And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones*; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
- Henry V, Act I, Scene 2 **
I am trying to write something about this whole cartoons-of-Mohammed situation, but the posturing that's going on makes me want to fling my keyboard aside.
Of course I support freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But suddenly legions of folks who just days ago would gladly have seen Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry cast into the deepest recesses of Alberto Gonzales's basement torture chamber / rec room for remarks they have made blaspheming against the Unitary President and his Party of the Permanent Majority are now casting themselves as defenders of free expression and freedom of speech - specifically, the right, the duty, the moral obligation to publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.
I don't buy it. If you have even a passing knowledge of Islam, you probably know that their religion prohibits pictorial depictions of Mohammed. If you have even a little sensitivity, you would understand that Muslims of good faith could become incensed about such depictions. This isn't a free speech issue. This is an intentional provocation. This is an extended two minutes hate. And I won't take part in it.
* Good King Harry is talking about tennis balls. Go get the 1989 Kenneth Branagh movie version. It kicks ass.
**I could have sworn that this passage contained the line "Mock eyes from heads", but I can't find it anywhere. Or is that something Branagh just kinda threw in?
Posts
Daryl Sznyter
5 years ago
6 comments:
D.B. You might read this link on Talking Points Memo.
My opinion is that free speech is crucial for the defense of the people against tyranny. There is clearly danger when speech is suppressed by violence, threat of violence, or through excessive control of the press by one group or another. This means there are times voices and images of hatred must be heard. As soon as you start silencing voices by censorship or violence, you have cut down the ability of the people to organize and defend their freedom.
That people jump on the free speech band wagon only when it allows them to poke their finger in someone else's eye may represent hypocrisy of their part. But criticize them for them for hypocrisy and the desire to more fully polarize the world, don't blame free speech.
We are headed into a period of potentially great conflict. Cool heads haven't prevailed very well so far. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are crucial legs of democracy. I certainly hope that democracy wins out.
SuperG, I hope you realize that I am speaking out against hypocrisy, not against free speech.
I don't see this as a free speech issue at all. The people shouting "FREE SPEECH! FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!" the loudest were strangely silent as Cindy Sheehan was removed from the Capitol prior to the State of the Union address. And I seem to recall that they took a different position entirely when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks spoke out against Our Idiot President. (Remember the right-wing bestseller "Shut Up And Sing"?) There are a million infringements of free speech that go on every day that these people let pass without comment, or with silent (or not-so-silent) approval. Why this issue?
As I said, this is an act deliberately intended to provide offense to Muslims of all sorts, both peace-loving and radical - and it is sure to radicalize more than a few of the Muslims who are somewhere in-between. It is a free speech issue on the order of the right to spray-paint swastikas on synagogues, or the right to display a nativity scene that shows Mary having sex with the three Wise Men and a donkey. Would these people just as readily defend the right to free expression in these cases?
I'm sure I don't completely disagree with you.
I think within our own country we've seen plenty of horrible things come out that is intentionally divisive. The stupidity of the stuff aimed at Cindy Sheehan, calling people traitors because they don't support the war in Iraq, accusing the NY Times of treason because the belatedly expose Bush's needlessly illegal spying. "Joking" about killing a supreme court justice and Swift Boating just add to degradation of our society by the Right. It makes one pray for decency in their fellow human beings.
Anyway, I strongly suspect that an element of the Right's sudden fancy of free speech is that they know these cartoons are inflamatory. That is their calling card. I surely believe they are hypocritical.
However, I still think they have the right to show the cartoons if they want without the threat of violence. Free speech is messy in that respect, but it means (unlike our breathen on the Right) that you have to willingly allow the people to say and probably display horrible things. (Spraying swastikas on a Synagogue is destruction of property).
However, if we maintain free speech and open discourse, many of these horrible things die out in the light of compassion and reason. E.g. it is crucial to the evolution of society.
My feeling is that we should apologize if their sensibilities got hurt, but that a free society demands free speech. That if they want to influence our society, they should engage our society under those rules. In our country, the separation of church and state pretty much means that the church can't get special treatment.
I have very little sympathy for a mob that burns down a embassy over cartoons. Burning the flag, chopping of some kids head with a sword with he screams in terror, and celebrating the deaths of Americans and Isreali's more than out weighs publishing a few cartoons. Those things offend me quite a bit too. So, their indignance can only be weighed as so significant.
I have varying degrees of sympathy for various people's and situations in the Middle East, especially for those who have been marginalized by their governments or are marginalized by being in a religious minority. Much of it related to how much they resort to violence themselves and degree to which their choices contributed to their sorry situation.
In the end, this is about free speech and a clash of cultures. It is about how formally isolated cultures can coexist without one being swallowed by the other. I think free speech is a key component.
Of course, this sums it up pretty well.
I have a confession to make here.
Sometimes I just read the blog to watch Super G and Data Boy go back and forth about it....LOL!
Of course, I take that as a compliment.
Post a Comment