Comments

I'm not so sure about the comment that democracy is, "...marked by the moral certainty that here you can say what you think." Should you really be able to?

Here in Europe, there's a lot of talk at the moment about the publication of some cartoons in a Danish paper that have been interpreted as offensive to Islam. (They depicted Muhammad, which is seen by many as blasphemous.) Their publication has resulted in a big anti-Dane backlash. It raises the question: just because you think something, do you have the right to say it when it may very well be offensive, blasphemous, inflammatory or just downright mundane?

There was a great piece in The Sunday Times by Simon Jenkins on this subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1059-2025511,00.html I can't better the conclusion that by repeating it: "The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy."

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at February 13, 2006 10:05 AM

I can think of no other liberty that the US democracy offers more important than the right to free speech. Without the right, and responsibility, to challenge openly our leadership, our foreign policies, ourselves...we run the risk of losing other liberties...You have the right to say anything (other than shouting fire in a crowded theater), but remember the listener also has the right to ignore it.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 13, 2006 10:20 AM

I had time to tune into the CNN coverage of the funeral for about 40 minutes catching Bill Clinton's speech and a few others. I thought it was wonderful to see such a diverse group of speakers and views at this celebration of a remarkable woman. One thing that really struck me, although it is not a new conviction for me. However, it really came home when watching, is that each one of us can make such a big difference if we are willing to embrace our brilliance. We can do it in our personal and business actions, we just need to be willing to stand up and be bold in our passions and convictions and then connect with others who are doing the same.

Posted by BZ Riger-Hull at February 13, 2006 10:49 AM

Mark: as you said, there is a lot of talk here in Europe about the cartoons.
But I think the point is not: "just because you think something, do you have the right to say it when it may very well be offensive, blasphemous, inflammatory or just downright mundane?". The main point is "If I say something that it may well be offensive, blasphemous, inflammatory or downright mundane. Then, do you have the right to burn down my house?".

Posted by Francisco Fernández at February 13, 2006 10:55 AM

The main [cartoon] story regarding Islam and free speech free societies and freedom to worship is the threat Islam "leadership" feels against its totalitarian rule.

Naturally "leadership" thrives on stirring up and orchestrating violence/destruction/hate in the masses to insure the "west" still seems to be THE 'Islam uniting' force enemy ... meanwhile taking care of its citizens is for a distant day.

Sects though are always at odds so the breeding ground for violence and hate of each other thrives on for the time being in too much of Islamville.

Ms. Noonan makes a fine argument however with so many pols attending, the sport of biting critique of Carter, Jackson, et al is too hard to resist.

Posted by Sean at February 13, 2006 11:12 AM

I just read the comments from Friday's post about Mrs. King and feel compelled to respond to the person who asked (twice) what she did to warrant all this attention. "Seems to me," wrote Chuck, "she was just a famous man's widow." Perhaps this brief answer will help you understand. First of all, she wasn't just sitting around knitting while her husband was off changing the world. She marched beside him and became a leader and speaker in her own right. When her home was bombed, she didn't run away. Instead she stepped up her efforts, including organizing the Freedom Concerts as fundraisers for SCLC. As Bill Clinton remarked at the service, many (most?) women would have retreated from the spotlight after the assassination. But Mrs. King devoted her life to public service and carried on their work in her own way. She may have entered the public arena as "just a wife," but that is not how she left it. You can read a lot more about her on any number of websites.

Posted by Lily at February 13, 2006 11:17 AM

Lily, and I think there's more. Mrs King became the de facto leader/symbol of the Movement as its leadership fractured after MLK's death. She was El Supremo in her own right.

Posted by tom peters at February 13, 2006 11:40 AM

CSK, Jesse, Al and other leaders should [have] address - like Dr. Cosby has - the single black parent syndrome that dooms too many to poverty and marketplace "civil rights discrimination" - 70% out-of-wedlock new black babies - 20% White - 40% Hispanic ... bit of an epidemic. 74% of married blacks OWN homes - perfect "civil" leverage.

Posted by Sean at February 13, 2006 12:14 PM

Francisco: I quite agree that no-one has the right to burn down your house or anything like it. That's beyond dispute. I'd still ask if you should have made the inflammatory remark in the first place. I'm not having a dig at you but the point strikes me that if we all showed a little more tolerance and respect and courtesy, and we learned how to put our disagreements in a way that didn't generate such a violent reaction, the world would be a happier place.

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at February 13, 2006 2:04 PM

I'm sorry, but I thought the funeral was a horrible place to bring up politics. It was a time to celebrate her life, not a forum to bash the president. Mrs. King was a national treasure, and her funeral was a national disaster. The best way to honor her legacy is not with words or holidays, but rather with actions. How about we re-dedicate ourselves to judging others by the content of their character?

Posted by Bruce at February 13, 2006 3:01 PM

Freedom of speech has always had its limitations:

Two women attempted to wear shirts bearing messages into the gallery where President Bush was delivering his State of the Union address. One was Beverly Young, wife of Florida Republican Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young. Her long-sleeved shirt said, "Support our troops." She was asked to leave the chamber.

The other was Cindy Sheehan, the woman who lost a son in Iraq and responded by spending last summer camped outside the president's Texas ranch, demanding to speak with him. Sheehan, last seen being embraced by Venezuela's loose cannon of a president, Hugo Chavez, was a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Democrat from California. Sheehan wore a T-shirt that referenced the U.S. death toll in Iraq. "2,245 dead. How many more?"

For this, she was also asked to leave the gallery. And arrested. And, she said, treated roughly enough that she was left with bruises.

from: http://martiananthropologist.blogspot.com/2006/02/cindy-sheehans-arrest.html

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 13, 2006 3:02 PM

Such times call for respect. Political commentary could be tabled afterwards. There's always a platform available to discuss politics.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 13, 2006 3:07 PM

Mark: I did not pretend to write an inflammatory remark or start a quarrel. I agree with you in one thing: world would be a happier place with a little more tolerance, courtesy and respect. But (and this was the motive of my comment) who decides "this is tolerable and this is not"? where is the precise limit on what can I say or write without bothering someone? the fear of a new crisis is going to make the european press less free?
I do not like none of the 12 cartoons, but I do not like self-censorship even less.

Posted by Francisco Fernández at February 13, 2006 3:32 PM

Tom O - hardly think a liberal blog is the latest on Sheehan's hilarious credibility ... any bruise claim is because she tends to thrash around with no coordination. Congress hosts the SOU address - so they yanked her as you know.

Her son is a hero [unlike my same age cousin who died in flames of a car wreck] - she is behaving with grandiose delusions that the Democrat "leads" can't seem to get enough of - she has said she plans to challenge Diane Feinstein for the Senate [CA]! Her 15 minutes are so over with - poor dear thing.

Posted by Sean at February 14, 2006 9:43 AM

lol - thrash around with no coordination!

But she was arrested, wasn't she?

Anyway, I'm not a Sheehan fan in any event. My point was that there have always been limitations on our use of the freedom of speech.

- You can't yell 'bomb' in an airport.
- You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.
- You can't say f&%k on network television.

Our freedom to express ourselves without restraint is conditional and dependent on circumstances. Well, I suppose that we CAN express ourselves as we want; but there might be consequences. There always have been.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 14, 2006 10:05 AM

Congress guards evidently felt obligated to arrest Ms. Sheehan per her behavior. The Coretta funeral to me I agree should have some protocol - Kennedy era wiretap rehashing by Mr. Carter is too much - unless one is a radical liberal - then most anything goes it seems ala Al Gore accepting Saudi $150k to defame USA citizens in the "kingdom" of Saud [15 of 19 9/11 homicide maniacs from SA] ... seemingly a Gore criminal act and/or almost heroic act per USA leftist protocol.

Posted by Sean at February 14, 2006 2:04 PM

@ Mr. O'Leary.

I disagree with your argument regarding the limitations on the freedom of speech (or freedom of expression).

What is missing from your line of argumentation is the perspective in which the freedom of expression/speech is used.

You see, while you have every right to yell any word you choose in the airport or a cinema, you have no right to threaten me, terrorize me or put me in a dangerous situation.
Yelling "bomb" in an airport is effectively a threat or an act of terror (in the true meaning of the word). What ever would happen after you yell "bomb" would not be happening as a limitation of your freedom of expression, but as a consequence of the threat created by it.

Furthermore, your rights does not mean that it is my obligation to facilitate your freedom of speech for you.
Hence, you can not expect a newspaper to voice your opinion. Nor can you expect a TV-station to facilitate your profanity.
However, should you happen to own a newspaper of your own, or a TV-station, you are free to use these media to facilitate your opinion.

I, of course, am free to change the channel or read another paper.

In the case of the T-shirts, I'm sure it was a facilitation-related issue.

On the cartoons controversy, the whole issue started BEFORE the 12 'blasphemous' cartoons were printed in the danish newspaper.
It started when a danish novelist was unable to find illustrators willing to work on his novel on the life of the prophet.
Several illustrators declined, citing 'fear of the consequences' as the reason.

In reality, 'fear of consequences' means that these illustrators had been terrorized into self-censorship, despite the fact that the illustrations were fully legal in Denmark.

The cartoons printed in the newspaper were printed to challenge the 'terrorists' that had by threat imposed this self-censorship, and to prove, that in Denmark, the freedom of expression is above the bylaws of any religion.

how to buy viagra online

While this entire issue looks to be started by the cartoons, it was indeed started by an act of terror attempting to bypass the laws of Denmark and impose the law of Sharia.

Posted by Lars Olufsen at February 15, 2006 8:34 AM

You make a good argument Lars. But I think that certain speech on television, for example, is restricted, not due to station owners self-determination, but because of FCC rules that they must abide by. Thus the freedom to express, in that sense, is obstructed by the government and not by choice of a private owner, editor or director.

It is exactly because of the possible consequences arising from certain speech or expression that the misuse of this freedom is castigated at times (as it should be IMHO) depending on circumstances.

I would most likely be prohibited to express myself by performing my famous naked man dance in a public park (obsenity laws). Our freedoms are often filtered to conform to certain community, societal or cultrual standards. Again, we all have the freedom to speak and express ourselves as we want to anywhere in the world. But doing so may result in our arrest, caning or death, depending on where we do it.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 15, 2006 12:39 PM