Sunday, March 05, 2006

Dworkin on cartoonery

I was lambasted while guest-posting at Majikthise (cross-posted) by some commenters who see this kind of case in purely black-and-white terms (either absolute free speech or a police state) for saying the same thing as this below. But I add that the publication of the cartoons by the right wing of the European press is also intentionally conflict-baiting, rather than a lofty defense of freedom of speech. It's nice to have Dworkin on my side.

The British and most of the American press have been right, on balance, not to republish the Danish cartoons that millions of furious Muslims protested against in violent and terrible destruction around the world. Reprinting would very likely have meant—and could still mean—more people killed and more property destroyed. It would have caused many British and American Muslims great pain because they would have been told by other Muslims that the publication was intended to show contempt for their religion, and though that perception would in most cases have been inaccurate and unjustified, the pain would nevertheless have been genuine. True, readers and viewers who have been following the story might well have wanted to judge the cartoons' impact, humor, and offensiveness for themselves, and the press might therefore have felt some responsibility to provide that opportunity. But the public does not have a right to read or see whatever it wants no matter what the cost, and the cartoons are in any case widely available on the Internet.

Sometimes the press's self-censorship means the loss of significant information, argument, literature, or art, but not in this case. Not publishing may seem to give a victory to the fanatics and authorities who instigated the violent protests against them and therefore incite them to similar tactics in the future. But there is strong evidence that the wave of rioting and destruction—suddenly, four months after the cartoons were first published —was orchestrated by Muslim leaders in Denmark and in the Middle East for larger political reasons. If that analysis is correct, then keeping the issue boiling by fresh republications would actually serve the interests of those responsible and reward their strategies of encouraging violence...

...It is often said that religion is special, because people's religious convictions are so central to their personalities that they should not be asked to tolerate ridicule of their beliefs, and because they might feel a religious duty to strike back at what they take to be sacrilege. Britain has apparently embraced that view because it retains the crime of blasphemy, though only for insults to Christianity. But we cannot make an exception for religious insult if we want to use law to protect the free exercise of religion in other ways. If we want to forbid the police from profiling people who look or dress like Muslims for special searches, for example, we cannot also forbid people from opposing that policy by claiming, in cartoons or otherwise, that Islam is committed to terrorism, however misguided we think that opinion is. Certainly we should criticize the judgment and taste of such people. But religion must observe the principles of democracy, not the other way around. No religion can be permitted to legislate for everyone about what can or cannot be drawn any more than it can legislate about what may or may not be eaten. No one's religious convictions can be thought to trump the freedom that makes democracy possible.

2 comments:

MT said...

Hey, I could have denounced you from the roof tops, but I chose not to. Is that worth nothing to you? Um, anyway, didja know Dworkin also posts at Left2Right? (the blog seems to be rising from the crypt BTW). I think he posted his initial thoughts on the cartoons there, although if he did he seems to have unposted it since, because all I see there now are other people's posts.

helmut said...

I used to read Left2Right, but they hardly ever updated and I just let it drop. I'll check it out again.

I don't mind being denounced from the rooftops, as long as it either makes sense or makes completely no sense. Attempts at sense that are nonsensical really bother me.