The United States Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed by an armed Islamist mob attack on September 11, 2012. Originally, the Obama administration stated that the attacks were a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video…” (Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the UN). The video she was referring to was an amateur film, made in the U.S., which mocked Islam and was called “Innocence of Muslims.” This initial reaction was probably false as the timing (11 years to the day after September 11, 2001 attacks) and subsequent investigations appear to show the attack was coordinated and planned. Whatever the case may be, there have been many violent anti-American and anti-West demonstrations and actions throughout the Muslim world ostensibly as a reaction to the wildly unprofessional “Innocence of Muslims” movie trailer or the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, who published cartoons mocking the prophet Mohamed.
These events
highlight a major difference in the way some Muslims (enough to fill big town
squares during the workweek) and the West view free speech and tolerance of
religion. In this post, I attempt to color that difference, to comment on
American free speech, and to talk about my own view of free speech.
AMERICAN FREE EXPRESSION
The First
Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This view of free
expression and religion is inherited, in large part, from John Lock and John
Stuart Mills. Locke believed that keeping established religion within the heart and home
and out of political policymaking would lead to tolerance and end wars of
religion. John Stuart Mills advocated the value of a marketplace of ideas. In
essence, he thought that, although imperfect, the free trade in ideas was the
best way to find truth as a society. Other philosophical justifications
undergird American freedom of expression too. Self-governance requires freedom
of opinion, religion, and expression. Suffrage requires it. If people are to be
sovereign, they must have their own free opinions and be able to express them.
There is also a deontological argument that it is an essential right for
autonomous and self-determining human beings to express themselves. Otherwise,
life would be meager. Free speech serves as a check to the abuse of power. Free expression serves as a release or safety
valve giving a recourse to dissidents other than draconian violence.
MUSLIM FREE EXPRESSION
Many Muslims do
believe in free expression. Modernity, it appears, demands it, and it really seems easily reconcilable with the teachings of the Koran as I understand. Yet, too many Muslims refuse to embrace tolerance and free expression. Too few
are willing to be offended in order to have peace and free conversation. For
them, there is no difference between public and private. The reputation and integrity of their religion outweighs free speech and tolerance. If America disagreed
with the distasteful speech, they believe, the government would prohibit it. Since America doesn't censor the speech, they must condone it. For such extremists, an offense to
the religion is a personal assault not to be met with more words only, but also
violence. If the Americans wont stop the speech that attacks them, they feel
entitled to do it themselves.
Some of the
Muslim world is easily offended. The reason for this is deep and tender. The
beginning of Muslim history is one of spectacular success. The religion started
in the 7th Century in the desolate and poor Arabian Peninsula and within a few
hundred years spread from Spain to Indonesia. Muslim science and trade
surpassed that of the entire world. The thinking of their philosophers was
cutting-edge for the day. They had amazing architecture, art, and literature.
Islam was great and was supposed to spread throughout all the world.
But, it didn’t.
The fall of the Muslim, and particularly Arab Muslims, was swift and brutal.
Mongols, Europeans, and Turks beat them militarily and surpassed their
knowledge in humanities and sciences, and prospered above them. Even the most
proud of Arab Muslims, when you talk to them, seem to be tenderly aware of
their culture’s weaknesses and failures. The poverty, disparate treatment between
men and women, rich and poor, and from faction to faction are all too easily
observable to ignore. When outsiders poke at those tender weaknesses, some Arab
Muslims explode into anger and violence.
In a way, their
feelings are understandable; yet, violence is only hurting their culture more
and incurring more disrespect and ridicule from outsiders. Taking
responsibility as a society and channeling that frustration into improving life
in the Arab world is the proper direction; not violence against annoying
speech. Turkey, currently ruled by an Islamist party, has embraced pluralism
and is one of the most respected and prosperous Muslim countries in the world.
In some ways, Turkey is an example of a better direction. I am optimistic that
change will come, perhaps slowly, but it will.
RECONCILING RIGHTS OF SPEECH WITH OTHER
RIGHTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE
The right to
free expression is not without bounds. It is necessarily delimited by other
individual rights held by American citizens. In my view, the primary interests
of the State are protecting its citizen’s individual rights and promoting a
virtuous society. Freedom of speech and the right to receive information freely
should be unfettered to the extent that it does not impinge on the rights of
others. However, when the rights of others are affected (e.g. perhaps yelling
fire in a crowded theatre or verbally abusing someone day in and day out week
after week) then the state has the legitimate right to restrict the expression
and receiving of information.
When a question
arises as to where to draw the line between the right to free speech and some corresponding and mutually exclusive right, courts and legislatures should engage in an analysis similar to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Laws restrictive of
speech based on viewpoint are particularly suspect, content-based restrictions are
suspect on an intermediate level, and content-neutral restrictions are presumed
to be a legitimate use of State power unless proven otherwise. I assert that
citizens should be afforded the RIGHT to pursue moral living without burdens
that a reasonable or average American could not withstand. In other words, if
they are accosted by pornography or abusive language or intellectual dishonesty
that would overcome an average person’s ability to reason or live honorably
within broad strokes of morality, than the law should be quick to limit speech
at that point. Insults, blather, pornography, obscenity, threats, objective falsehoods, and the like are of such slight value as a step to truth, that the benefits of free speech are plainly outweighed by the broad morality, safety, and order such speech threaten. As we become a more virtuous society, the abilities of a
reasonable person might improve. However, I believe that moderating free
expression, not to promote morality, but to enable morality, is within the
providence of government. Freedom is necessary for a virtuous society.
