I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

the point of course isn't whether it's a good thing to do. it's whether it's an acceptable thing to do

You're totally fudging by using the word "acceptable," which means very little in this context. And you're fudging, I expect, because you know very well that nobody on this entire thread -- amid hundreds of posts -- has at any point questioned whether papers have the right to print whatever they like. Nobody's questioned that we have to "accept" it. The point is that people have the right to say lots of things that are still shitty things to say, and we have every right to disapprove of it. Look again at the sentence I quoted, dude:

as soon as people start buying the idea that there are things you shouldn't say even though you theoretically can, then you're taking a step toward not actually being allowed to say them

And I think that's vaguely bullshit. I think people "shouldn't" call me a nigger. That's not some slippery-slope erosion of freedom of speech; that's hoping that people won't be idiots or assholes. And it needn't be a step toward a world where people aren't allowed to say it -- it's a step toward a world where people don't say it, because they know it's a shitty thing to say. I'm incensed that you'd pretend I'm trying to limit people's speech, that I want to disallow people from saying things, like genuinely kind of furious. (Sorry.) But this is a really simple distinction, and it's one you obviously understand: there's a difference barring speech and just thinking it's shitty, shitty, shitty. I can support people's right to say things without supporting what they say; this isn't in the least complicated. I can support people's right to say things and still call out to high heaven that I don't think they should have said it.

and omg, i agree with ethan. which gives me hope for the future.

(As for the content of the behavior being suggested from on high in that particular case: I am generally in agreement with you, although probably at different points on the spectrum. Religion operates on two very different levels in this world. One is as a system of thought; the other is as a basic point of identity, one that come very close to racial identification. Now this is me suggesting behavior: I am all in favor of people very freely and pointedly going at the first of those things, the actual systems of thought and behavior. But I also think people would generally be wise to take great care about tripping over onto the other side of that.)

no, i actually disagree with it on a right-to-speech level. or, i think the content of what they're saying itself undervalues the right to speech. but i think part of this is maybe you don't see any major threat to actual free-speech practice here. certainly some other commentators i've read treat the free-speech issue as a largely theoretical one, like, we're not in danger of losing free spech rights, and given that, we need to be really careful about how we use them. i agree we should be careful how we use free speech, for a lot of reasons, but i don't agree that it's not endangered. i think it's always endangered, and i think protecting it against erosion or encroachment is going to ultimately be crucial to navigating all of the culture/politics/economic clashes to come.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/gypsyfrocksbedlam/ofarrell.gif

the dynamics of anger in the middle east:

The crisis over the cartoons has often been portrayed as a clash in values between the Muslim and Western worlds, focusing on issues of free expression and respect for other cultures.

But that crisis and the ferry sinking also reflect another difference in perspective. While the West speaks of democracy and freedom, Muslims here tend to speak of justice. There is widespread feeling that the region's governments deny their people justice, and this feeling has been instrumental in the increased support for Islamists throughout the Middle East, whether the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or Hamas among the Palestinians.

"It has reached to the point where Egyptians do not feel entitled to anything, and all they want is justice," said Ibrahim Aslan, a leading Egyptian writer. "Across history, in literature, Egyptian peasants asked for justice, not for freedom or democracy. Just justice. Social justice."

denmark's rising right wing:

A country that touts itself as the world's biggest net contributor per capita of foreign aid recently introduced legislation making it virtually impossible for torture victims to obtain Danish citizenship. Successful asylum applications to Denmark plummeted to 10 percent last year, from 53 percent.

In a sign that the cartoon crisis is fanning even greater anti-immigrant sentiment, the People's Party leader, Pia Kjaersgaard, wrote in her weekly newsletter that the Islamic religious community here was populated with "pathetic and lying men with worrying suspect views on democracy and women." She added: "They are the enemy inside. The Trojan horse in Denmark. A kind of Islamic mafia."

and on the op-ed page, a dane on danish racism...

What foreigners have failed to recognize is that we Danes have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. To my mind, the publication of the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark.

...a muslim scholar on the politics of it...

Within the Muslim world, the cartoon imbroglio has given ammunition to the two entrenched forces for censorship — namely, authoritarian regimes and their Islamic fundamentalist opposition. Both would prefer to silence their critics. By evincing outrage over the Danish cartoons, authoritarian regimes seek to divert attention from their own manifold failures and to bolster their religious credentials against the Islamists who seek to unseat them.

...and good old stanley fish on why liberals like me just don't get it:

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me. This was certainly the message conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, who explained his decision to reprint one of the cartoons thusly: "It is one thing to respect other people's faith and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos."

Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to "accept" the taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter his behavior in any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger of crossing the line between "respecting" a taboo and taking it seriously, and he is not about to do that. ...

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give — ask for deference rather than mere respect — it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of every newspaper in the country.

I agree to a certain extent, at least it's another perspective on the whole thing. The problem is not that I don't have convincing arguments, it's that I know a huge percentage of people are not even concerned with any arguments or reflection of their position. So I think while the discussion on this thread has been very very enlightening, there's still the problem of actually getting people to consider ANY of the points made here.

Agreeing with Gypsy on a lot of his "works" in this thread, I too think it would be a dangerous precedent to endorse too many rules (laws or sociocultural norms) prohibiting stuff that could be "offensive" to any religion.

People who think it's a dangerous precedent to encourage good manners and other behaviors which encourage peace rather than trying to incite destructive protests to drive up circulation numbers sound like a bunch of sheltered, shut-in, coffeeshop activist pricks. Fire in a crowded theater = prior restraint.

gypsy you should be proud it took this long for you to just be talking to yourself on this thread, I've been doing it from the beginning with only a brief respite when a troglodytic 3-letter lurker saw a one-sentence post and thought "finally, something here that I can comprehend!"

Maybe you wouldn't be talking only to yourself here if you made the effort to provide arguments which others, i.e. me, could actually understand without taking "irony" courses.

that most recent article i linked from ohio is the kind of thing i'm worried about. which is not a matter of the first amendment being repealed. a lot of curbs on speech come not from legislation but from social norms. which, as you say, is good and necessary to the functioning of society. but those norms are always being negotiated -- the line of where things become unacceptable is always in flux. and just because some significant degree of tongue-biting is important to civil society, that doesn't mean that all tongue-biting is good. my concern with this issue is that it has the potential -- which is already maybe being realized -- to move that line in such a way that it becomes difficult to talk candidly or critically about certain issues for fear of giving offense. i guess the fact that a rabbi joined in the chorus against that paper in ohio could be seen as heart-warming interfaith sympathy. or it could be seen as religious authorities of different faiths asserting that religious faith itself should be above critical commentary. as someone with more instinctive sympathy for editorial cartoonists than religious authorities, i incline toward the latter and don't find it heartening.

Score one for BushCo!

we know what the MPAA does for a living and why it exists, too (negotiating norms)

we know what the first amendment says, and the universal declaration of human rights and what prior restraint means, and we understand the slippery slope argument

the point has been that "don't be a stupid asshole" is and always has been justifiable as a cultural form of prior restraint, and for good reason. nitsuh has made this point much better than me about 40,000 times on this thread so far, I think.
To quote Bill Cosby, "Parents aren't interested in JUSTICE! We just want QUIET!!"

there is actually not a single person on this planet, probably not even in the Vatican, who is actually trying to use this issue as a way to legislate or enforce a ban on "so jesus, mohammed and the buddha..." jokes.

and lastly, gypsy, maybe I just really, really like religious authorities. As evidenced by my post above, duh.

I normally like you but aren't you getting tired of repeating yourself here? Do you really think we've just misunderstood you all this time?

tombot you know i cosign 100% on the rest of your posts but this is bullshit

meanwhile, don't tell me there's not a person on the planet trying to use this to enforce speech restrictions, that's exactly what a lot of the most vocal protesters -- and even government representatives from iran, syria, etc. -- have in effect been calling for. and yeah, i find that ohio example worrying. if you don't, ok. but there'll be more to come.

Everyone likes to shoot their mouths off but no one wants to admit that maybe they should have considered thinking and weighing the consequences beforehand.

to quote your last post - we're not saying they can't, just that they shouldn't... - how is this a free speech issue? do you think your wife should cheat on you with your best friend? if you dont, do you think adultery should be illegal?? ppl are repeating themselves because somehow you still dont fucking get this!!!

if you think this whole thing is not going to have a serious impact on what shows up in your media, then i think you're naive. and i know, some people will say, 'well, if it makes the media more respectful and less inflammatory, then good.' but i don't think that's the real likely impact, because most of our institutions just aren't that smart. when they react, they tend to react stupidly and out of fear, and a lot of babies get thrown out with the bathwater.

xpost: i know, dan. really, i do know that. not be all "duh" like tombot, but i mean, i've worked for newspapers for nearly 20 years. i'm pretty well versed in the consequences of what gets said and what doesn't.

Whereas your frowning on certain responses here almost makes it seem like you're favor of free speech right up until someone uses their freedom of speech to be offended by something. I mean, free speech includes the right to call someone's cartoons demeaning, just as much as it includes the right to call someone's religion terroristic -- in both cases, whether you're right or wrong.

And calling the cartoon demeaning doesn't erode freedom of speech any more than calling the religion terroristic erodes freedom of religion, right?

an individual level, of course not. what makes me nervous is when you get governments and religious institutions mobilized and calling for de facto if not legislative limits on what should be said, and making blanket statements about the need to respect religious beliefs.

There is always more to come. The weather tomorrow is going to be a lot like the weather today, and so forth - I don't think this is going to be as huge as it looks from here, I don't think this is going to result in redrawing the lines back to where all caricatures have to be on samizdat - and I don't feel like I'm really seeing a serious step back from the press. As M. White points out, the embassies are the ones having to pay for extra security, Le Soir sold 40K extra copies that day.

What should have been done? The paper should have printed the cartoons. Then the editors and publisher, when confronted, should have apologized specifically for the racist portrayal of arabs and the purposeful violation of the taboo and made a retraction. Then there most likely never would have been a problem. There's nothing wrong with freedom of expression and there's nothing wrong with apologies either. It's when you offend someone and stand there saying "I have free speech! I can call you the n-word all I want!" that you are effectively ruining it for everybody else. Because that is how prior restraint gets passed as legislation - when there's blood on the streets from people's blind devotion to dogma and the government/society is stuck with the cleaning bill.

This is once again evidence of my Pollyanna nature, sorry.

xpost

Leave out the "religious institutions" bit: they call for de facto limits on what kind of contraception you should use, but we're not worried about that. So how is it new for government to make moral propositions about the press? Government will take a stray remark of Hillary Clinton's and condemn it; they'll take unflattering articles about the President and condemn them; they're constantly expressing opinions on things. That doesn't stop people from saying whatever they want.

I mean, really: you can't celebrate your freedom of speech, go out and print something, and then cry like a baby when someone -- hell, even major world leaders -- decide to say it was a lousy thing to print. Annan and the Vatican have just as much right as anyone to opine about this stuff, and to make propositions about what they think constitutes polite discourse and what steps beyond it. None of it is binding.

as for the longterm effect, i don't know. i'm probably overly alarmist. it's a little hard not to be, i guess, working in the media and seeing how compromised it already is in its ability and willingness to deal with a whole bunch of things. reporters and editors are probably less sanguine about the health of free speech than your average joe, because we see how often and how easily it gets hedged -- sometimes for good reasons, but certainly not always.

It's when you offend someone and stand there saying "I have free speech! I can call you the n-word all I want!" that you are effectively ruining it for everybody else.

You are essentially saying that you can have your car in any color, provided that it's black. It calls to mind Twain's famous quote: "It is by the goodness of God that we have in this country three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either."

In that context, I don't think these responses should be looked at as in any way coming close to stepping on the press. It's world leaders making moral suggestions. We can disagree on how useful those suggestions are, but I don't think it's particularly frightening or outside their role to make them; I don't think they're even really pointed at the press so much as pointed toward platitudes. ("Children, children, let's try to respect one another's differences.")

xpost

Jesus how many times can we run round this tiny point? M White, NO, it's like saying "you can have your car in any color, but if you paint the word 'nigger' on the side panel then you're a total asshole and I'm going to tell you so."

we're not worried about that in america because we have both laws and social norms protecting us from its enforcement. there are plenty of countries where that still has a very real effect. and the social norms are as important as the laws. maybe more -- the supreme court's griswold decision was as much a concession to evolving social norms as it was a matter of constitutional interpretation (which is why some hardcore conservatives hate it). as social norms about what is or isn't acceptable change, interpretation of laws tends to follow. and in any case, if social norms change enough, the laws don't need to change in order to affect behavior.

and no i don't think we're going to reach a point where you can't ever say anything bad about organized religion. but i do think there are people who would like to get to that point, and so there have to also be people fighting against the small encroachments, because all these things happen in small steps.

the key word here is "might."

xpost

M I'm not saying these images are the equivalent of straight racism. I'm using straight racism as an example, because it's something everyone can recognize as a thing you have a right to say but would nevertheless be a think we'd like you not to say, because it would be stupid and jerky and hateful. Evidently we've spent the whole latter half of this thread arguing whether there can be a difference between the two things, or something.

i get what you're saying, but surely you'd acknowledge a difference between, say, a group of muslim immigrants in copenhagen expressing a desire to be respected and accepted and an official vatican statement calling for "respect" for religions? it has to do with power relationships. it's like when ari fleischer made some comment after sept. 11 about people needing to watch what they said. the press flipped out about it, and of course he said they were just being silly, that's not what he meant, blah blah blah, but... yeah, government authorities are constantly trying to control the dialogue, to whatever extent the law allows and even beyond. but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

but getting to the power relationships, i think that's one of the confusions in this issue. on the one hand, you have a small, relatively powerless, and clearly discriminated-against community (muslim immigrants in europe), against the largest newspaper in the country -- a newspaper with outspoken anti-immigrant views. in that case, it's easy -- and morally necessary, imo -- to sympathize with the minority group, because we have plenty of history to tell us what can happen to minority groups facing discrimination. but on the other hand, you have much larger, internationally powerful interests (middle eastern governments, the international radical islamist movement) using the same case to advance their own divisive, definitely anti-liberal agendas.

i think part of the difference in the responses on this thread have been which one of those cases people are looking at. and of course, they both have to be considered, which is why it's been so hard to get to a coherent moral position (and not just on this thread -- opinions about this thing are all over the map in both liberal and conservative quarters). is this a local issue or a global one? is it even one issue at all, or is it several issues, each requiring a separate response?

Anyway I'll stop repeating now. But just in summary, I can't quite see clear to strip this function away from world and religious leaders -- it seems to me natural that they'll make general suggestions on good behavior, and I don't know that that inherently erodes our rights to the alternative. It can shift social norms in ways that don't suit us, yes. But I think it actually cedes too much to their power to jump right to defending freedom of speech itself, instead of starting with attacking the proposition being made. (I.e., when is it useful to be critical of religion? How can it be done in a way that's rigorous but not "personal?" What substantive criticisms do we really want to print?)

xpost
MWhite - nothing in your last post strikes me as necessarily "offensive," depending on how you elaborate from there. These are the other moral suggestions that have to be made and negotiated -- what constitutes "respect," what puts particular acts on either side of the line, etc. And yes, sadly, the Vatican will have a louder voice in that argument than we will, but that's kinda just the way it goes.

i think those are the right questions for individuals to ask themselves. i'm less comfortable with them being asked by relgious or governmental institutions. not that i think those institutions don't have the right to offer opinions -- of course they do -- but i'm going to weigh their opinions differently from those of other parties. sure, i expect the vatican and fundamentalist imams to offer "moral guidance." i even expect them to try to enforce it when they have the opportunity. i would prefer to not give them the opportunity.

Heh.