Comments on: Over the Top

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:53:58 +0000

Of course it’s prejudiced, it wouldn’t cause offense if it wasn’t. But, throwing “racist” around is a way to immediately sidetrack the value of the discussion. Let’s be honest, there is a basis for the prejudice. If there wasn’t, it wouldn’t create such strong reactions by so many people. The “no more virgins” cartoon is actually kind of funny, too. In the West we have a tradition of strongly attacking our political opponents without resorting to violence. That’s what these cartoons do. The Middle East doesn’t yet have that tradition. They need to learn it, or they need to fight a war that they, ultimately, can’t win, or they need to isolate themselves and ignore us. There really are no other options. Right now the extremists have chosen to fight a war they can’t win. Will the moderates wake up and deal with it?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:48:25 +0000

Good piece Eric. Your technical definition of racism is correct, though your argument sort of implies there’s no problem at all with the cartoons. They aren’t racist, but the one that has caused all the fuss — Prophet with BombTurban — is certainly prejudiced, based on religion.

All that aside, I agree that the West can’t back down on free speech, even if it is offensive.

And I wonder, is that Papal Bull you quoted? :) m.

p.s. You might enjoy today’s Ask General Kang on this topic

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:33:23 +0000

From my perspective, all renunciation of liberty is voluntary. We choose, individually, whether we will follow the law, whether it is just or unjust. There is no difference, viewed that way, between voluntarily censoring yourself because your own government says to or because someone else says to. Especially when their is a threat of violent coercion involved. To suggest that anything else is the case is to grant to government a special status that it does not deserve. And, even worse, to lessen the immorality of using the threat of violence to coerce others if you are not part of the government.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:19:50 +0000

I guess the distinction I’m trying to make is that while they may well be squandering their liberty, they have not surrendered it.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:18:03 +0000

I think the difference, as least as it applies to the American media, is that, McCain/Fiengold aside the state cannot use force to compel or prohibit speech. The distinction being government vs non government action.

They are free to stand up to Islamic threats or not. The media have certainly not shown any general resistance to publishing material that offends. But their unwillingness to offend anyone who will do more than write a letter, indicates that they don’t believe the pen is mightier than the sword.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:41:18 +0000

So, you are suggesting that they are making a choice because of the threat of violence? In other words, being coerced by someone else to make a certain choice? If that is the case, how is it, in principle, different than when you don’t do something because the government tells you not to? The reason we do what the government says, ultimately, is because of their potential to use force.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:36:06 +0000

I am not suggesting that they are not hypocritical, nor do I mean to say that their reasons for choosing not to publish the cartoons are the right ones. Merely that they are free to choose to print or not to print.

Their reasons are in fact utterly hypocritical and self-serving. But the reality of free press is that they have the freedom to be utterly hypocritical and self-serving.

As Mark Steyn :

“Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom “Will & Grace,” in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes — “Cruci-fixin’s.” On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of “respect” for the Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president’s home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.”

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:22:40 +0000

I understand what you’re saying Stephen, but there is a difference, I think, between choosing not to do something you don’t think it’s a good idea, and choosing not to do something because someone else thinks it’s not a good idea. These same newspapers (NYT, WaPo, etc.) have published pictures and cartoons that are offensive to other religious groups, and defended those actions as “freedom of speech”. Either, they are hypocrites or they have given up control of their freedom of speech to the sensibilities of someone else.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:36:18 +0000

“So, you have de facto surrendered your freedom of expression.”

I would have to disagree with this statement. Doesn’t the concept of freedom of expression contain the right to not speak if you so choose? The U.S. media have the right to freely publish the cartoons if they choose to do so. Nothing is stopping them but their choice to not offend. Someone’s choice to exercise their in freedom in a manner with which you disagree does not constitute a surrender of that freedom.

I chose to publish the cartoons on my site. I am not worried that someone might be offended. I also think it is important that people see what all the fuss is about. If people see that a few cartoons can spur such widespread anger and violence, they may gain some understanding of the nature of the radical Islamists we are fighting.