Free Speech and the Mideast Riots

[monk222]

Stanley Fish gives us some interesting discussion on the Mideast riots over that anti-Islam movie that was made in America, going over the tension between Western free speech and Muslim religiosity.

_ _ _

So the entire package of American liberalism — the distinction between speech and action, the resolve to protect speech however distasteful it may be, the insistence that religious believers soften their piety when they enter the public sphere — is one the protesters necessarily reject. When they are told that the United States government had no part in the production of the video and deplores its content, educated Libyans and Egyptians reply (reporters tell us), “Well, if they think it’s bad and against their values, why didn’t they stop it or punish those who produced it?” The standard response is that we Americans don’t suppress or penalize ideas we regard as wrong and even dangerous; in accordance with the First Amendment, we tolerate them and allow them to present themselves for possible purchase in the marketplace of ideas.

But that means that protecting the marketplace by refusing to set limits on what can enter it is the highest value we affirm, and we affirm it no matter what truths might be vilified and what falsehoods might get themselves accepted. We have decided that the potential unhappy consequences of a strong free speech regime must be tolerated because the principle is more important than preventing any harm it might permit. We should not be surprised, however, if others in the world — most others, in fact — disagree, not because they are blind and ignorant but because they worship God and truth rather than the First Amendment, which not only keeps God and truth at arm’s length but regards them with a deep suspicion.

-- Stanley Fish at The New York Times


_ _ _

I especially love that last line about regarding 'God' and 'truth' with "a deep suspicion", for is that not the very key to understanding our appreciation for free speech and the open marketplace of ideas? It might be one thing if there was indeed one God and we were capable of knowing the one Truth about this God, but of course we know there is no such thing, or at least no such thing that we would agree on. So, you are free to pursue your Truth as well as your happiness, but you should not be able to close down anybody else's attempts to pursue their own, perhaps contrary, ideas, and you certainly should not kill them or beat them or burn down their places. You first have to be able to understand that the world does not revolve around you, and be able to appreciate that people who are different from you should enjoy a certain equality of respect.

Nevertheless, it could be said that the 'movie' in question, itself, does not treat others with that certain equality of respect, and for that, one can rest assured that it will not be shown in any respectable theaters or on television. Though, this is not to justify the violence. Personally, I am inclined to regard the movie as a kind of pornography, or a hate-pornography, which is perhaps something that anti-Israel Muslims can appreciate when they consider that they tend to enjoy their own brand of hate-pornography that abuses the Jews. I believe pornography should be protected speech, too. Hey, whatever gets you off! Pornography should just be a very private thing, something carried in a brown paper sack and enjoyed in your bedroom behind closed doors and closed curtains.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]