I think your view is really dangerous, a5cent, because without understanding what you're doing, you're imposing your culture in an authoritarian way.
Thank you for disagreeing in a thoughtful way. I understand the points you are making, but you are very wrong about them. Yours are popular misconceptions, likely because at first glance, they seem very reasonable. However, your view of what constitutes a better approach would, over time, have grave consequences, which would throw western culture back a few hundred years, and end up making this world a far more dangerous place for everyone living in it, including people in the middle east. It's as if you've noticed the few "small" free-speech related dangers waiting outside your front door, and you're so focused on them, that you're completely overlooking your wide open and unguarded back door where far graver dangers lurk.
Your misconceptions are these:
- There is no such thing as limitless free speech. Limits are already imposed by culture and law and thereby arbitrary. If those limits are arbitrary, we might as well have all countries add "insulting Islam" to the kinds of speech that is illegal.
- That adhering to the principles of free speech (which means people are free to mock political figures or religions or anything else, without risk of government intervention or retaliation), is equivalent to imposing western culture on middle easterners in an authoritarian way.
This is why those ideas are wrong:
1)
You are right that free speech is not limitless, but you fundamentally misunderstand how those limits are decided upon. They aren't as arbitrary as you claim them to be. You mentioned examples of verbal sexual harassment and hate speech, specifically racism. Well, guess what? Nobody in a free society goes to prison because they exchange racist thoughts, write racist books, or create racist websites. People have the right to do so, and it's honestly better when such is brought out into the open and discussed in public, rather than suppressed, which always leads to those elements of society becoming even more radicalized. For harassment this is not true. People have the right to not be physically or verbally assaulted. That is also part of living in a free society. People have the right to ignore any potential belligerent harasser and not be pestered further. In western societies, Muslims have the same rights. Muslims are free to ignore cartoons, not read publications they disagree with, and not have people trail them and get up in their face while citing anti-islamic hate speech, which is also harassment.
Free speech is limited by the principle that you can't say things that could harm people. In the U.S. the most well known example is that you aren't allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. That's when free speech infringes on other rights, namely people's right to remain safe and free from harm. A magazine publishing 30'000 to 60'000 issues a month with the occasional mildly insulting cartoon, doesn't harm anyone. The absolutely best place for such material is out in the public where people can debate it.
Let's not pretend that middle eastern cultures and Islam are perfect. There is a lot wrong about both, and that is what Charlie Hebdo occasionally tried to point out, like they did for all of the major religions. Not just Islam. Taking those accusations in stride and pointing out
why they are wrong would make Muslims stronger! It's a stupid comparison, but not entirely different from the way criticism of WP also makes the WP community more realistic about their own preferences and also drives MS to be better. If Muslims could do the same, they would also become more accepted and understood in western societies. With so many Muslims calling for suppression however, they just look incredibly thin skinned and weak in their faith.
In summary, yes, free speech does come with some limitations, but the principles by which free speech is limited are not arbitrary. Making satirical criticizem of Islam illegal would run completely counter to the basic principle of free speech, and would represent the only exception to the otherwise systematic limitations.
edit:
The point is that Satire is already censored in some subjects. For example this newspaper wouldn't be allowed, specially in Europe:
Der St?rmer -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Stürmer
In addition to free speech laws, Germany has some extra laws in place outlawing anything related to National Socialism. Based on their background, that is somewhat understandable. It's not true that this publication is outlawed across Europe however. I live right next to Germany. You'll certainly get ridiculed and mocked for buying this kind of stuff, and printing it will make you downright hated, but with the exception of Germany, you won't get fined or thrown in jail for it.
2)
I already addressed this fallacy in earlier posts, but it seems to stubbornly hold on. Free speech is a right. It is a freedom. You can't impose a freedom on somebody! Removing people's freedom to express themselves as they desire, would lead to far more problems for the Muslim community, than the occasional cartoon ever could. How many Mosques do you think would never have been built, if western societies didn't support Muslim's right to preach what they themselves disagree with? Minorities have always greatly benefited from this freedom, and it's ironic that Muslims now want to get rid of that freedom, when it's their turn to suck something up!
As I mentioned in the first section, what is considered acceptable free speech is not arbitrary. What you are proposing would be the first crippling blow to free speech in western societies. If you think journalists that occasionally offend Islam would be the only ones silenced, you are sorely mistaken. History has proven over and over again that humans are not very good at deciding what should and should not be censored. I think you are a perfect example of this. The west still believes that laws should apply to all people equally, so if we decided your proposal is acceptable, why wouldn't others then also have the right to outlaw any other materials they find offensive? How long would it take, before some groups start lobbying to outlaw the Hadith? If those groups said they found the Hadith offensive (which it is), what leg would Muslims have to stand on to say they should be allowed to keep printing it? None! Oh yeah, and of course the west wouldn't just want it banned in their own societies, but all across the middle east too. That would only be fair, right?
It's not just little things like this that free speech are important for. National socialism would never have risen to power in Germany, if the government hadn't had the ability to lock away political dissenters, burn books and censor all newspapers. When all voices of opposition disappear, most people tend to believe and go along with what seems to be majority opinion, which in this case helped cement Hitler's power in Germany and greatly helped in the perpetuation of the holocaust. This too is the type of thing free speech helps protect against. Are you sure it's worth weakening that system, just because some people's faith is so weak they can't deal with a stupid cartoon?
I don't think it is worth it, and I'd rather avoid any limitation of free speech being imposed on anybody! Muslims should feel the same, because as soon as the first brick is pulled from the foundation of free speech, which is what you propose should be done, Muslims will have a lot more limitations to contend with than most of the other people living in western societies.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram