2008 Woodie Awards
Going Loony Over Toons
How censorship equals violence
The Voice of the Observer
Issue date: 2/13/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
In Europe, streets are burning, death threats against newspaper editors are circulating and governments are facing one of the biggest crises in their recent history. And all this because a Danish newspaper published 12 editorial cartoons featuring individuals artists' renditions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
That was in September. Since then, radical Islamic groups in Europe and Islamic governments in the Middle East have called for the newspapers and the governments of their countries to apologize to the Muslim faith.
In Islam, any visual depiction of the prophet Mohammad ? whether it be "positive" or disrespectful - is considered blasphemous. (Much like early Catholicism's and some modern Christian sects' prohibition of any religious images or iconography.)
It is because of this belief that some Muslims are (yet again) violently incensed with the West.
In the U.S., pundits were quick to criticize the violent response to the cartoons. It is beyond their understanding that anyone would want to kill over a drawing. And so these pundits, with all the moral superiority they can muster, deride the Muslim protesters and their culture, which surely must be responsible for this "over-reaction."
However, the Muslim response to the cartoons is not far removed from how the West tends to respond to speech it considers offensive and taboo.
Americans and Europeans, on the most part, certainly do not burn embassies and threaten to murder those with whom they profoundly disagree. But their reaction is one tied to violence: censorship. The means may be different, but the desired result is the same: shutting up people against their will.
Right-wing and left-wing groups constantly urge the government to pass legislation and issue fines against broadcasters who transmit content that these people consider to be offensive or inappropriate. Instead of changing the channel or turning off the radio, these people want the government to force stations to change their programs ? or even shut down the stations all together. Instead of destroying the stations themselves, these "advocates" just get the government to do it.
In the academe, where the radical doctrine of Political Correctness rules supreme, there are plenty of taboo words and ideas that people are prohibited from saying, writing or thinking on pain of punishment.
In the social sciences, so-called post-modern theorists (like Derrida, Foucault, Lacan) are akin to gods ? try disagreeing with their dribble and you'll fail your paper, your class ? or miss out on a tenure promotion.
To give just one example of this radicalism: In many "women's studies" classes, a widely used "class discussion rule" - pioneered by Rutgers-New Brunswick feminist professors ? is that you can't challenge the existence of sexism, racism, "the patriarchy," or deny that all pornography is wrong.
Images and words are indeed powerful. (Anyone who says otherwise is in denial and maybe blind to the history of mankind.) So it's understandable that people would want to avoid or wipe out any images or words dangerous to their political, social and mystical order and understandings.
But if we are to live in country where the free expression of ideas is protected as a right, we have to allow others to express themselves ? no matter if we disagree with their ideas.
You may think that communism or atheism is evil and dangerous, but you have to accept that others can't be forced to think the same.
You're allowed to believe that someone else's idea is wrong. But you're wrong to believe that they shouldn't say or print it. Because how would you enforce it? Any law passed, any sanction imposed would be an act of violence against someone with whom you disagree.
The history and tradition of free speech has allowed Americans to be relatively tolerant of differing or repulsive views. This tolerance is not a given ? it has to be taught, encouraged, protected, reinforced. In Islamic countries, where there is no history of free expression to speak of, it is natural that people would get upset over the publishing of something offensive. After all, they are in a world where not even the thought of saying, printing or broadcasting blasphemy is entertained. In their societies, censorship comes easy, because censorship is so easy to do - it is the natural, human reaction towards ideas we find threatening.
Think about that the next time you open a newspaper and read something that causes you to say, "They shouldn't be allowed to print that!"
The Voice of the Observer is the Editorial: the official position of the Observer's Editorial Board. The Observer is an open forum for R-N and we welcome Letters to the Editor. Please include your full name and contact information with your letter; we will not publish contact information. We reserve the right to edit for length. Submit at www.RutgersObserver.com
That was in September. Since then, radical Islamic groups in Europe and Islamic governments in the Middle East have called for the newspapers and the governments of their countries to apologize to the Muslim faith.
In Islam, any visual depiction of the prophet Mohammad ? whether it be "positive" or disrespectful - is considered blasphemous. (Much like early Catholicism's and some modern Christian sects' prohibition of any religious images or iconography.)
It is because of this belief that some Muslims are (yet again) violently incensed with the West.
In the U.S., pundits were quick to criticize the violent response to the cartoons. It is beyond their understanding that anyone would want to kill over a drawing. And so these pundits, with all the moral superiority they can muster, deride the Muslim protesters and their culture, which surely must be responsible for this "over-reaction."
However, the Muslim response to the cartoons is not far removed from how the West tends to respond to speech it considers offensive and taboo.
Americans and Europeans, on the most part, certainly do not burn embassies and threaten to murder those with whom they profoundly disagree. But their reaction is one tied to violence: censorship. The means may be different, but the desired result is the same: shutting up people against their will.
Right-wing and left-wing groups constantly urge the government to pass legislation and issue fines against broadcasters who transmit content that these people consider to be offensive or inappropriate. Instead of changing the channel or turning off the radio, these people want the government to force stations to change their programs ? or even shut down the stations all together. Instead of destroying the stations themselves, these "advocates" just get the government to do it.
In the academe, where the radical doctrine of Political Correctness rules supreme, there are plenty of taboo words and ideas that people are prohibited from saying, writing or thinking on pain of punishment.
In the social sciences, so-called post-modern theorists (like Derrida, Foucault, Lacan) are akin to gods ? try disagreeing with their dribble and you'll fail your paper, your class ? or miss out on a tenure promotion.
To give just one example of this radicalism: In many "women's studies" classes, a widely used "class discussion rule" - pioneered by Rutgers-New Brunswick feminist professors ? is that you can't challenge the existence of sexism, racism, "the patriarchy," or deny that all pornography is wrong.
Images and words are indeed powerful. (Anyone who says otherwise is in denial and maybe blind to the history of mankind.) So it's understandable that people would want to avoid or wipe out any images or words dangerous to their political, social and mystical order and understandings.
But if we are to live in country where the free expression of ideas is protected as a right, we have to allow others to express themselves ? no matter if we disagree with their ideas.
You may think that communism or atheism is evil and dangerous, but you have to accept that others can't be forced to think the same.
You're allowed to believe that someone else's idea is wrong. But you're wrong to believe that they shouldn't say or print it. Because how would you enforce it? Any law passed, any sanction imposed would be an act of violence against someone with whom you disagree.
The history and tradition of free speech has allowed Americans to be relatively tolerant of differing or repulsive views. This tolerance is not a given ? it has to be taught, encouraged, protected, reinforced. In Islamic countries, where there is no history of free expression to speak of, it is natural that people would get upset over the publishing of something offensive. After all, they are in a world where not even the thought of saying, printing or broadcasting blasphemy is entertained. In their societies, censorship comes easy, because censorship is so easy to do - it is the natural, human reaction towards ideas we find threatening.
Think about that the next time you open a newspaper and read something that causes you to say, "They shouldn't be allowed to print that!"
The Voice of the Observer is the Editorial: the official position of the Observer's Editorial Board. The Observer is an open forum for R-N and we welcome Letters to the Editor. Please include your full name and contact information with your letter; we will not publish contact information. We reserve the right to edit for length. Submit at www.RutgersObserver.com