Danish cartoons and freedom of speech

Frankly, I’ve been inclined to resist the notion that the general disinclination by the American press to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that have caused so much outrage (manufactured or not) in the Muslim world constituted prima facie evidence that freedom of speech or of the press was under assault here. But this editorial in The Boston Phoenix makes me wonder if there’s more weight to the claim than I’ve been inclined to give it:

There are three reasons not to publish the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed with his turban styled as a bomb (to view the cartoons, click here) and the other images that have sparked violent protests and deaths throughout Europe, the Middle East, West Asia, and Indonesia:

1) Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.

2) Out of respect for the millions of faithful and peace-abiding believers throughout the world who are deeply disturbed by the violation of their religion’s proscription against the pictorial representation of their prophet.

3) And in the hope that restraint shown by those who believe deeply in the sanctity of free speech will be able to stand side by side with those who believe with equal fervor in the dignity of religious expression to oppose the forces of darkness and evil in the Islamic world.

Hat tip: Catallarchy

Overlawyered notes that there may be liability considerations in the Phoenix’s decision since, should employees be the victims of a terrorist attack in retaliation for running the cartoons in the paper, the paper might have to ante up and characterizes the Phoenix’s somewhat timorous admission that fear does, in fact, play a role in their decision about what is or is not newsworthy as “practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places”.

I’ve held out for the third reason in their list but, if freedom of speeech and of the press are actually under assault as would seem to be the case from their first reason, I would consider that very serious indeed and it tends to move me into the “Publish” column. But it does bring up a curious question: why are they afraid? Have there been any reprisals by Muslim terrorists on journalists in the United States? What is the basis for their fear? Pointing to the victims of the destruction of the WTC doesn’t seem to be sufficient grounds for that kind of fear among, essentially, all of the journalists working for major news outlets in the United States.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! I’ve been posting on the Danish cartoons for a while. Here are some of my posts on the subject:

Little Things Mean a Lot
Fallout on Danish Cartoons Continues
Appropriate publishing of pictures of Mohammed
Voices of reason on the Danish cartoons
Generalization, over-generalization, and moderate Muslims
Conflicting values

17 comments… add one
  • A fabulous find, Dave. To my knowledge, the Phoenix is the first to to admit to being afraid (I presume they’ve received threats). Are you aware of any others?

  • It’s the first I’ve seen and I find it deeply disturbing. Taking the statement at face value they either are threatened or they feel threatened and, either way, it’s an absolutely terrible indicator that can’t be allowed to continue.

  • I think it is important to note that many things in the media have been changed before being published in order to avoid offending Muslims after pressure was brought to bear by Muslim groups. The Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, for example. The story plot was changed quite dramatically from a very believable scenario where Palestinian terrorists acquire fissionable material and build a nuclear bomb to neo-nazi’s. Steven Spielberg changed the term terrorists when he re-released ET after 9/11. The known list is fairly lengthy.

    I believe that there are two contributing factors to this self-censorship by the media industry. The first is their very warped concept of political correctness and multi-culturalism. But the other is fear. I think it is reasonable to assume that there may well have been threats made directly. But, more importantly, there is an implied threat right now when Muslim groups tell you that they don’t like what they are doing. One has only to look to Theo Van Gogh to see the threat.

    yes, the media in the US and Europe is being threatened and coerced by Muslim groups. Worse, so-called moderate Muslims are not denouncing the aims of the more extreme groups and calling for tolerance and free speech.

  • Kudos to the editors of the Phoenix for their honesty: they have shown themselves to be much better and more honest than a large number of their fellows.

    And scorn for their position, because what use is a “free” press that muzzles itself rather than defend free speech, if defending free speech entails risk? When defending our freedoms doesn’t entail risk, our freedoms are not in danger. If we are not willing to defend our freedoms when they are at risk, we will simply lose them. First, they came for…

    Frankly, it’s the same problem I’ve had with a large share of the media since it came out that CNN ran Saddam’s propaganda and suppressed news from Iraq rather than lose their access. If these were isolated incidents, I would be far more forgiving: they are not. Rather, this is becoming the norm in the Western press, and frankly they do not deserve their freedom to publish if they are not going to take risks for it when it’s necessary. Worse yet, they won’t end up keeping it if they are not willing to take those risks.

    I know I’m getting worked up here, so I’ll stop, but I’ll close with one more point. If indeed this is how you stop favorable coverage, why would not abortion clinic bombers switch to bombing an abortion clinic and the local news channel rather than two bombs at a clinic? It would be much more effective for their cause, particularly if repeated a couple of times, and after that only bombing media when they criticize abortion clinic bombers. Apparently, the newspapers respect violence targeted at them more than anything else, and someone besides the jihadis is going to learn that lesson.

  • Pat Link

    There have been protests against a paper in Ohio…http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoon-wars-go-local-my-towns.html

  • Thanks for the link, Pat. Yah, I’d already read that. Do simple protests engender the degree of fear or call for the level of self-censorship the Phoenix’s editorial and the actions of the press reflect?

  • DJ Link

    Not only was Rushdie forced into hiding by the fatwa putting a bounty on his head, several of his translators and publishers were attacked, and at least one (I think more) of them were killed.

    More recently, Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a movie deemed blasphemous by Islamists.

    Is that sufficient grounds for concern? Or does there have to be a murder of an offending artist or journalist on US soil before you’re prepared to acknolwedge that fear might be warranted?

  • DJ Link

    P.S. to Dave Schuler: Do protests where people openly call for beheading and murder of blasphemers, such as those in London (and elsewhere), count as “simple protests”?

    That’s certainly not *simply* a protest. Frankly, I’m astonished that anyone could characterize them as “simple protests,” but perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by simple.

  • No, they do not and I’ve repeatedly criticized both the “protesters” for using such slogans and the British authorities for allowing them. Check the links to my posts. That’s not a permissible exercise of freedom of speech.

    I was responding specifically to the link that Pat above had provided. The post linked to in turn links to a post from the Beacon Journal in which the complaints described were apparently letters to the editor. No threats were mentioned in the story.

    A letter to the editor that does not contain threats is a simple protest. Even peaceful demonstration with non-threatening slogans are simple protests. Death threats aren’t simple protests and aren’t permissible speech.

    Do you have any examples of demonstrations with such threats over here?

  • And, DJ, I believe that the conditions here in the U. S. are somewhat different than those in Europe. And, yes, more than a permissible exercise of free speech is required before the kind of fear and apprehension apparent in the Phoenix editorial is a reasonable response.

  • Daddy Link

    Seems to me that in every instance of Islamic inspired terrorism, from 9-11 to beheadings to you name it, we in the West have found ourselves stunned at the staggering silence of fellow Muslims to condemn those terrorist acts. The reason now seems clear to me. They are terrified to open their mouths and voice their opposition due to a thousand years of having their heads chopped off when they do voice opposition. It is a lesson unfortunately quickly learned. Prior to this cartoon controversy I could not understand how they could allow themselves to be so cowwed into submission, but the actions of our Western Governments and News Media these past few weeks have explained how it happens with an ugly, stark clarity. The reprehensible and cowardly actions of our completely gutless media, in attempting to rationalize their cowardly decisions to not print the cartoons, is the single most frightening lesson I’ve learned from the “News Media” in the last 50 years. I don’t want to read or hear 1 more news story from anyone in the News Media about why the Muslim multitudes remain silent in the face of inhuman attrocities. Simply look in the mirror.

  • Jim C. Link

    Daddy wrote: “Seems to me that in every instance of Islamic inspired terrorism, from 9-11 to beheadings to you name it, we in the West have found ourselves stunned at the staggering silence of fellow Muslims to condemn those terrorist acts. The reason now seems clear to me. They are terrified to open their mouths and voice their opposition due to a thousand years of having their heads chopped off when they do voice opposition.”

    I have no doubt some of them are indeed fearful. I also have no doubt that others are in private cheering the extremists and will be happy to reap the results that benefit them. “Silence gives consent.”

    Remember “If [x happens], the terrorists have won”? Remember when people overused it in a cynical way? Well it’s come true. The terrorists HAVE won. They’ve won something BIG: a victory over freedom of the press and free speech. Thank you, cowardly press. There are more battles to come, but this is a disaster.

  • DJ Link

    Dave —

    The question at hand is this one:

    “But it does bring up a curious question: why are they afraid? Have there been any reprisals by Muslim terrorists on journalists in the United States? What is the basis for their fear? Pointing to the victims of the destruction of the WTC doesn’t seem to be sufficient grounds for that kind of fear among, essentially, all of the journalists working for major news outlets in the United States.”

    What bothers me about this framing of the question is the suggestion that pointing to 9/11 is supposed to be what warrants fear from the Phoenix and other media. That seems to me a straw man; I haven’t heard anyone say that. The Phoenix admission doesn’t mention 9/11 at all, but references an “international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists.”

    Now, I happen to wish that our media were more brave. But I also find it strange to suggest that their fear is unwarranted. The strangeness is bothersome, first, because of the straw man already mentioned; and, second, because of the suggestion that the “simple protests” linked by Pat were supposed to warrant fear in themselves. As you grant, there have been very ugly, very unsimple protests throughout Europe (not to mention outside the West).

    Given your replies, it sounds to me like you grant that the horrifying demonstrations and threats made abroad, and the actual incidents of Islamist murder and conspiracy to murder journalists and authors, do indeed warrant fear — but only from Europeans. If I understand you, you’re implying that until there are credible threats made by protesters *in the US*, or attacks on writers here, there is no justification for journalists in this country to be afraid of offending Islamists.

    I find that too high a standard to set on other people’s concern to keep their heads intact. (Though, as I say, I wish for a more courageous — and more honest! — media here. If the Phoenix fails of courage, at least they have the honesty to cop to it.) But, even if we disagree about that, I do think you make a poor argument by attributing to them both the grounds you’ve suggested for their fear: merely pointing to 9/11 or the fact of “simple protests” here.

    Whether or not you think that threats, and actual killings, in Europe warrant fear from US journalists, you do them a disservice by attributing to them worse arguments than they could easily muster — and, in fact, have mustered. It’s a small world, after all. How confident are you that it can’t happen here? Confident enough to bet your life on it?

  • What bothers me about this framing of the question is the suggestion that pointing to 9/11 is supposed to be what warrants fear from the Phoenix and other media. That seems to me a straw man; I haven’t heard anyone say that. The Phoenix admission doesn’t mention 9/11 at all, but references an “international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists.”

    It’s not so much a strawman as grasping at straws. The primary violent terrorist incident (and one that in my view actually warranted a stiffer response than it has) was the destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001.  That’s why I mentioned it.
    Yes, the situation in Europe is pretty grave. Some countries there have instituted religious tolerance laws that have throttled their press. But, as I wrote, the situation is different there: their immigrant populations are more radicalized, more isolated, more poorly educated, from different countries, and constitute a larger proportion of the total population than ours do. And, as the bloodthirsty signs in the British demonstrations suggest, they’re coddling intolerable behavior.  I don’t mean this to excuse the Europeans actions or responses but to highlight the differences between there and here.
    So I just plain don’t understand the self-censorship that’s going on in the U. S. press.  What I’m wondering about is are they over-generalizing?  Or is there something they’re not telling us?

  • b Link

    History matters.

    Truth matters.

    Muslims are forbidden to draw or depict pictures of Mohammed? Since when?

    Images of Mohammed, down through the ages:

    http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive

    ___

    A free reporter from a free nation *must* be able to stand for freedom today, or to at least stop attacking those who can and DO!

    Wish I had this woman’s courage (wish her partisan press peers who refuse to move on would hand those deadly weapons to sober-minded adults):

    ”If statehood, citizenship, and civilization itself are to mean anything, we are all in the end accountable for our own actions. When people riot and brutalize and burn, there are individuals in the crowds who are responsible. And in the places where this is happening, if the governments will not call these individuals to account, we need to hold those governments themselves responsible. Cartoons alone, to quote another line from Hamlet, are in a class with nothing more than “words, words, words,” and those are grounds on which newspapers, nations, and religions may have their disagreements and their dialogues. But when violence enters the picture, that is a matter for governments to settle, and in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives.”

    — Claudia Rosett

    http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200602081000.asp

    (Elections MATTER.)

  • macnleanpa Link

    i looked and saw these cartoons and i see no big deal in my opinion they are pictures get over it pictures are nothing but insults some may take them harshly other may let it slide they should not have to apologieze for silly little doodles would you?when i herd about peoples reactions i thought they were going to be horibble then i saw them no one should be doing what they are doing for that . i might not be as old as some of the people typeing so judge this how you will.but if i get offended by what you say i am not going to. to go burn flags or hurt people.thats stupid. this is comeing from someone in grade school wow the web shares a lot of opinons try listiening to a kids .those pictures are nothing more than doodles and the person or people who made them had a rite to publish them just like i have a rite to type this wether it is published or not.but i don’t think they should have to apoligize . do you?

Leave a Comment