divided but what is disturbing is the public support this suggests for curtailing free speech. In fact there is even a push in some quarters to create international laws limiting anti-religious speech.

Unfortunately I think this sort of erosion of support for free speech in Europe was inevitable. The Europeans (the british slightly less so) have always had a weak stomach for free speech. They have never really accepted the notion that even truly unpalatable or offensive speech must be tolerated (so long as it isn’t a direct incitement to violence) and most European countries have some laws against racist speech or other ‘really bad’ types of speech (I’m not crediting the US citizen with any great virtue…probably just an effect of our government or greater diversity). Once some types of ideas (blacks are inferior, the holocaust never happened, etc..) are made illegal it makes it much easier to slide down a slippery slope of restricting more and more types of expression. Additionally the greater role of the government in supporting arts, media and other forms of expression more frequently forces the government into the role of deciding what sort of speech is acceptable and blurs the line between government and private speech.

Of course it is true that some types of speech (holocaust denial, racism, etc..) are deserving of legal protection but are nevertheless morally reprehensible to make. Unfortunately many people in this controversy (including some US papers) make the mistake of equating religious offense with the kind of truly objectionable speech like racist denunciations. Not only is this an error but the ultimate effect of such a classification would be disastrous. The classification is in error because, as many people have pointed out, religious belief is something people can adopt or reject not a fixed unalterable aspect of their being. Thus it is important to criticize religion to influence people’s beliefs and that criticism is bounded in the negative effect it can have. One can never believe the harms of being criticized for your faith are worse than the benefits provided for being faithful otherwise one could just give up your religion, i.e., bearing religious criticism gives the sufferer a feeling of righteous struggle while the victim of racial discrimination might only feel oppressed.

More important though is the pragmatic consequence of ruling religious offense out of bounds. Since there is neither an objective standard of what constitutes religion nor what constitutes offense this sort of behavior encourages people to take more and more offense at smaller and smaller infractions. This situation is the perfect example. There are plenty of media items mocking the christian religion (piss christ) and certainly no absence of anti-jewish media that does not generate the same calls for restricting the freedom of speech. It is obvious that there wouldn’t be any calls to restrict free expression if the islamic world had denounced the cartoons the way the vatican denounces anti-catholic expression but otherwise shrugged and gone about their business. The motivation for restricting free speech in this case is nothing but the great offense muslims take at these cartoons.

Since religion is nothing but a set of beliefs that many people accept and really care about a prohibition on anti-religious speech is just a prohibition of criticizing things people really really care about. Deciding that speech should only be allowed when it doesn’t criticize something lots of people really care about strikes at the very core of the free speech protection. Free speech to say things that aren’t unpopular isn’t free speech at all. Even if people refrain from engaging in this sort of speech for purely voluntary grounds it just encourages religious groups to find more and more items offensive. If I was a christian who saw that an extreme reaction by the islamic community stopped offensive items from being published in the future why wouldn’t I whip my church up into a frenzy next time something like Piss Christ comes out. After all if they don’t have to see stuff they don’t like why should I?

UPDATE: Interesting how no muslims seem to be getting upset about the US supreme courts generally positive depiction of the prophet. Not to mention the long history of such depictions in christian and islamic contexts. In short the islamic complaint is nothing but a demand for special consideration not to be critisized the same way christianity and judaism are critisized.