Free speech under fire

Carson Jerema Staff

Defending the freedom of the press is something many young and aspiring journalists dream of. When one thinks of standing up for this freedom the image of those such as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who uncovered the Watergate Scandal, comes to mind. Unfortunately, freedom of expression cannot always be reinforced by such an ideal situation.

The freedom of the press is integral to ensuring that modern democracy does not succumb simply to the majority will of the people or to the benevolence of political leadership. Democracy must be tempered with a respect for human rights, such as the right to express and speak freely and the right of the press to report without fear of repression.

This right has recently come under fire in reaction to the right-leaning Danish newspaper Jylland-Posten’s decision to print caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Some of the cartoons depict the Prophet rather benignly while others are more provocative, with one portraying Mohammed with a bomb inside his turban. Orthodox Islam prohibits the dissemination of caricatures of the Prophet because they could lead to idolatry.

In the face of often violent demonstrations around the world, some commentators have argued that the decision to print the cartoons and their subsequent republication is not an issue of free speech and that, due to their offensive nature, they should not have been printed in the first place.

In response to the backlash, the University of Prince Edward Island, in a decision unbecoming of an institution that should encourage this type of discussion, removed all issues of the February 8 edition of the Cadre, the campus newspaper, because they depicted the cartoons. Similarly, various Canadian booksellers have refused to carry issues of the Western Standard that reprinted the caricatures.

However, even though the printing of the cartoons lacks the heroic image of a journalist risking career, reputation and even life in the face of a belligerent government, the right for them to be printed must still be defended.

Jyllands-Posten’s reasoning behind the printing of the cartoons is alleged to have been in reaction to a Danish writer’s difficulty in finding illustrators to portray the Prophet for a children’s book out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists. The paper commissioned several cartoonists to draw the Prophet and accompanied the drawings with an editorial criticizing Danish journalists and illustrators for self-censorship regarding Islam. This brings us to the first of two arguments in favour of Jyllands-Posten’s right to print the cartoons.

The original printing of the cartoons could be defended on the basis that the views of a particular religion should not hold sway in a secular and liberal society. Following this, the more provocative cartoons could have been meant to express criticism towards those who commit acts of violence in the name of God and religion. Denying Jyllands-Posten the right to express such a view would be to assume that it is utterly and completely false and without relevance.

Moreover, arguing that the cartoons should not have been printed in the first place assumes that the views of such would-be censors are known infallibly to be true. Censorship with the attempt to avoid offence of a particular group in society is to give that group a higher standing than others and to argue that they are above criticism. Can it be said that any group should be given this higher standing?

Censorship or the promotion of censorship because a particular view is not synchronized with political correctness smacks of arrogance and gives opposing views the opportunity to grow stale and dogmatic.

There is a second, perhaps more persuasive, argument in defending Jylland-Posten’s right to publish the cartoons. In its lead editorial last week, the Economist criticized European countries that outlaw Holocaust denial: “Far better to let those who deny well- documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs.”

A parallel, though not a morally equal one, can be drawn between the Economist’s argument and one in favour of Jylland-Posten’s decision to print the cartoons. If the purpose was to insult the Muslim minority in Denmark or if the publication of the cartoons illustrates a lack of respect for Muslims, then better to allow it to be discussed in the open instead of suppressing it.

Arguing that Jylland-Posten had no right to express it does nothing to encourage the kind of discussion that can lead to greater respect of all peoples. Such views, if they are indeed offensive, cannot be adequately refuted if they are not given the opportunity to be expressed.

Further, denying the distribution of papers, such as the Cadre or the Western Standard, that chose to reprint the caricatures denies the public the right to receive the story in full and to make up its own mind. As John Stuart Mill wrote in his famous defence of free speech: “Judgement is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not use it at all?”

Carson Jerema is a fourth-year political studies student and the Manitoban’s Comment Editor.