On Innocence of Muslims and free speech
September 19th 2012 02:48
Incommensurable positions. Uncompromising commitment to free speech on the one hand, and uncompromising commitment to religious limitation of free speech on the other. Is this really the picture of the world?
But, of course, most non-Muslims' attitude to free speech is already compromised in many ways.
And, of course, many (most?) Muslims living in Australia don't want religious limitations on free speech either.
It's something of a red herring whether or not the Sydney protesters have seen the film (surely one can hold a rational position on something one hasn't seen, or be offended by something one hasn't seen). But presumably it's true that they weren't protesting the film as such -- or wanting a change to free speech laws as such.
It seems that many protests, including the Occupy movement, have no clear purpose or clear list of demands.
Instead of a focus on changes to free speech laws, perhaps the emphasis should be on courtesy.
There's no legal obligation to forewarn Aboriginal people at the start of ABC broadcasts that a program contains images of the dead.
Perhaps there's not even a moral obligation.
But is there not good in doing so?
People often start by pointing out that "Innocence of Muslims" is a dodgy production -- perhaps either as a gesture of appeasement, or to make a point about proportionality -- that you shouldn't kill people because of crap films.
But is artistic merit legally relevant here? If a Shakespeare play breached racial vilification laws, should it count as exempting or mitigating that there's clever use of pentameter?
Isn't artistic merit very subjective anyway? Could something, for instance, be so bad that it's good? Or could 60 minutes of a camera pointed at a wall be appealing if you really, really liked walls?
If you're prepared to extend defamation-law protection to individuals or corporations, why not extend it to religious groups?
Of course, at least in NSW, "truth" and "honest opinion" are defences to defamation, and presumably it would not be straightforward to legally establish the veracity or otherwise of ancient texts, and the existence or otherwise of ancient figures...
Should mental distress and offence be of moral or legal relevance? Is mental distress so different from bodily distress? (What if Bishop Berkeley was right, and there are only minds anyway, and no bodies?)
Perhaps worth mentioning -- that mental distress is already considered legally relevant in many areas. For instance, damages can include a component for "pain or suffering", and there is a recognised "tort of nervous shock" in Australian law.
From memory, even John Stuart Mill recognised offence as morally relevant; it's just that he didn't think it outweighed interests of free speech.
It seems unworkable to regard any and all offence as sufficient grounds to limit speech. After all, one could be offended by anything. I could find the state of your lawn offensive.
I'm skeptical that it's any real help (at least, outside of the realm of virtue ethics) to ask for rational grounds for offence -- offence and mental distress, by their nature, seem more emotional than rational, or bound up with values that are difficult to rationally defend. (Why should you be offended that I called your mother a prostitute? She's not a prostitute, and everyone knows that. And what's wrong with prostitution anyway?)
It seems easier to dismiss offence entirely as grounds on which to limit speech (which would be my own no-censorship position).
And yet, there is the reality of psychological harm.
And thus, the politicians' solution might be: as to whether something is or is not offensive, use a test like "reasonable man on the street", and leave it for courts to work out the messy details.
Notes
-- Thursday 20 September 2012: Many people have maintained that the protests are not about modifications to free speech laws, but rather a general expression of anger about discimination against Muslims globally. One possible exception is Uthman Badar. It seems either: (a) that he's asking for a limitation on free speech -- it should not include freedom to insult; or (b) that he believes existing limitations on free speech already are broad enough to make insults to the Prophet illegal.
-- News report (unsure from which station) that more squarely confronts the question of whether Muslims want a change to free speech laws. A stat is quoted that 78% of British Muslims want punishment for the publishers of the Danish Cartoons. The conclusion reached, based on interviews with two or three Muslims: "It's really very clear that we have no centre ground on this issue. There are things that Muslims want protected as sacred and unassailable. And, on the other hand, this is a secular society in which religious sensibilities are hardly an issue. So, either we self-censor, or we publish and we create mayhem. Further conflict may be unavoidable, as Muslims are united in wishing to curb the right to speak freely." There is a 50-minute program on the topic available here: Dispatches Debate: Muslims and Free Speech, chaired by Jon Snow.
But, of course, most non-Muslims' attitude to free speech is already compromised in many ways.
And, of course, many (most?) Muslims living in Australia don't want religious limitations on free speech either.
***
It's something of a red herring whether or not the Sydney protesters have seen the film (surely one can hold a rational position on something one hasn't seen, or be offended by something one hasn't seen). But presumably it's true that they weren't protesting the film as such -- or wanting a change to free speech laws as such.
It seems that many protests, including the Occupy movement, have no clear purpose or clear list of demands.
***
Instead of a focus on changes to free speech laws, perhaps the emphasis should be on courtesy.
There's no legal obligation to forewarn Aboriginal people at the start of ABC broadcasts that a program contains images of the dead.
Perhaps there's not even a moral obligation.
But is there not good in doing so?
***
People often start by pointing out that "Innocence of Muslims" is a dodgy production -- perhaps either as a gesture of appeasement, or to make a point about proportionality -- that you shouldn't kill people because of crap films.
But is artistic merit legally relevant here? If a Shakespeare play breached racial vilification laws, should it count as exempting or mitigating that there's clever use of pentameter?
Isn't artistic merit very subjective anyway? Could something, for instance, be so bad that it's good? Or could 60 minutes of a camera pointed at a wall be appealing if you really, really liked walls?
***
If you're prepared to extend defamation-law protection to individuals or corporations, why not extend it to religious groups?
Of course, at least in NSW, "truth" and "honest opinion" are defences to defamation, and presumably it would not be straightforward to legally establish the veracity or otherwise of ancient texts, and the existence or otherwise of ancient figures...
***
Should mental distress and offence be of moral or legal relevance? Is mental distress so different from bodily distress? (What if Bishop Berkeley was right, and there are only minds anyway, and no bodies?)
Perhaps worth mentioning -- that mental distress is already considered legally relevant in many areas. For instance, damages can include a component for "pain or suffering", and there is a recognised "tort of nervous shock" in Australian law.
From memory, even John Stuart Mill recognised offence as morally relevant; it's just that he didn't think it outweighed interests of free speech.
***
It seems unworkable to regard any and all offence as sufficient grounds to limit speech. After all, one could be offended by anything. I could find the state of your lawn offensive.
I'm skeptical that it's any real help (at least, outside of the realm of virtue ethics) to ask for rational grounds for offence -- offence and mental distress, by their nature, seem more emotional than rational, or bound up with values that are difficult to rationally defend. (Why should you be offended that I called your mother a prostitute? She's not a prostitute, and everyone knows that. And what's wrong with prostitution anyway?)
It seems easier to dismiss offence entirely as grounds on which to limit speech (which would be my own no-censorship position).
And yet, there is the reality of psychological harm.
And thus, the politicians' solution might be: as to whether something is or is not offensive, use a test like "reasonable man on the street", and leave it for courts to work out the messy details.
***
Notes
-- Thursday 20 September 2012: Many people have maintained that the protests are not about modifications to free speech laws, but rather a general expression of anger about discimination against Muslims globally. One possible exception is Uthman Badar. It seems either: (a) that he's asking for a limitation on free speech -- it should not include freedom to insult; or (b) that he believes existing limitations on free speech already are broad enough to make insults to the Prophet illegal.
-- News report (unsure from which station) that more squarely confronts the question of whether Muslims want a change to free speech laws. A stat is quoted that 78% of British Muslims want punishment for the publishers of the Danish Cartoons. The conclusion reached, based on interviews with two or three Muslims: "It's really very clear that we have no centre ground on this issue. There are things that Muslims want protected as sacred and unassailable. And, on the other hand, this is a secular society in which religious sensibilities are hardly an issue. So, either we self-censor, or we publish and we create mayhem. Further conflict may be unavoidable, as Muslims are united in wishing to curb the right to speak freely." There is a 50-minute program on the topic available here: Dispatches Debate: Muslims and Free Speech, chaired by Jon Snow.
| 30 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Claudia Windal
The Roman Catholic Church and the World
Transforming Ourselves Transforming the World
I certainly believe in the right to free speech. At the same time, I cringe at the harmful messages some bring simply because they can. Free speech does not mean free accompanying actions. Case in point: The Westbourough Baptist Church members have targeted GLBT persons for their messages of hate. If you can't hear them, they also bring along banners and signs with a clear message, "God Hates Fags." Free Speech allows them to do this. They protest as the funerals of gay men and women and disturb one of the most difficult time in family life; the loss of a loved one.
Yes, voicing one's opinion before elections and throughout one's term of office is a priviledge, which I believe must be self monitoring. Watching Catholic priests and brothers stand outside a Planned Parenthood building with signs showing a partially formed fetus, is abominable.
There is a fine line (one which I truly can't define) between free speech and plain hatred which can and does lead to unrest and undo harm to groups or individuals.
When anyone can answer our questions, I pray they will speak up quickly and loudly.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog