Free Speech in the dock
Freedom of speech can be a troublesome, slightly lofty ideal at times. The ability and freedom to openly speak one's mind and criticize others, without fear, is one of the most lauded and debated rights that pop up in the modern era. It is held high and is often championed, with such a freedom enshrined in the American Constitution and also the recent European Union Human Rights act.
With such a strong ideal though, inevitably there's a backlash. In the last week there have been three major events that questioned people's ideas in what constitutes free speech, which led to the Daily Mail leading last Thursday with the sensationalist headline "The price of free speech". Groups and newspapers have used these to debate how far we can take it, or whether by its definition it can and should be unlimited.
Last Tuesday, the government was defeated for the second time over its new religious hatred bill. The new law was aimed at making incitement against people due to their religion an offence, despite existing laws on religious discrimination and general incitement. As soon it was announced it drew significant criticism, firstly from those who feel they would no longer be able to criticize (either a mainstream or cult) religion legitimately. The second and main criticism came from the arts world, where it was feared that the new law would restrict the use of religion in their art, and (as an extension of the first) make them unable to satirise it. The comedian Rowan Atkinson was particularly scathing, citing that some of his works for Not the Nine O'clock News would have been illegal under the new law. After the government defeat, this leaves it in a watered-down form; although it is still illegal to incite religious hatred, concessions have been made so comments that are "critical, abusive or insulting" are allowable. "With it, it seems to me, everybody wins. Those who seek to threaten religious communities will know that such behaviour has now been outlawed" was how Mr. Atkinson described the defeat.
This was followed up on Thursday when the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin, along with party activist Mark Collett were acquitted for the charges of incitement to racial hatred. Evidence was based on footage shot by an undercover BBC reporter, which recorded Mr. Griffin describing Islam as a "Wicked, vicious faith". The same report recorded Mark Collett describing asylum seekers as "Cockroaches", and putting the blame on "White politicians" in government. After the trial, Mr. Griffin denied that he was a racist, and claimed that it was actually freedom of speech on trial. Despite this, the two are facing a retrial on similar race-hate offences.
This was one event that led to the Daily Mail headline mentioned at the top of the article. The other cannot have escaped your attention. The Danish newspaper JyllandsPosten reprinted several cartoons, all of which depicted the Prophet Mohammed in various ways. These were reprinted throughout Europe, and led to the sacking of the editor of France Soir after it printed a followup cartoon in a similar vein.
On the cartoons, some Muslims object to the depiction of the Prophet himself. Even though there is no specific ban mentioned in the Koran, this particular interpretation is believed to have come about where it is mentioned that "[There is] nothing like a likeness of [Allah]". The main objections however is due to the fact that it is felt that the cartoons come perilously close to labelling Islam as a violent and destructive religion a view not too far from what was said by Mr. Griffin of the BNP remember. Is such a view justified or is that a gross over-exaggeration?
Defenders of these cartoons have claimed it is simply an exercise of free speech, and they are entirely in their right to print such material if they wanted to. Although this is a valid point, critics should be wary of these cartoons, as they are hardly the bastions of free speech that they appear to be. Some people have argued that they are justified as similar critiques of Christianity appear on a frequent basis, and as such the protests are an over-reaction. Although this is arguably true, it should be noted that very rarely are the main icons of Christianity, such as Jesus, are mocked directly. The only recent case of this in memory is where the BBC decided to screen Jerry Springer: The Opera, which depicted Jesus in a nappy and admitting to being "a bit gay". This led to mass protests outside BBC studios, along with burning of TV licenses and death threats made against the controller of BBC 2, who was forced to flee his home.
This example in particular highlights the problem that we face. It seems that for all our talk on the right of free speech, we are not willing to personally moderate it, with people taking one of two extreme views these days; either that it should be curbed in order to prevent bad speech getting out, or we should be free to publish anything, irrespective of the though put behind it.
Let me explain that last section. Although freedom of speech is an imperative right (most people will agree with me, I'm sure) we seem to be unable to give ourselves the right to judge what is needed and what isn't; what is good and what is harmful, and what should be criticized. As well as accepting free speech and people's opinions, we should also be able to think about them. As hateful as the BNP are, they should not be censored, as that would reflect as a failure on our society to reject their outdated views. As for the cartoons, although not may people will object to them being printed in the first place, in this reporter's opinion they should not be heralded as an important step. They seem to be crude and not making any major points, and seems to be a cynical ploy more then anything. Jerry Springer writer Stewart Lee criticized the cartoons for mocking a general religion, showing no ideas or comments on Islam itself. Although on the flipside, we should not tolerate the violent protests made by some Muslims in response to the cartoons; one Imperial student suggested that they could be arrested and charged under the Race Hatred bill.
Last week, a Jordanian newspaper urged Muslims of the world to "be safe" in the light of the recent controversy. This sounds like a useful bit of advice for everyone to take in light of recent events.
