The
Tyranny of Silence
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Even amidst death threats and Islamist violence, Flemming Rose remains a
staunch advocate for freedom of speech. In a Europe with ever-increasing
speech restrictions, he argues for the equivalent of a global First
Amendment.
On October 13, 2014, both the Cato
Institute and the Newseum
in Washington, DC, hosted Rose, author of the recently published book, The
Tyranny of Silence. Rose and his paper maintain high security
generally. But surprisingly, the only apparent security at these two
events consisted of security guards from institutions holding them. Cato
had approximately 75 people in attendance, including a young man from FIRE. The Newseum had a smaller
audience, consisting of about 35 people, most of whom were older and
likely Newseum members, as only members were sent prior notification.
Both audiences were attentive, responsive and had numerous questions for
the editor during Q&A. Additionally, both events were taped for
online viewing.
Rose is an editor of Jyllands-Posten,
a Danish newspaper, notorious for its 2005 publication of twelve cartoons
of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad. Considered blasphemous, the drawings
provided Islamists with an excuse to riot across the Muslim world and
destroy Danish embassies, killing approximately 200 people.
Preceding these events, Danish author Kåre Bluitgen,
wrote a children's book on Islam's Prophet and wanted to include
illustrations. Bluitgen sought to commission several illustrators for the
Mohammad images. Two declined and one agreed on the condition of
anonymity. The illustrators cited safety concerns stemming from death
threats to Salmon Rushdie in
the United Kingdom and the murder of Theo van Gogh in
the Netherlands, both of whom allegedly "blasphemed" Islam.
Questions arose as to whether fear caused the illustrators to engage in
self-censorship concerning Islam, and whether individuals in the media
should cater to a small minority that reacts violently to discussion
deemed offensive.
Jyllands-Posten asked members of the illustrator's union to
draw Mohammad as they saw him. The newspaper accepted submissions for
seven to ten days. It subsequently published twelve illustrations along
with an article addressing free speech and self-censorship. "No one
could have anticipated" what would follow, Rose explained. The
cartoons were the purported cause of violence that erupted throughout the
Middle East, making Rose and his newspaper the center of a media storm.
All context was lost.
Rose had sought a debate about ideas and a civil way to maintain a
dialogue. Yet jihadists threatened to bomb the Jyllands-Posten's
offices and murder the cartoonists, forcing several of them into hiding.
Both Rose and Jyllands-Posten have had to maintain heavy security
ever since.
Several Muslim organizations filed a complaint against Jyllands-Posten
accusing it of violating the
Danish Criminal Code. The statute prohibits public ridicule of
religious dogma or public statements that cause a group to feel
"threatened, scorned or degraded" due to race or religion.
However, using a narrow legal interpretation of the statute, the Danish
government decided not to pursue the case, stating that it did not meet
the necessary pre-requisites for prosecution.
Rose stated that self-censorship in Europe has worsened since the Jyllands-Posten's
publication of the cartoons. Rose was confronted with numerous anti-free
speech arguments. "Isn't it hurting the religious feelings of people
with deeply held beliefs?" "Isn't it a smart business decision
not to use language in newspapers that might offend readers?"
"Isn't is just good manners not to insult someone's beliefs?" (paraphrasing)
But Rose, without missing a beat, had an articulate and persuasive answer
for each point. He insisted that the omission of language regarding Islam
did not constitute simply a business decision, as all readers
occasionally face offense. Nor did it stem from good manners, as the
motivation was not to be polite. Rather, it was self-censorship based on
fear and intimidation.
Rose ardently advocated for the equivalent of a worldwide First
Amendment, arguing for a free marketplace of ideas including religious
doctrine. "Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment"
he proclaimed, noting that people might have other deeply held beliefs
where they could claim equivalent offense.
European laws balance freedom of expression against other rights such
as the right to privacy and the right not to be offended. Therefore,
European countries have various laws prohibiting hate speech, religious
denigration, and racism. However, "almost absolute" freedom of
speech, with exceptions for incitement to violence and defamation of
individuals, "makes America unique." Free speech is "not a
balancing test" against the so-called right not to be offended.
Offensive speech is constitutionally protected if it's true or mere
opinion.
Rose aptly noted that hate speech restrictions have not reduced
violence. Indeed, riots have always erupted in countries where hate
speech, blasphemy laws and other speech restrictions exist, but have been
violated. Proponents of hate speech laws claim that hate speech leads to
violent acts, but there is no evidence to support their claims. In
countries where freedom flourishes, offensive expression incites minimal
violence.
Rose also noted a seeming paradox: where immigration rises causing an
increase in diversity of race and religion, there's a decrease in the
diversity of ideas allowed expression.
When asked if he thought there is a proper role for government
censorship, Rose answered with a resounding "no!" Rose noted
that while Kurt
Westergaard, cartoonist of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, became
victim of an assassination attempt, some believe he deserved his fate.
And, the Netherlands' Minister of Justice professed, "if we had hate
speech laws, then Van Gogh would be alive today." Rose thinks both
of these positions are outrageous because they condemn speech while
justifying the violence in response to it.
Rose explained that many people fail to distinguish between words and
deeds. And, "America is becoming more isolated" as tyrannical
countries tighten speech restrictions. While American laws allow freedom,
increasingly the citizens are plagued with peer pressure and political
correctness, pushing for self-censorship.
Yet, "the right not to be offended" is the only right Rose
believes individuals should not have in a democracy. Freedom should be
paramount.
Refusing to be silent in the face of Islamist intimidation, Rose
exercises that freedom courageously and without qualms.
This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an
activity of the Middle East
Forum. Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a contributing author to Saudi
Arabia and the Global Islamic Network and the author of Council on
American-Islamic Relations: its use of Lawfare and Intimidation.
Andrew Harrod, JD, PhD is an independent researcher and a fellow at The
Lawfare Project .
This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment