Usually I like controversial subjects, which is why it is so odd for me not to have commented on the Danish cartoon controversy. What I couldn't figure out was why I didn't have an opinion on the subject. Why was I one of Saul Levmore's agnostics? As a liberal concerned especially with social liberty, do I value free speech? Of course. Well I've finally isolated some points I wish to make:
Did these cartoons cross that invisible line which separates the acceptable from the unacceptable? A free speech purist would undoubtedly insist that there is no line; I disagree. Let's say that a 7-year-old girl is raped in south Florida, and a Miami cartoonist draws a cartoon mocking the girl--any reasonable person will likely agree that such a cartoon crosses the line. I'm not going to judge whether these Danish cartoons crossed the line--given my own position and biases, it's not my place to do so. I will say, however, that these comics weren't subversive, and that as such we're not talking about the censorship or free expression of actual criticism (think: The Daily Show). What we're talking about is the pointless mocking of a people and their most sacred beliefs. Blasphemous? Yes. Substance beyond mere profanity? Not to my knowledge. To put this in the terms of a more local example, a public Nazi rally this fall (in Ohio, I believe) predictably drew a violent response. If you ask, you might get me to recognize that the right of public assembly and free speech extends even to neo-Nazis, and I'll certainly say that violence is not a response I approve of... but I understand it and maybe even sympathize with it.
Another issue is the facial hypocrisy and underlying racism of the people who suddenly support free speech and condemn violent responses. Cartoonists Ted Rall and and the Liberal Avenger's Sirkowski responded to this issue. Their reactions share the commonality that they have been told to shut up and have been threatened by the same people who are now "just supporting freedom of expression." Death threats, even, by God-fearing (the Christian God, of course) Americans. Why the sudden U-turn? It's quite clear that the "Christofascists" are simply being political opportunists wishing to use any- and everything they can against the "Islamofascists." Related is the issue of European racism, which Ruchira has previously commented on.
Another problem is that the "angry Muslim" angle is being overplayed--in my opinion criminally exaggerated. Plenty of Muslims condemn the violent response, and it seems obvious to me that if people have been offended they have a right to boycott whoever they want. All of Islam might or might not have been offended by the cartoons, but the burning buildings and waving guns we see
belong to a small, vocal minority. Condemning Islam in general is like condemning all Americans for Timothy McVeigh. Moreover, condemning Muslims en masse makes it that much easier for George Bush &c to go murder more Muslims, start more wars in the Middle East, for the purported purpose of spreading "freedom" and "democracy." Hey, look at them now, they need our liberation!
Conflict is about "good guys" vs. "bad guys," right? Well where are all the good guys in this scenario? I'm seeing lots of badness; not so much on the goodness. So what's the proper reaction? I think a nonreaction.
Comments