Alan M. Dershowitz
Now there are threats of violence directed against France for the
publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammad in violation of
Islamic law. This is simply the most recent manifestation of a worldwide
effort to censor freedom of expression and make it conform to the most
radical interpretation of Islamic tradition. The bounty on the head of
Salman Rushdie was recently increased and this distinguished author
remains in peril. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for violating Islamic Law.
And numerous people have been killed as the result of cartoons being
published in Denmark and a video shown on YouTube.
I have seen several minutes of the stupid little film that has,
arguably, incited so much violence and the deaths of four distinguished
public servants, including a United States Ambassador who was uniquely
sympathetic to Islam and Arab interests.
There is nothing good that can be said about the low budget film. It
has little redeeming social value and the world would be a better place
if it had never been made or shown. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, and
under American law unconstitutional, to censor or punish such
despicable expression. Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you
despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also
means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to
authorize and which to prevent.
There are several exceptions recognized under American law to
untrammeled freedom of expression. These include falsely shouting fire
in a crowded theater, fighting words and speech that present a clear and
present danger of inciting violence. Even if these exceptions were
applied to anti-Islamic expressions that would not solve the problem. It
is easy to argue that a video such as the one on YouTube could be
banned without doing much damage to freedom of expression, but that
would only be the tip of the iceberg. The radical Imams who incite the
violence would not be satisfied until they could decide what could be
seen and heard. They want to become the ultimate judges, juries and
executioners when it comes to anything that relates to Islam or its
prophet. But religious fanatics who are easily offended by those outside
of their religion who violate the rules of their religion cannot serve
as censors in democratic societies. The threat or fear of violence
should not become an excuse or justification for restricting freedom of
speech.
Those who blame America for allowing what some Muslims regard as
blasphemous speech must come to understand that by not censoring such
speech, the government does not place its imprimatur upon it. That may
be difficult to understand for people who have come of age in repressive
regimes which do not permit any expressions disfavored by the
government. In such regimes, the publication of bigoted materials can be
taken as representing the views of the government. For example, when
Iranians newspapers publish anti-Semitic diatribes, the views expressed
in those diatribes are the views of the government. Not so with
democratic states. Indeed it is probably true that more anti-Semitic
material is published in the United States than in Iran, simply because
so much is published here and almost none of it is subject to any kind
of restriction or censorship. That does not make the United States an
anti-Semitic country, but rather a country in which there is freedom to
express anti-Semitic views. It does make Iran an anti-Semitic country,
because all views that appear in the media must be approved by the
government.
Some who are now calling on governments to censor expressions that
are deemed offensive to Muslims point to the fact that some European
governments do censor Holocaust-denial speech. It is false comparison.
First, only a tiny number of governments—most particularly Germany,
which was responsible for the Holocaust— censor Holocaust-denial speech.
The vast majority of countries, including the United States, impose no
such censorship. As far as I know no Muslim or Arab country censors
Holocaust-denial speech. To the contrary, several such countries, led by
Iran, promote such hate speech. Second, the Holocaust is a fact that no
reasonable historian can dispute. The kinds of views that have caused
the recent violence are expressions of opinion regarding an historical
character about which historians vigorously disagree. Finally, I for one
would like to see an end to the censorship of Holocaust-denial speech.
Let those like Ahmadinejad who insist on lying about the history of
European Jewry be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Truth does not
need censorship to defend it.
So let us not allow those who employ violence to initiate a debate
about the limits of free speech. Democracies should not allow themselves
to be held hostage to violent extremists. Having said that, freedom of
speech also requires decent people to condemn those who abuse freedom by
needlessly insulting the religious beliefs of others or by being
insensitive to the havoc they may be causing by exercising their freedom
of speech. This film should be condemned in the marketplace of ideas,
but the writings of Salman Rushdie and the publishing of political
cartoons should not be condemned.
Individuals have the right to pick and choose which expressions to
condemn, which to praise and which to say nothing about. Governments,
however, must remain neutral as to the content of expression. And
governments must protect the rights of all to express even the most
despicable of views. Finally, the international community must use its
collective power to apprehend and punish anyone who commits violence in
reaction to expressions with which they disagree. Being offended by
freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for
violence.
An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared in Ha'aretz.
No comments:
Post a Comment