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.
I would agree with you in that the individual liberties and freedoms need to be protected, even if asserted against the group majority. I would also agree with you that Mill’s harm principle can’t really be put into effect in terms of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons because it would have required pulling the cartoons before they were printed. In terms of freedom of speech, I would agree that it is completely within the right of the artist to produce whatever image, speech, etc. that they deem necessary and I would agree when Kurt Westergaard stated that whenever satirical material is created, someone is going to be offended. However, I don’t really believe that Mr. Westergaard really didn’t know what kind of reaction he would be getting, since so many other cartoonists declined participating in this cartoon series because of the offensive material to the Muslim community and the danger that could be provoked. Thus, although he or at least other cartoonists who did choose to participate didn’t intend to harm people, they knew that it was very possible that people could be harmed in the days that ensued from the print of these cartoons and what kind of aftermath it created. Thus, this would go against Mill’s philosophy of the harm principle as well as against Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that your freedom of expression and speech is limited if it harms another person (or if it puts another person in harms way?). However, in this case, a preventative measure would have been left up to the artist, not necessarily the government. Yet, I would still agree that they should be protected under law for their freedom of speech because although considered “blasphemous,” like in the case of Burstyn v. Wilson and the term “sacrilegious,” the term “blasphemous” is too open to limit the freedom of speech over. However, I wonder if although something might not “harm”, but “offend” a person or group, is freedom of speech or expression still protected under law if there is malicious intent behind it?
ReplyDeleteI agree that laws should protect civil liberty and views and opinions from both majority people and minority people. Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims individuals’ right to freedom of expressing, holding, seeking opinions as well as John Stuart Mill.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis makes me think about what harms people and what does not. In the case of Jyllands-Posten, according to Mill’s principal, the cartoonist has the right to express his opinion although the message may not be ethical. However, the publication cased death of many people in the end. Although Mill claims, “ The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others,” it is so hard to identify a potential harm to people. On the other hand, the Ecce Homo did not really involve violence although it had debated a lot.
I agree that both cases are very important for the freedom of speech issue, and people should be able to express their religious ideas and opinions without fear of being suppressed. However, I feel that people need to be more sensitive about what might harm other groups, and they also need to be aware that other parts of the world may have a very different view of freedom of speech just like The Case of Perwiz Kambakhsh. Because the audience of messages is larger due to the global society, I feel like communicators should be aware of what may the message cause and state these issues ethically.
From Jamie Wallace via email - 11:30 AM 1/20/10
ReplyDeleteI agree that controversial expression that sparks critical discussion is at the heart of free speech. By focusing on the harm principle, Mill acknowledges the extremes of controversial expression, but emphasizes, “If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. “http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ . The discussions following both Jyllands-Posten and Ecce Homo encourage us to weigh the discursive impacts of controversial expression and I agree with you that the discussions surrounding these issues, both those that focused on the protection or restraint of free speech and those encouraging us to delve deeper into our criticism of two prominent religious traditions, are invaluable in their contributions to society as a whole. Without free expression that allows us to question, prod, and irritate majority viewpoints, and consequently pressing us to more closely examine these viewpoints, we are likely to fall into patterns of unquestioning acceptance of majority viewpoints. The Stanford Encyclopedia’s article on free speech describes it this way, “Mill tells us specifically that if we ban speech the silenced opinion may be true, or contain a portion of the truth, and that unchallenged opinions become mere prejudices and dead dogmas that are inherited rather than adopted.”
I agree with you about how the majority ideals, as well as the minority ideals, should be protected in any case that does not induce violence. I really like how you pointed out the fact that without differing opinions of the views of different religions, we are unable to move forward and evolve since. If everyone was only allowed to think one way, there would be no room for improvement and it would be impossible for that particular religion to keep up with the times. It's one thing to have belief in and community with your religion, it's another to be completely unopenminded and not tolerant of different ideas.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with John Stuart Mill's idea 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.” because it shows the importance of protecting the individual liberties of a single person. The claim that the voice of one person is of equal significance of that of a groups' is an important thing to remember. Just because the majority believes something is moral, doesn't mean it is. Everything is up for interpretation--even religion.
In terms of Ecce Homo and Jyllands-Posten, the artists of the cartoons are just showing the world their interpretation of Islamic religious leaders. They are not forcing their views of the religion on people nor are they saying it is a terrible religion to take part in. Kurt Westergaard is simply expressing his own thoughts about Muhammad, in a nonviolent manner, and should not be punished for doing so.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete