The Missing Link

The unfortunate cartoons and caricatures of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked reprisals in the Muslim world are not a matter of free speech, or even censorship. What it comes down to is an issue of press responsibility and sensitivity to religious beliefs. And, above all, good taste.

In my view this controversy is about good taste and free speech--in fact, I don't see how one can view this controversy as anything other than a manifestation of the tension between the two, exacerbated by a cultural divided and fanned by opportunistic Islamic extremists.

To say that this isn't about free speech ignores the fact that government actors have condemned the publication of these cartoons in some European countries, that Islamic organizations are demanding that the cartoonists and publishers are charged with hate speech and that several editors have been fired for publishing the cartoons.

It is about free speech, among other things.

A Danish newspaper's cartoons that depict the prophet Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb can only be insulting. Especially when the Islamic religion forbids rendering any image of Muhammad as blasphemy.

Doesn't that oversimplify this controversy? After all, it isn't true that such a cartoon can "only" be insulting, even if it is very insulting indeed. I submit that it is insulting and that it reflects the reality that many Europeans believe Islam has been co-opted by radicals who use the words of the prophet Mohammed to justify terrorism. The relationship between the Islamic faith and terrorism is surely an important topic to discuss given the numerous terrorist acts that have been committed and threatened with Islam as their supposed justification. That doesn't mean debate about the topic should be insulting or offensive. It does mean, however, that insulting cartoons discussing the matter aren't "only" insulting--they are also relevant, whether or not they should have appeared.

So, why are other newspapers in Europe clamoring to reprint them? Though freedom of the press is a cherished democratic principle, it does not sanction gratuitous images that are blatantly offensive.

But other European newspapers face a decision far harder than balancing free speech and good taste! These cartoons have triggered mayhem across a whole region of our world. Can readers understand this important story without seeing the cartoons that caused the uproar? Plausible arguments can be made on both sides of that question, but acting as though it doesn't exist is unfair to the European newspapers who have decided to publish the cartoons to better inform their readers.

Yes, the Danes are proud of their freedom of speech laws. And they had a right to print what they did. But should they have? Papers in this country probably would refrain from fomenting further discord, because while we revere the ability of newspapers to print the outrageous, we also, first and foremost, respect the feelings and beliefs of others.

I don't think it's true that the press first and foremost respects the feelings and beliefs of others. In fact, I hope it's not true. The press ought to respect printing the truth first and foremost. If there is information that readers need to participate in a free society it ought to be published--and it typically is published--whether or not it hurts feelings or offends beliefs.

Ask an orthodox Catholic how they feel about reporting on the molestation of children by priests. Quite a few are very upset with the press over those stories. Other orthodox Catholics feel the press has done the right thing investigating that story.

Should the truth and the relevance of the information determine how the press treats it, or the relative levels of offense taken by affected actors? And which actors? It isn't as if all Muslims are offended by the cartoons, and mong those who are there are the mildly offended and the gravely offended. Whose feelings count?

Still, printing the cartoons, in no way, should provide cover for physical retaliation. The minority of Muslims who have taken out their anger by torching embassies are Islamic radicals, who are countered by the clerics who have repudiated such extremism and by other Muslims who show their dismay through peaceful protest, and costly boycotts.

It seems important to note that the boycotts are targeting entire nations for the actions of a dozen cartoonists and a handful of newspaper editors. In my view we ought to repudiate the idea that it is okay to punish an entire nation for the speech of a few of its citizens.

And while we empathize with Danes held hostage by the turmoil, we also feel strongly that amends are in order.

What kind of amends? It makes a big difference!

Danish publishers are holding out, claiming that to retract the cartoons or apologize would amount to censorship. But really, it would be simply acknowledging that by blindly running such parody without regard for how it hurts others, they had made a grave mistake by ignoring common decency.

Who says they ran the parody blindly, without considering how it might hurt others? My understanding is that they anticipated some controversy but decided to print the cartoons anyway.