Free speech and responsibility
First things first. Pastor Stiegemeyer's response to a previous post alerts me to the possibility that what I have written about the affair of the cartoons might be taken to imply that the Islamic rioters are somehow not responsible for their own actions- that the blame for their behavior lies with that publisher and those cartoonists instead. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course the rioters are responsible for their own behavior, and in no sense are those cartoons an excuse.
But the point remains that that publisher and those cartoonists deliberately incited them. They, too, bear moral responsibility. One cannot deliberately goad homocidal maniacs- having no other intention but to 'pull their corks,' and knowing their likely response to having those corks pulled- and then claim total innocence when they react precisely in that way!
I have maintained throughout this affair that this is just not a free speech issue. I have well-established constitutional precedent for my position. There is an important and well-established principle of constitutional law which directly impacts this issue: the "Fighting Words" doctrine.
The doctrine holds that speech likely to provoke a violent response from the audience is not constitutionally protected. One does not have the freedom to goad another to violence- or to engage in speech likely to provoke one's audience to violence.
True, City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash2d49, 701 P.2d 499, 500 establishes the test of the applicability of the test at law to whether a reasonable person of normal intelligence would understand the words to be likely to cause "an average addressee" to fight. Clearly the "average addressee" would not react as the Sunni rioters have behaved- unless, of course, we're talking about the average Sunni extremist who believes it to be a religious duty to violently avenge insults to Islam.
And it was they to whom this "speech" was addressed.
A person drawing or publishing those pictures with the avowed purpose of inciting homocidal maniacs is engaging in something other than what by any reasonable definition could be called free speech- and cannot be held blameless when his speech has the consequences any reasonable person would have expected to them to have. Nor is it at all clear that had those cartoons been published in the United States, they would have been protected by the First Amendment!
Somehow various folks reacting to what I've written on this subject have felt called upon to point out all the shortcomings of Mohammed and Islam. I have no brief for either, any more than I am interested in defending or excusing the rioters.
What I am concerned about is that we recognize that those cartoons were something more than a series of harmless, childish pranks. Without excusing the rioters or minimizing their responsibility for their own actions, the publication of those cartoons were acts of reckless negligence also involving moral responsibility for the destruction and loss of life.
If "standing with Denmark" means opposing the insane response of the Sunni extremists, by all means let us stand with Denmark. But if it means excusing those cartoonists and that publisher, much less turning them into heroes... that, we cannot rationally do.
But the point remains that that publisher and those cartoonists deliberately incited them. They, too, bear moral responsibility. One cannot deliberately goad homocidal maniacs- having no other intention but to 'pull their corks,' and knowing their likely response to having those corks pulled- and then claim total innocence when they react precisely in that way!
I have maintained throughout this affair that this is just not a free speech issue. I have well-established constitutional precedent for my position. There is an important and well-established principle of constitutional law which directly impacts this issue: the "Fighting Words" doctrine.
The doctrine holds that speech likely to provoke a violent response from the audience is not constitutionally protected. One does not have the freedom to goad another to violence- or to engage in speech likely to provoke one's audience to violence.
True, City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash2d49, 701 P.2d 499, 500 establishes the test of the applicability of the test at law to whether a reasonable person of normal intelligence would understand the words to be likely to cause "an average addressee" to fight. Clearly the "average addressee" would not react as the Sunni rioters have behaved- unless, of course, we're talking about the average Sunni extremist who believes it to be a religious duty to violently avenge insults to Islam.
And it was they to whom this "speech" was addressed.
A person drawing or publishing those pictures with the avowed purpose of inciting homocidal maniacs is engaging in something other than what by any reasonable definition could be called free speech- and cannot be held blameless when his speech has the consequences any reasonable person would have expected to them to have. Nor is it at all clear that had those cartoons been published in the United States, they would have been protected by the First Amendment!
Somehow various folks reacting to what I've written on this subject have felt called upon to point out all the shortcomings of Mohammed and Islam. I have no brief for either, any more than I am interested in defending or excusing the rioters.
What I am concerned about is that we recognize that those cartoons were something more than a series of harmless, childish pranks. Without excusing the rioters or minimizing their responsibility for their own actions, the publication of those cartoons were acts of reckless negligence also involving moral responsibility for the destruction and loss of life.
If "standing with Denmark" means opposing the insane response of the Sunni extremists, by all means let us stand with Denmark. But if it means excusing those cartoonists and that publisher, much less turning them into heroes... that, we cannot rationally do.
Comments
What's the point of boycotting Denmark? To get the Danish government to crack down on the newspaper, thus establishing a de facto censorship law, only for Muslim sensitivities.