I believe that laws that govern communication should primarily protect an individual civil liberty, even if an individual makes an assertion that defies group values and norms. Some reasons for this belief are:
- Reinforcing group ideals that aren’t necessary good. How can a group move forward and evolve positively if new ideas and information aren’t accepted from individual members?
- Communication is an exchange of information, and information must be both sent AND received in order to lead to successful communication. Limiting a person’s freedom of speech means that information that fits group values is being sent and received, but the receiver may be unable to send out information that communicates their personal values and beliefs.
- By limiting freedom of speech to individuals, basic rights are being suppressed in order to maintain a group’s needs. This means that individual needs may not be being met.
After learning about some of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy, I think that his beliefs on freedom of speech can be applied to the cases of Ecco Homo and Jyllands-Posten. Mill argues that “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”, meaning that no matter how immoral a person’s speech, they should be allowed to speak their opinions. Mill argues that everyone should be given the freedom of speech, and that every doctrine should be allowed to be professed and discussed. In regards to the harm principle, Mill does believe that one guideline should be used.
The harm principle is that power can be exercised against freedom of speech against one’s will if it will prevent harm to others. This can be applied to the Jyllands-Posten controversy because after the publication of the cartoons, riots took place, and as a result 100 people died. Additionally, the cartoonist was also put in harms way when he was attacked in his home by someone angered by the images. I don’t think that the harm principle should be applied however, because the deaths and the attack took place after the release of the cartoons. In an interview with Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist, he stated that he had no idea of the reaction that people would have to his images. Because he wasn’t trying to cause harm AND because the harm was a repercussion of the speech but not the speech itself, I don’t feel that the harm principle can be applied here.
Mill’s point about how every doctrine should be free to be professed and discussed is applicable to the two cases because both of them created space for discussion. This discussion, although offensive to some, sparks ideas and opinions about important issues, such as biblical traditions and understanding of Muhammad and the Islam faith. In order to further society, discussions need to take place that push limits and get citizens thinking about the world around them. If a majority group is in charge of free speech, it is difficult for individual opinions that are beneficial to discussion and change, to take place.
Because of my belief that individual speech rights should be protected, I would support the Ecco Homo exhibition, and the Jyllands-Posten satirization of Muhammed. Both cases are excellent examples of the importance of the freedom of speech. The Ecco Homo exhibition is a collection of 12 images that take biblical surrounding and update the context. Homosexuals, people with AIDs and transgenders take the place of lepers and tax-payers as people who are often go unwelcomed in society. The exhibition pushes the viewer to look beyond traditional images, and modernize them to fit the world today. Although the images may be disturbing to some, they are an important reminder that everyone interprets the bible and biblical images in a different way, and by accepting these interpretations, we can further our understanding of them. Mill’s philosophy can be incorporated into the freedom of speech issues that surrounded the controversy, because liberty of expression is used to push arguments past their comfortable limits.
In the case of the Jyllands-Posten satirization, freedom of speech should still be applied. 12 cartoons were released in 2005 in a Danish newspaper, all of which depicted the Islam prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were meant to respond to debate concerning criticism of Islam. The cartoons were released at a fitting time, because after the 9/11 attacks, fear began surrounding Islam faith and misunderstandings arose about terrorism, Islam and Muhammad. The cartoons led to giant riots around the Muslim world, and resulted in about 100 deaths. Supporters of the cartoons praised them for contributing to the issues around self-censorship, and pointed out that Muslims weren’t being targeted because other religions are also ridiculed in cartoons. Critics viewed the cartoons as racist, and said that the cartoons were both humiliating and blasphemous for the Muslim community.
Although there was outrage from the cartoons, the newspaper and the cartoonist had the freedom of speech to create them, and I think that this freedom of speech should be protected, even though majority groups were offended by the images. I believe that in order to increase awareness and understanding of an issue, all areas of the issue must be assessed. In the case of the cartoons, they raised awareness about Muslims and Muslim faith, even though the connotations of the cartoons can be viewed as negative. The cartoons led to discussion that may not have taken place otherwise, and are therefore valuable to furthering social change and public understanding. Furthermore, they are important in terms of self-censorship. Publishing the cartoons and taking responsibility for them was a strong action, one which was necessary in order to remind us of the value of self-censorship and free speech.
In conclusion, Mill’s philosophy about free speech is applicable to the Ecco Homo exhibition and the Jyllands-Posten cartoon. Without controversy, there would be no discussion, and society wouldn’t be able to move forward. It is important to protect the individuals who were involved in both cases, and to respect their right to freedom of speech, even though both cases were viewed as immoral by some critics. Although it is important to respect majority group values, sometimes it is necessary to push the boundaries in order to contribute to debate that can lead to social change.
