Are Radical Imams Going to Redefine Freedom of Speech?
Now there are threats of violence directed against France for the publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammad in violation of Islamic law. This is simply the most recent manifestation of a worldwide effort to censor freedom of expression and make it conform to the most radical interpretation of Islamic tradition. The bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie was recently increased and this distinguished author remains in peril. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for violating Islamic Law. And numerous people have been killed as the result of cartoons being published in Denmark and a video shown on YouTube.
I have seen several minutes of the stupid little film that has, arguably, incited so much violence and the deaths of four distinguished public servants, including a United States Ambassador who was uniquely sympathetic to Islam and Arab interests.
There is nothing good that can be said about the low budget film. It has little redeeming social value and the world would be a better place if it had never been made or shown. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, and under American law unconstitutional, to censor or punish such despicable expression. Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.
There are several exceptions recognized under American law to untrammeled freedom of expression. These include falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, fighting words and speech that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. Even if these exceptions were applied to anti-Islamic expressions that would not solve the problem. It is easy to argue that a video such as the one on YouTube could be banned without doing much damage to freedom of expression, but that would only be the tip of the iceberg. The radical Imams who incite the violence would not be satisfied until they could decide what could be seen and heard. They want to become the ultimate judges, juries and executioners when it comes to anything that relates to Islam or its prophet. But religious fanatics who are easily offended by those outside of their religion who violate the rules of their religion cannot serve as censors in democratic societies. The threat or fear of violence should not become an excuse or justification for restricting freedom of speech.
Those who blame America for allowing what some Muslims regard as blasphemous speech must come to understand that by not censoring such speech, the government does not place its imprimatur upon it. That may be difficult to understand for people who have come of age in repressive regimes which do not permit any expressions disfavored by the government. In such regimes, the publication of bigoted materials can be taken as representing the views of the government. For example, when Iranians newspapers publish anti-Semitic diatribes, the views expressed in those diatribes are the views of the government. Not so with democratic states. Indeed it is probably true that more anti-Semitic material is published in the United States than in Iran, simply because so much is published here and almost none of it is subject to any kind of restriction or censorship. That does not make the United States an anti-Semitic country, but rather a country in which there is freedom to express anti-Semitic views. It does make Iran an anti-Semitic country, because all views that appear in the media must be approved by the government.
Some who are now calling on governments to censor expressions that are deemed offensive to Muslims point to the fact that some European governments do censor Holocaust-denial speech. It is false comparison. First, only a tiny number of governments—most particularly Germany, which was responsible for the Holocaust— censor Holocaust-denial speech. The vast majority of countries, including the United States, impose no such censorship. As far as I know no Muslim or Arab country censors Holocaust-denial speech. To the contrary, several such countries, led by Iran, promote such hate speech. Second, the Holocaust is a fact that no reasonable historian can dispute. The kinds of views that have caused the recent violence are expressions of opinion regarding an historical character about which historians vigorously disagree. Finally, I for one would like to see an end to the censorship of Holocaust-denial speech. Let those like Ahmadinejad who insist on lying about the history of European Jewry be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Truth does not need censorship to defend it.
So let us not allow those who employ violence to initiate a debate about the limits of free speech. Democracies should not allow themselves to be held hostage to violent extremists. Having said that, freedom of speech also requires decent people to condemn those who abuse freedom by needlessly insulting the religious beliefs of others or by being insensitive to the havoc they may be causing by exercising their freedom of speech. This film should be condemned in the marketplace of ideas, but the writings of Salman Rushdie and the publishing of political cartoons should not be condemned.
Individuals have the right to pick and choose which expressions to condemn, which to praise and which to say nothing about. Governments, however, must remain neutral as to the content of expression. And governments must protect the rights of all to express even the most despicable of views. Finally, the international community must use its collective power to apprehend and punish anyone who commits violence in reaction to expressions with which they disagree. Being offended by freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for violence.
An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared in Ha'aretz.
Related Topics: Alan M. Dershowitz receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list
Reader comments on this item
| Title | By | Date |
| Time to Ask the President [26 words] | Dan Friedman | Sep 20, 2012 09:59 |
| Freedom of speech to criticize Islime? Dershowitz implies maybe not. [206 words] | Jay Getty | Sep 20, 2012 09:23 |
| What a Tangled Web... [136 words] | EscapeVelocity | Sep 19, 2012 18:34 |
| One Islam, Two Kinds of Muslims [177 words] | Patrick Moore | Sep 19, 2012 16:38 |
| Why are you shocked Mr. Alan? [88 words] | Ethan P. | Sep 19, 2012 16:31 |
| ↔ Speech Codes and Hate Speech Laws [48 words] | Escape Velocity | Sep 21, 2012 10:37 |
| Should Germany end its ban on publication on Nazi propaganda? [21 words] | Charlie Hall | Sep 19, 2012 16:24 |
Comment on this item
U.S.: Israel's Prosperity a Problem
by Shoshana Bryen
Under the circumstances, the U.S. would do better to tell the Palestinians there is no deal to be had unless they -- both the Fatah and Hamas -- demonstrably accommodate the reality that Israel is a legitimate, permanent part of the region. Otherwise, it is for Israel to determine how best to defend itself from those "challenges over the horizon."
The New, Improved Axis of Jihad
by Clare M. Lopez
Two years into the seismic shift that brought the forces of Islamic jihad and Sharia law to power in country after country in the Middle East and North Africa -- with the astonishing and extensive assistance from the U.S. -- Iran, Hizballah and al-Qa'eda apparently judge that the U.S. and its Western allies still need another nudge to ensure their complete retreat from "Muslim" lands. That nudge, according to independent, reliable and mutually-corroborating sources, has now been prepared by this Axis.
Swedish Multiculturalism Goes Awry
by Soeren Kern
"Sweden is the best Islamic State." — Adly Abu Hajar, Imam based in Malmö
Why Doesn't the EU Condemn Palestinian Torture?
by Khaled Abu Toameh
More than half the 306 complaints about torture last year came from Palestinians who had been detained or imprisoned by Abbas's security forces in the West Bank; 11 detainees died in Palestinian Authority and Hamas prisons according to a report by the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
Who is Really Desecrating Holy Sites?
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The ultimate goal is to turn the conflict into a religious war between Jews and Muslims. If anyone is desecrating the holy site, it is those who smuggle petrol bombs and stones into the compound to use them against visitors.
- Switzerland: Multicultural Paradise?
by Soeren Kern - Swedish Multiculturalism Goes Awry
by Soeren Kern - The New, Improved Axis of Jihad
by Clare M. Lopez - U.S.: Israel's Prosperity a Problem
by Shoshana Bryen - History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government
by Clare M. Lopez
- Switzerland: Multicultural Paradise?
by Soeren Kern - Swedish Multiculturalism Goes Awry
by Soeren Kern - Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London
by Soeren Kern - It's Official: Muslim Population of Britain Doubles
by Douglas Murray - Who is Really Desecrating Holy Sites?
by Khaled Abu Toameh




Follow Gatestone: