I’ve been having a hard time elucidating why I thought that Jyllands-Posten hadn’t done anything ‘blameworthy’ in publishing the cartoons even though they may have made an unwise decision. This is the sort of thing I was afraid would happen, a ‘voluntary’ code of conduct prohibiting religious offense. I didn’t expect it to come out in a nice governmentally approved form but this just makes it more coercive and more dangerous.

It doesn’t matter what these rules say, there simply isn’t any objective set of rules which can prevent religious offense without banning justifiable criticism and likely giving unfair benefit to the religious over the non-religious. It is certainly possible that Islam is encouraging suicide bombing and a responsible suggestion of this idea, e.g., this argument, should surely not be effectively censored by this ‘voluntary’ code of conduct, and a religious groups determination to be horribly offended at any criticism should not change this determination. Yet the difference between this sort of speech and the islamic cartoons was a matter of responsibility, foresight, and good sense. If is entirely possible that the propositional content of the mohammed cartoon with the bomb on its head was just this. Any guideline is either going to be unable to make such a distinction or be so vague that it allows all parties to read in their own interpretation.

Moreover the entire idea of this sort of voluntary code is just stupid. If it is truly voluntary the public will hold the media responsible only to the extent they personally find some speech problematic or bothersome. In other words the same thing they do now but perhaps making it harder to do something most people find offensive. Yet it is exactly the offensive speech that the majority of the population finds attractive and won’t hold media accountable for that is the most dangerous. So long as the offended group has much public support only their egos are going to get bruised.

So I’m reading this article over at findlaw trying to argue the trying to argue the islamic cartoons where the author tries to argue that the islamic cartoons were in some sense “objectively” offensive. I suppose she means by this something like, if we disregard all the specifics of islamic belief anyone in that position would be offended (like calling someone a jerk). I think her argument is a ridiculous exercise in literary (or cartoonery) criticism, but the worst part of it was the way it rested on the absurd pro-religious mantras that pervade modern media.

A Quote (emphasis mine):

Also, because Muhammad will apparently be blown to bits when the bomb goes off, Muhammad himself is depicted here, in a sense, as a suicide bomber. Willing to forfeit their own lives in order to kill many others, suicide bombers are the most dangerous element of so-called Muslim extremists – and most would agree that such extremism is not part of Islam’s teachings, and that, indeed, such bombers are not Muslims at all. Thus, to call equating such extremism with the Prophet “provocative” is an understatement.

Well most may agree but unless the author is knowingly trying to mislead she is suggesting that this is a true or reasonable belief. However, the idea that extremely religious suicide bombers who attend their mosque and engage in all outward signs of islamic observance are not Muslims is linguistically absurd. Might as well claim that no Christians participated in the Holocaust because participating in the Holocaust shows them to be non-Christian. Why not just simply say that Muslims are required by their faith to be good and thus all Muslims are good people. Or say that Muslims are required to know simple basic truths about god (he is merciful or whatever) and thus if you are an atheist like me you would have to think there are no Muslims (none of them have any true beliefs in god). Clearly the idea that they are somehow not Muslims because they have done something ‘Islam forbids’ is just absurd. At best you might argue they are bad Muslims.

Even this is an unintelligible claim. Sunni and Shiite Muslims both don’t follow each other’s religious observances so do we have to pick one as right and call the other group ‘bad Muslims’? If this is a question of overall size, i.e., suicide bombers do something disapproved of by most Muslims, then why not say Sunni Muslims are bad Muslims too? Unfortunately it seems that the percent of Sunnis in the Muslim world and the percent of Muslims who support suicide bombing is actually of the same order of magnitude (not sure which is bigger). If this isn’t a matter of size are we making some judgment about what is the correct interpretation of the Qua ran? Should we call anyone who takes the Qua ran as not literal be termed a bad Muslim? Or maybe those that do? Even if we do take the Qua ran literally it seems unclear if it can be read to give a definitive rejection of suicide bombing, i.e., non-contradicted principle that would prohibit suicide bombing.

It is perfectly possible that the cartoon instead represents the idea that suicide bombing is going to blow Islam apart if not stopped. After all it is mohammed, arguably a symbol for the religion as a whole, who is going to be blown to bits in a scene which immediately yells suicide bomber at the viewer. Even if it is suggesting some connection between Islam and violence/suicide bombing is this really unreasonable? I tend to think that the increased incidence of suicide bombing, and other unpleasant acts in islamic cultures has more to do with societal organization, i.e., they are still where Europe was in the middle ages and you can just imagine how the medieval Christians would have reacted to an invasion of skimpily clad women and female world leaders. However, it seems a plausible hypothesis that there is some particular feature of Islam (a stronger tradition of literalism?, better preservation of the original scripture (Christian texts were made ‘nicer’ over time)?) which makes it more inclined to produce suicide bombers and support thereof.

UPDATE: I also think the argument the author makes about the intent of the cartoons misses the point. Sure the editor of Jyllands-Posten both says he didn’t intend the cartoons to offend and that he published them to spark debate on free speech. The author misses the fact that these two statements are perfectly compatible. Offend in this sense doesn’t mean make upset or even actually make someone feel offended, rather it means something like make an attack that is ‘objectively offensive’ or something like that. If I am talking about going to eat an orange for lunch I do not intend to offend someone who finds any use of the word ‘orange’ deeply offensive even if I know they will find it offensive. Surely the publisher knew that the cartoons would create outrage but his two statements both imply that he expected some people to get upset but that he didn’t think he was really insulting them, i.e., they are being unreasonable in getting upset.

So recently the Church of England voted through a non-binding resolution calling for divestment from companies profiting from the ‘illegal occupation’ of palestine, i.e., caterpillar because their bulldozers are used to knock down palestinian houses. This resolution has naturally come under fire with criticism coming from jewish groups and Tory MPs amoung others. In response the archbishop seems to be backpedaling though not totally disavowing the statement. While major figures aren’t explicitly saying the act is anti-Semitic some commentators on the radio are making this claim and the suggestion seems to be in the air. While the church’s resolution is poorly thought out and wrong headed it is not anti-Semetic.

The ‘illegal occupation’ language is just silly. To the extent that there is something called international law the legal status of the occupied territories is highly debatable. However, even if we grant some notion of international law which makes the occupation illegal it is just a red herring. The only relevant question is whether the occupation is morally right. If international law is wrong it ought to be ignored (this isn’t arguable it is by definition).

The reason these arguments from international law sound convincing is because they draw on our (correct) presumption in everyday life that abiding by the law is generally the right thing to do. However, this presumption only exists because we live in situations where we have a strong and relatively fair system of law enforcement. Engaging in vigilante killings, deterrent murders or other illegal behavior to protect ourselves is a bad thing because we have a police force we can generally trust to enforce reasonably fair laws without letting tit-for-tat violence spiral out of hand. If one lived in the old west and one could gun down a violent gang who you had good reason to believe would kill many others not only should you not avoid doing so because of some distant unenforceable law against murder but you would actually be morally required to do so. When the UN starts putting police on the streets in the west bank and really enforcing prohibitions on arms/militant groups the ‘illegal occupation’ argument will make sense but until then the situation is a great deal like the old west.

Ultimately the question is whether Israel’s actions with regard to the west bank are morally reprehensible. While on first glance ones intuition might say that punishing ‘innocent’ (they may have been tacitly encouraging the anti-israeli bombs) palestinians for the actions of a few (bulldozing houses, curfews, fences etc..) is clearly wrong it is really no different than plenty of actions the church tolerates. Sanctions against misbehaving regimes punish innocent citizens to encourage compliance, WWII killed many innocent germans (conscripts or just civilians) to stop the nazis, and in general any sticks in international relations are guaranteed to hurt some innocent people. The relevant question is whether the harm caused is more or less than the benefit achieved. However, this is obviously a very complex question about policy and delicate psychological predictions and reasonable people all adhering to the core values of the anglican communion can reasonably disagree. There are plenty of issues right on the Church of England’s doorstep where christian values cry out against the way people are behaving and they should concentrate on those issues.

However, while it is undoubtedly true that the church and people in the first world generally criticize Israel more for their debatable actions than they do places like sudan for clearly egregious actions it just isn’t anti-semitism. Actually just the opposite. The sense is that Israel is part of the western world and answerable to the same standards and expectations as other first world countries. Churches, protest groups, and other organizations don’t concentrate on North Korea, Sudan or other misbehaving countries as much because these countries are just outside the sphere of rational discourse. Unlike Israel which is a democracy and can be reasoned with people treat these countries as outside the sphere of reasonable discourse and thus don’t bother to critique them. Crying foul because Israel comes in for more criticism than Sudan makes about as much sense as getting upset because liberals in the US spend more time criticizing Bush for violating human rights than they do Hu Jintao (Chinese leader). Far from anti-semitism the extra criticism is actually a sort of backhanded compliment. Israel is considered a part of the responsible first world in a way the palestinians just aren’t. Though of course none of this is to say their aren’t some people who critique israel for anti-Semitic reasons but I hardly think the Church of England or other mainstream organizations are amoung them.

There is an interesting new post over on Balkinazation describing how the Bush administration cut anyone who had qualms over the treatment of Guantanamo inmates out of the loop. In fact they apparently even issued reports in these individuals names while leading these people to believe that the reports had been canceled.

It is this sort of behavior which makes the Bush administration truly dangerous. Sure I’m not a fan of Bush’s conservative policies or his tax cuts for the rich but these issues are to a great extent a distraction. Any administration makes a huge number of decisions that never attract public attention but the consequences of these decisions can be significant, both to the people involved and the country as a whole. The health of our government and way of life depends on these decisions being made well and this can not happen when dissident views are simply shut out or ignored. Sure sometimes one needs to go forward with a decision despite the fervent objections of a few people but it is important that the decision makers hear those objections and consider them. Clinton, for instance, had a policy of listening to dissenting views and hearing them argued out in front of him and I doubt (though I could be wrong) that previous republican administrations had this sort of lock-step attitude but whether or not it has past precedent it is very dangerous.

Also a few final words on the cartoon business. My last post should not be taken as any kind of softening of my attitude on the protesters or those demanding restrictions on free speech. Nor should it be taken as any kind of endorsement of a social standard which takes it as inappropriate to criticize someone’s religion, even if that religion is singled out for criticism on its own. While I tend to think that the difference between Muslims and Christians mostly stems from the fact that many Muslims still lie in old-fashioned patriarchal and tribal cultures it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether Islam plays any particular role in encouraging terrorism. (I’m sure both Christianity and Islam both do so to some degree but I’m unsure if Christianity would be any less bad in the same circumstance).

I most certainly do not support any type of social rule of conduct which demands any criticism of Islam be balanced by a criticism of Christianity or Judaism nor do I think that the cartoons in question went to far in any sense. I still believe that some Muslims’ overreaction to the cartoons should not be rewarded. All I am saying is that (assuming Jyllands-Posten didn’t have inappropriate motivations) the choice to publish the cartoons in this fashion may not have been particularly good strategy and ultimately may cause some harm without aiding the cause of free speech substantially.

In other words my attitude toward Jyllands-Posten is the same as my attitude towards google would be if they had chosen to stand on principle and not censor search results for the Chinese (assuming valid motivations in both cases). Just as it would inappropriate to hypothetically scold google because they didn’t realize their principled stand might actually harm free expression in China it would be inappropriate to scold Jyllands-Posten because their principled stand to publish completely reasonable cartoons might cause similarly negative consequences.

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.

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.

I used to just think religion was kinda silly and annoying. The suggestion by both Islamic organizations and the vatican that religious sensitivity should trump free speech has changed my mind. Traditional religious belief inevitably leads to the denigration of secular values and as such I find it deeply offensive. In fact it is actual blasphemy against the one true religious truth that there is no god or religious truth. Any suggestion that the big bang was not the uncaused genesis of the universe and or that this universe did not evolve through the exception-less laws of quantum mechanics is an unacceptable slur against the true nature of the universe. Those who would depict, by word or image, the workings of the universe in an a way which suggests the laws of physics are not perfect in themselves is making a direct attack against my faith.

I therefore demand the same protection many muslims and some europeans demand for other religions. The islamic faithful say freedom of speech is fine so long as it does not denigrate the prophet so I demand the same consideration. Say what you want as long as you don’t suggest that there are any supernatural forces at play in the world. Sensitivity demands that you not insult my faith by depicting the world in a denigrating manner, e.g., having the imperfection of some kind of god or conscious supernatural entity.

Of course I don’t really believe this but many disgruntled ex-faithful do feel something like I described. I do in fact feel something very much like religious fervor about my right to insult, deride and mock religious belief (including the bloodlust and willingness to fight and kill when this key notion is attacked). I feel a bit silly making such an obvious post but apparently many world leaders don’t seem to understand this point. One can’t outlaw religious insult.

I don’t mean one shouldn’t, or one can’t do so consistent with free speech. I mean one literally can’t. Any action is going to insult someone’s religious beliefs. The very notion that muslims are allowed to express their beliefs is going to be a deep insult to some christians and vice-versa. Any decision to deter, stifle, outlaw or even criticize religious insult is nothing but pure discrimination against the minority. As any such action itself is a religious insult to someone it can’t be anything but a decision to favor the large group (say muslims) over a small group (the people who feel it is an insult to their religion to protect/defend muslims from insult).

I will make a real post on this issue tomorrow but I am so outraged at the claims like, “free speech doesn’t include the right to mock people’s faith,” I hear floating around that I had to point out how absolutely misleading these statements are. If you are going to take this position have the balls to say what you really mean: ‘we should give preferential treatment to the speech of religious majorities and muzzle the speech of small non-influential religious minorities.’ By taking such a position you are doing nothing shy of repudiating the essential doctrine of free speech itself, the idea that opinions should not be censored simply on the grounds that the majority finds them unpalatable.

So last night I actually watched the Maltese Falcon. It’s a bit different from my normal fair and it only reinforced my view that old movies aren’t that good. Sure the stunts suck and the blue-screening is obvious but the real problem is the wooden and overdone acting. Acting in a movie is a lot different than acting on a stage and it has just taken a long time for people to learn how to do it well.

NOTE: What follows is just amateur speculation I haven’t done any research but just thought I would share some ideas.

Anyway, movie criticism aside, seeing the movie made me think a lot about the 50s. I was actually kinda surprised to see how openly they portrayed Spade (protagonist) using sexual coercion. Though they would barely show kissing they were perfectly happy to imply he was demanding sex to protect this woman. While we think of our movies now as more racy than ‘staid’ 50s era (40′s actually) films this sort of portrayal would likely offend modern sensibilities if it was done in a movie today (without more editorial condemnation).

Also I was struck by the change in the male model. I guess I always knew so intellectually but in the 50s men really were supposed to be tough and to shield women from the realities of the world, i.e., they really were supposed to play the protector role. Conversely women were supposed to be obedient to their protectors taking whatever shit or even violence they might dish out. Not that these aren’t obvious facts about the 50s but I was struck by how openly they were spelled out. Anyway the interesting thought that occurred to me was that it was societal wealth and safety nets which may be responsible for the revolution in our moral values and understanding of relationships not birth control and feminism was just a necessary consequence.

Before the 20th century, and probably until the new deal, women really did need protection and someone to provide for them. Regardless of their intrinsic ability without a man it was very tough to make money for food and shelter and a single woman was quite vulnerable. So it really was the better decision in most cases to stay with a bad, or even abusive, husband than to leave him. However, with the evolution of a social safety net, welfare, social security etc.. for the first time it really was a better choice to leave a mildly abusive or bad husband than to stay with him. This would boost the population of independent women creating momentum for female involvement in the workplace as well as political participation. Conversely once it was how nice and pleasant you were to live with which became the deciding factor in a woman’s choice of mate instead of your ability to care for her the change in male ideals natural follows. Of course I may be wrong and the actual events were probably too complex to be explained by just one cause but it does raise some interesting questions about how best to reform primitive societies (the ones often nicely termed ‘traditional’).

I am even given to wonder if the strange change in attitudes toward war and nationalism are a result of the change in male ideals. I’ve never quite been able to comprehend what made democracies in the early 1900s and 1800s so enthusiastic to go to war just for pride or to gain control over some land. What changed that makes it so absurd to think of Germany going to war to grab part of France now when it seemed sensible enough in WWI to make millions of Germans favor the war? Even the neo-cons in the US would be crazy peaceniks compared to the nationalists from the first half of the 20th century. Is the difference the fact that men no longer aspire to be strong protectors (as much) who can back up their family with force and instead reasonable people who call on the police to protect them? If true this has some troubling implications for our relationship with Islamic world and other primitive (‘traditional’) societies.

While many people keep suggesting that it is something about Islam or a variety of Islam which stokes the conflict between the western world and Muslims I tend to think this is a misleading analysis (though perhaps not false). Just like the bible the Koran can be interpreted to support almost any position on war, struggle, or non-Muslim countries. Shiites and Sunni’s have significantly different views of Islam yet the anti-western component seems to be present in both traditions. I think it is pretty obvious that otherwise open-minded pro-western people aren’t sitting down reading the Koran and deciding the west is evil. Rather anti-western sentiments are part of the social milieu and are then read into the religious documents the same way the bible always seems to support the American foreign policy of the day.

Since religion is as much about culture as it is about a book it might be fair to say these beliefs are a part of mainstream Islam it falsely suggests these beliefs would be different if only they were Christians or some other faith. While the religious difference between the west and Islam certainly makes things worse I don’t expect things would have turned out any differently if it was the west who was Islamic and the middle east/Indonesia which was christian. Watching the Maltese Falcon convinced me that the Muslim world is reacting to the west no differently than we would have reacted had we met the modern world in the 1800s.

Look at how staid the country was even in the 50s and how women showing ankles in the 20s was regarded as moral decay by many. Can you doubt that if China had been exporting scantily clad girls on MTV and demanding we give women equal rights that preachers and ministers all across the country would have been denouncing them as a great secular evil. Modern society directly challenges the traditional ideals of masculinity and social order virtually guaranteeing violent opposition. Even worse traditional societies still seem to have the same attitude toward war as the west did before WWI making military force an appealing way to express their concerns. This makes the prospect of these countries gaining the bomb truly scary.

Unfortunately if even part of my speculation on the economic safety net needed to effect this transform the problem is quite intractable. In order to become well off in the modern world one needs to adopt western secular practices but this adoption may be almost impossible while a country is still too poor to provide effective social services and strong police protections, e.g., enforcement of laws by professional courts/police rather than social pressure and local leaders. Still the success of china in westernizing does suggest that wealth may not be absolutely essential to make this tradition, however, china had hundreds of years of strong governmental control and imperial law enforcement.

(below is just a few more musing about the 50s inspired by the movie) (more…)