February 24, 2006
More on Free Speech
Right after I wrote this post about liberals getting so incredibly mad about the Bush administration's policies on security vs. civil liberties, then voluntarily censoring themselves over the Mohammed cartoons, the Weekly Standard has written a somewhat similar article about people in the media who have fought so hard in the past to uphold free speech rights and who are now voluntarily imperiling free speech by censoring themselves.
"IN THE PAST, our most powerful news outlets spent millions on legal fees and saw reporters imprisoned on contempt charges in order to defend the publication of news that the government argued would compromise national security--the Pentagon Papers, for example. In the recent past they have printed stories that inarguably do compromise national security, such as the recent revelations about electronic eavesdropping and CIA-run rendition programs for suspected Al Qaeda terrorists."
"But when Muslims around the world rioted, torched embassies, killed dozens, and threatened others with fatwas in response to a Danish newspaper's cartoons of Mohammed, nearly all of our major press outlets refused to run the offending cartoons under the guise of 'respect' for the 'Prophet Mohammed'--whose honorific is now suddenly capitalized sans scare quotes. (Christians will have to burn down a few buildings if they want Jesus Christ referred to as the Son of God.) The New York Times, for one, was less bothered by the violence than by the cartoonists' exercise in free speech which provoked it, and to prove it the paper bravely re-ran a photo of the painting of the Virgin Mary slathered in elephant dung."
"Any parent knows that giving your child everything he wants is a guarantee that he'll never stop demanding more--and reacting more angrily when he doesn't get it. Now that blowing up and beheading innocents in the name of Islam is considered less offensive than some pen-and-ink drawings, militant Islamists can pretty much take their pick of insults to be offended by--and our press will have to again respect their "sensibilities" in order to keep them from burning down the presses. So what will offend them next time? Pornography? Caricatures of bin Laden? Reports on female circumcision in Islamic Africa? Will & Grace?"
This appears to be a battle in the West between 2 of our society's strongest values. The first is free speech and the second is the value of not offending the "other." Since the civil rights movement, one of the strongest compulsions in the West has been to make sure that we don't offend the "other," the "downtrodden" or the "minority." We have such a strong collective sense of guilt that we have pounded it into ourselves that we have to be "sensitive" and "understanding of their culture" and things of that nature. We can't ever offend anyone. This is the ultimate PC value. That's why many schools got rid of Christmas break and replaced it with Winter break. We don't want to offend the 5% (I got this number from a poll) of Americans who don't celebrate Christmas. That's why some people pushed to make children's sports not have a winner and a loser. We don't want the losers to be offended. Remember that? We have to build up their self esteem by telling them over and over and over that we value them and that everyone is valued equally. We certainly can't ever "judge" them. "Judging" someone is a big no-no in this PC world. There's certainly no right or wrong. If we disagree with someone we're obviously the ones who need to change and accept their way of life. We, the evil Westerners, especially the white Christian ones, are always the ones who are wrong. Who are we to judge when we're so obviously such a horrible, racist, sexist society that had slavery 150 years ago and that did horrible things to the Native Americans hundreds of years ago? If the "other" attacks us, clearly it's our fault because we simply weren't "sensitive" enough. After all, we supported some dictator they didn't like 50 years ago. It's enough to make me retch. Being "offensive" has become one of the worst things a Westerner could possibly be. So, which value will win out, free speech or sensitivity to the other? Unfortunately, I'm not all that confident about the outcome.
"IN THE PAST, our most powerful news outlets spent millions on legal fees and saw reporters imprisoned on contempt charges in order to defend the publication of news that the government argued would compromise national security--the Pentagon Papers, for example. In the recent past they have printed stories that inarguably do compromise national security, such as the recent revelations about electronic eavesdropping and CIA-run rendition programs for suspected Al Qaeda terrorists."
"But when Muslims around the world rioted, torched embassies, killed dozens, and threatened others with fatwas in response to a Danish newspaper's cartoons of Mohammed, nearly all of our major press outlets refused to run the offending cartoons under the guise of 'respect' for the 'Prophet Mohammed'--whose honorific is now suddenly capitalized sans scare quotes. (Christians will have to burn down a few buildings if they want Jesus Christ referred to as the Son of God.) The New York Times, for one, was less bothered by the violence than by the cartoonists' exercise in free speech which provoked it, and to prove it the paper bravely re-ran a photo of the painting of the Virgin Mary slathered in elephant dung."
"Any parent knows that giving your child everything he wants is a guarantee that he'll never stop demanding more--and reacting more angrily when he doesn't get it. Now that blowing up and beheading innocents in the name of Islam is considered less offensive than some pen-and-ink drawings, militant Islamists can pretty much take their pick of insults to be offended by--and our press will have to again respect their "sensibilities" in order to keep them from burning down the presses. So what will offend them next time? Pornography? Caricatures of bin Laden? Reports on female circumcision in Islamic Africa? Will & Grace?"
This appears to be a battle in the West between 2 of our society's strongest values. The first is free speech and the second is the value of not offending the "other." Since the civil rights movement, one of the strongest compulsions in the West has been to make sure that we don't offend the "other," the "downtrodden" or the "minority." We have such a strong collective sense of guilt that we have pounded it into ourselves that we have to be "sensitive" and "understanding of their culture" and things of that nature. We can't ever offend anyone. This is the ultimate PC value. That's why many schools got rid of Christmas break and replaced it with Winter break. We don't want to offend the 5% (I got this number from a poll) of Americans who don't celebrate Christmas. That's why some people pushed to make children's sports not have a winner and a loser. We don't want the losers to be offended. Remember that? We have to build up their self esteem by telling them over and over and over that we value them and that everyone is valued equally. We certainly can't ever "judge" them. "Judging" someone is a big no-no in this PC world. There's certainly no right or wrong. If we disagree with someone we're obviously the ones who need to change and accept their way of life. We, the evil Westerners, especially the white Christian ones, are always the ones who are wrong. Who are we to judge when we're so obviously such a horrible, racist, sexist society that had slavery 150 years ago and that did horrible things to the Native Americans hundreds of years ago? If the "other" attacks us, clearly it's our fault because we simply weren't "sensitive" enough. After all, we supported some dictator they didn't like 50 years ago. It's enough to make me retch. Being "offensive" has become one of the worst things a Westerner could possibly be. So, which value will win out, free speech or sensitivity to the other? Unfortunately, I'm not all that confident about the outcome.
