Freedom of speech and defence of values
kay khoon-e-dil mein dubo li hain ungliyan mein ne
zuban pe mohar lagi hai tau kya kay rakh di hai,
har ek halqa-e-zanjeer mein zubaan mein ne — Faiz
There has been an overkill of analyses worldwide with regard to Muslims’ reaction to the hateful video disrespecting the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Western media. These analyses can be divided into two types. The first type focuses on the Muslims’ reaction in terms of the Muslim ‘psychology’, concluding that Muslims are unable to handle difference of opinion and get angry easily and may turn violent. Most of the analyses of this type have focused on violence that this reaction has triggered, which is both wrong and unproductive. This line of analysis maintains that no matter what you do, Muslims will always get angry at something because they are irrational. This analysis maintains that Muslims cannot understand freedom of speech because they have not yet evolved to a higher stage of cultural (or even perhaps, biological), refinement which the European societies have attained, thus there is no point trying to have an honest discourse with Muslims on the issue. This analysis is promoted mainly by the likes of Fox News and adopted by its viewers and the followers of the Tea Party. They argue that Muslims cannot live with difference of opinion and their solution to the whole situation is that we should not pay any heed to these barbarian Muslims and stick to our defence of freedom of speech. They and the news media that they follow maintain that if they don’t stick to the defence of freedom of speech, then the next things Muslims will do is shove Sharia law down their throats. For these people, defence of freedom of speech seems to have become more important than what one actually defends because of it. This is the crux of the matter and I will return to it shortly.
The second type of analysis in the media is intelligent and historic and that is why it is limited to fringe TV channels, newspapers and websites. It looks at the deep-rooted cause of Muslims’ reaction, correctly portraying that reaction as not only about disrespect to the Holy Prophet (pbuh), but also a reaction against the long history of disrespect to peoples’ own sense of dignity and beliefs by the US, directly through wars and aggression and indirectly through installing and supporting puppet dictators to rule them. I like this analysis and agree with it wholeheartedly.
I want to take a third route, however, and build on the analytical thread that is developed in the second type of analysis. Rather than putting the spotlight on Muslims and their reaction to the blasphemous video and the historical reasons behind it, I want to put the spotlight on the reaction of those who are reacting to the Muslims’ reaction, that is, the first group of analysts, those who believe in Fox News and its ideology and forward the defence of the freedom of speech argument. I want to ask not why Muslims get offended so easily, but rather why these people are so ready to insult others. I want to look at what these people understand by freedom of speech, and what I think it should be about. I want to propose that the knee-jerk reaction of this group to defend freedom of speech, and not an idea or a value or any substantive thing using it, is emblematic of something very serious. It is emblematic of the fact that these people have freedom of speech but no voice. In their society, they are free to defend it, but not their values and interests with it. Now, I am sure, even this group will agree that disrespecting other people’s beliefs just for the sake of it, is not one of their cherished cultural values.
Their interests and values are different: they are about jobs, decent education, accountable corporations, honesty in politics and governments, in sum, good life and good governance. On these issues, society at large feels that it has no say and no voice, although it may have freedom of speech. Thus, their hollow defence of the issue in this domain of anti-Muslim sentiment is emblematic of their lack of voice in other domains — of politics, economy, culture; domains that really matter to them. For we know that it is Fox News and others like it that have the voice, because their speech matters, since those who speak through it are powerful people with powerful interests, which do not overlap with those who just follow (and may occasionally comment on the channel’s website or on its Facebook page). These people are like us, like many wretched Pakistanis, who also feel voiceless, unable to change the course of their history. Like us, they also fall into the trap of the powerful, of Fox News and the likes, easily. Like us, they are also unable to see that the interests and values that the channel promotes are not theirs but of the powerful. They have been duped by the powerful media to believe that freedom of speech amounts to leaving a comment in the ‘comments section’ of a news item. This definition of freedom of speech is promoted actively by the powerful media and done in order to divert attention from those interests and values that freedom of speech should defend.
So, the issue is valuable only in the context of what it defends. It becomes valuable only when speech that matters, that changes the course of history, is allowed to flourish — the speech that Martin Luther King gave on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, or the speech that Hazrat Zainab (RA) gave in the court of Yazid, 1,400 years ago — speech that defends the interests and values of the wretched of the earth. We need defence of that speech, which speaks the truth to the powerful. Freedom of speech should not defend the indefensible (such as unprovoked insult to other people’s beliefs) but the undefended. The undefended and the wretched should be defended with the kind of passion for freedom of speech that Faiz talks about in his verse, that I quoted.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (66)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I'm glad the "Freedom of Speech" rioters are finally apprehended for the destruction & vandalism of private property they are responsible of.
@fatima: its 1% against 99% (The US terminology of capitalists against the rest of the world. and 1+99 = 100 and 101 :)
@jh: 1% against 99%....so good at mathematics! are you acknowledged enough to make such polls??? then trust me so many are going to be against you after this verdict of yours....101%
@jh: "Here the Indian hate-mongers have permission for free punching while Paki’s hands are tied thru “moderation” & rejection excuse." I sincerely feel your comment is unfair.
Answering the comments here in ET. is futule. Its a"Noora Kushti". The winners and looser commentators are already decided. Beside, what is the point in commenting when the paper has favorites. Here the Indian hate-mongers have permission for free punching while Paki's hands are tied thru "moderation" & rejection excuse.
@unbeliever and gp65: The way all the actions of Muslims are condemned by the above commentators is a proof of the fact that it hurts when somebody's ideology is challenged, when some innocent people are killed (either in unjustified wars or due to civil movements and violence) , when some communities praying places are bombed or burnt. SO why all of you don't condemn when the "majority's population" of the world feelings are hurt ? Where are the principals of democracy ?????? Remember all of you and other liberals believe in democracy, and in democracy, majority rules and majority of the people condemn such blasphemous items. For that matters, unconsciously, all of the commentators against this article also condemn when the feelings of none Muslims are hurt, however, hurting Muslims feelings is allowed :) Wow liberals, you all are defying your own theories and philosophies when it comes to Muslims :) its just like the days of cold war when the capitalists were using the propaganda war and following the rule of "whatever it takes " !!! Trust me your generations will condemn you all because trust me its not Islam against the rest of the world but its 1% against the 99% !!!!!
@Learner
Looking at the number of Indian (mostly Hindu) jumping to spew venom at everything related to Pakistan, Islam and Muslims, and the number of “likes” their comments get, one is forced to seriously consider Shehzad Chaudhry’s view about this being an orchestrated campaign. All these hate-mongers (and their partners-in-crime on Hindustan Times and other Indian newspaper websites) want to do is to incite, curse and abuse Pakistanis, Islam and Muslims, though some of them do it in the garb of “objective analysis”. They act as if they are the most dispassionate and unbiased people in the world even when their comments are dripping with hatred. One can easily see most of them stuck in the official Indian/Hindutva narrative about Pakistan and the Hindutva narrative about Islam and Muslims, which is passed off as “objective” commentary. The Sangh Parivar has really take over the comments sections on ET.
CONGRATULATIONS.
You have learnt your Pakistan Studies really well.
Now learn that there is a real world beyond the make believe made up by Pakistan Studies.
Happy Learning!
@Learner: "It is mind-boggling that you can quote some wrongs committed by Muslims and launch an offensive against the entire community."
I was not holding the entireMuslim community responsible. I was simply responding to your comment that we Indians were hatefilled for expressing our opinion here while being quite Okay with actual hate filled actions of your compatriots. Also isn't the author holding the entire Western world responsible for the video which was made by an individual? How can you supportthe author's stance on that while simultaneously saying that the reverse should not hold true? Double standards much ?
@gp65
It is mind-boggling that you can quote some wrongs committed by Muslims and launch an offensive against the entire community. Well, by that standard, I can quote plenty of wrongs committed by Hindus and demonize the entire community. You are especially the one who wants to be portrayed as the most rational and objective of them all, but actually are the most venomous. Any criticism of Pakistan and Muslims has to be lapped up by you, but anything positive has to be undermined through what amounts to nothing but a vicious campaign.
And to Mr. unbeliever, I am sure you don't mind if I stand in front of your house and abuse your father, mother and sister every day? BTW, what problem do you have with heaping abuses based on hatred for a race? Is it because the Western world thinks it is wrong?
Mr. Evil, your name says it all.
@Abhinav: I agree Lets us in India look at our conduct towards free expression. We gagged Ms Tuslim and Salman Sahib what shame.
@T: Your comparison is flawed. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange were not expressing their own personal views or interpretations. They were sharing information that was owned by the US Govt and which would be a threat to their security.
@learner people like you , are the reason for all this mess!! You don't see the real point , you just see hatred , cuz that you want to see... People like you can be easily controlled by the religious fanatics and they use you people to kill and destroy , you are just a puppet of extremists!!
@jh.
In the USA if you respond to offensive words with violence your going to jail - that's how freedom of speech works. When police officers show up at the scene of a fight the first question they ask is who threw the first punch -- he's the guy that they take away in the police car.
@gp65:
– Have Muslims not destroyed, churches, temples and pagodas i the last couple of weeks? – Have Hindus from your country not been forced to flee because their minor girls are forcibly being converted? – Is it not a requirement to decry Mitza Ghulam Ahmed as a fraudster before you can get a Pakistani passport? – DOes Saudi Arabia not continue to deny people the right to worship even in their own homes? – Have Muslims as a whole apologized? – Do you think these acts are less hurtful than uploading an absurd video? – Whose acts reek of hatred?
you have asked this question, pointwise, many a times. i am, however, yet to read a reply to your post, by any muslim.
and, i am still waiting.
@jh:
I think all of must also show some respect to the feelings of 1.5 BLN Muslims :)
sorry bhai,
respect is not begged, it has to be earned.
@Learner:
just ad-homineum. no other means to refute. come on, you certainly can do better.
come with reasons why the author is justified in muzzling the freedom, for the sake of islamic world, while you do not seem to have any problem, and neither have the courtsey to atleast address to the problems of minorities in your country.
I can agree with author that the Fox news kind of people are not really interested in freedom of speech, actually they will be more than happy if this movie is censored because this will give them ammunition to ban some more things which they want to ban. And that is the main reason why many others do not want to ban the video.
If you start banning the video if one group protests, then some other group will be offended by something else and will start asking to ban it. It is happening in India already. Many books are banned, MF husain has to leave the country because some people are offended by his paintings.
I hope USA doesn't follow the suit.
@sabi: "The blinde defedres for the rights of freedom for speech should ommit word -sorry- in their lives." Sabiji, please worry about the actions of the people of your faith - burning temples, churches and destroying pagodas. Muslims need to earn the right to demand something by practicing it first.
The writer is weak kneed in his arguments. He means that the whole world is waiting 24 X 360 to insult Muslims. What a funny way to look at things and the presumption that whole world is wrong except them is hilarious.
The blinde defedres for the rights of freedom for speech should ommit word -sorry- in their lives.
@antsnu g: pls change your keyboard, your comments makes no sense at all. and Yes, pls apologise on behalf of all muslims for destroying buddha temples in your country at cox bazaar.
@Author One nut puts up a video, and you are willing to put up the entire free speech crowd in the dock. Would you do the same for the entire Muslim community for burning a church and a temple in Pakistan, destroying a Buddhist house of worship in Bangladesh or bombing a church in Nigeria? I am sure considerably more than 'lone nut' were involved in this. Secondly, the governments and religious leaders of the Muslim countries don't seem to display the same reaction when it is their people who perpetrate such acts. Is that because only Muslims have the right to feel hurt when someone insults their faith? And they are free to do as they please?
I want to know from the author ,whether ''hurting the religious sentiments'' applies to only Muslim sentiments or those Hindus too,who were offended by a live telecast of a Hindu boy being converted to Islam,or those Ahmadis whose respected figures are abused frequently as fraudsters and whose killings is justified by mainline media in Pakistan,or those Christians whose places of worship are vandalized besides looting their dwellings.its a futile attempt to simply look at only one aspect and conveniently overlook other intentionally.if you want your religious sentiments to be respected learn at first to do it with others.Muslims have got no licence to offend others feelings and cry foul when they are given the taste of their own medicine. PS:even the comment section of news papers is prone to the disease of intolerance.i saw it myself with ET.
before you read this article, might i suggest the esteemed readers to listen to these great words of charlie chaplin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4
hatred is a two way street. muslims need to introspect, before they call us to mend our ways.
@antsnu g:
antanu bhai....for the church destroyed in peshawar, for the temple desecrated in karachi for the buddhist temples burned in coxbazar,
when are muslims going to apologise, en-masse?the day they will do it, would mean end to all this debate, but before that, mind it, non-muslim world, cares little to which muslims, pakistanis kill in their country.
I want to ask not why Muslims get offended so easily, but rather why these people are so ready to insult others. Rephrase that,and you will get the answer. Muslims get offended so easily, that's why these people are so ready to insult others. Every schoolchild knows that the kid who cannot take a joke on himself gets teased the most. There will always be some kids ready to have entertainment at the expense of others. But only some kids. Not all of them. So do not get confused and start thinking of it as the school policy.
freedom of thought and expression is satisfied when only you cite only what you wanted to say,....emphasized text why do you force others to answer you when you can find it out yourself?
@Ahsan &Alan & arindom & diogenes and F: ITs actually nothing to do with the discussions or difference of opinion, but it has to do with the insulting and downgrading of someone who is close to some people heart. In this case its a religious figure in others it could be some relative, thing or even ideology like 99:1 where 1 ordered to pound and disgrace the 99 :) So lets not paint a wrong picture. Every indian, christian, Ahmadi has the right to protest and they did it whenever required. There have many instances where free and fair discussions have taken place and muslims, their laws and leaders were criticized for some actions or philosophies, but like educated people. You all would also certainly react to some insulting terminology against the relative who you really respect (Father, Mother, Brother, Sister Spouse children etc) ! Also how would some of you justify the reaction of US on hiroshima and nagasaki ? How would some of you justify the violent reaction of the drones on unarmed people and children ? Its easier to write comments on your laptops while sitting in your beautiful sitting rooms :)
I would like to quote one very nice comment from the movie troy and ie "even enemies show respect to each other" ! I think all of must also show some respect to the feelings of 1.5 BLN Muslims :)
@Arindom.. no sir, world is not amused.. it is watching in disgust
@T: Did you say democracy? What is that? Where is it found in the Muslim world and for minoroties in Muslim countires. Do not claim a right which you are not redy to give to others.
Freedom of speech is an alien concept in our country and we cannot even comprehend that an ordinary person can say anything about any person or subject and still not be victimized. It is only when there is a practical threat the law comes into action. I have seen on TV (with muted voice but lip reading) an ordinary man walking by VP Cheney and calling him AH and nobody could do anything about it and it was a big joke coz most people agreed with his opinion. On the other hand if he had made a hostile gesture he would be put away.
Maybe if Copts in Egypt (and say Hindus in Pakistan) were not killed, kidnapped or driven out of their homelands in the name of Islam, they would feel more concern for Muslims' religious feelings.
@ Author
you close your eyes to what muslims did in the last few weeks. They burnt Churches, Desecrated Temples, Damaged Pagodas. This is more blasphemy you can do than making a stupid movie. Should the whole world demand repentance from Islam?
flawed logic - Japanese and Thais didot go berserk when the Bamiyan was demolished ( a direct, public assault, by people running a country, on the Buddha). Then why did Pakistanis riot when an obscure thug in US uploaded a single, stupid video?
The world is watching and it amuses them.
Clearly flawed analysis. What does US or Europe have to do with Pakistanis burning down local churches or Bangladeshis burning down Buddhist temples? What does US have to do with Islamic extremism in Russia, India, Thailand, Israel, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and 50 other countries with different civilizations?
@T: "Secondly, there are international laws prosecuting people who even deny the events of holocaust "
There are no such international laws. Holocaust denial laws exist in specific countries like Germany and Austria where the holocaust occurred. But they cannot implement their laws internationally. There are many holocaust denial videos uploaded on youtube. There is nothing that Germany/Austria can do about that. Ahmadinejad denies holocaust all the time. Again, there is nothing Germany or Austria can do about that. More importantly there is noting they WANT TO do. They want to prevent Nazism from ever recurring in their country and they have a range of laws to address that - within which the holocaust denial laws fall. If your country had similar laws to prevent denial of what happened in 1971, you would not be seeing an action replay in Balochistan. Think about that.
So just as Germany can punish someone within Germany for holocaust denial laws, you can punish someone within Pakistan for anti-blasphemy laws. Neither Germany nor Pakistan can impose their laws on rest of the world. Also holocaust denial laws are for protection of minority. The current anti-blasphemy law in Pakistan is to oppress the minorities. Big difference.
@MilesToGo: No body. It is NOT necessary to decide about truth. Truth is what you feel inside of you..not something that can be enforced by sword or bullet.. If truth is 'decided' by somebody, then I decide that you are false. Will you accept ?
Another attempt at trying to defend the indefensible - may even pass muster with ordinary readers - not the educated ones. The author commits two logical fallacies (latin) in his arguments: 1) Circulus in Probando - i.e. Circular argument - It is OK for muslims to feel insulted because others have insulted them. Here he has not bothered to investigate what is "insult". If you go searching under every bush for "insulting" things - everything in the world will appear insulting!
2) Ad Hominem - ie. attack the other side persinally, but not his points. - Overserve how the author attacks Fox and it's viewers personally, but NOT their arguments ( because he has no real defense). A fallacy again - a good, impartial judge will throw it out the minute he sees it.
C'mon Trinity alumni - you can do better!!!
I just need to point out certain things regarding this whole freedom of speech phenomenon. Firstly, look what US state did to the person staking his claim to the right of information and freedom of speech ala Bradley Manning and Julian Assange (it is ok to have two separate set of laws of different people)
Secondly, there are international laws prosecuting people who even deny the events of holocaust (not denying that it actually took place). So why is freedom of speech restricted in this regard.
Thirdly, freedom of speech works in tandem with the views of representative democracy. Hence, if all the muslim nations demand a punishment for blasphemy on international stage; will that also be seen as a sabotage of free speech.
so if it is true then free speech is good, who decides if the movie is true?
Minority in an unjust world can fight with majority's oppression only, when the minority has the privilege of freedom of expression, which was used by ML King for his civil right movement .He could have done nothing without this right,Now on the flip side, it can be used for hate mongering.Here ,the question arises who will be judge it as hateful (each will have its own defination in this wider world) and is it even possible to block the access to hateful things in this world of internet.You can ban sites on you tube but the same thing can be uploaded by another title from another place and you have to keep on blocking. then instead of you tube- it can be uploaded from some other websites.
This is yet another attempt at sophistry to defend the indefensible. May I ask - ever so politely, why is it that Muslims act so prickly at any attempt to even debate (not insult) anything about the core of their religion and their holy leader? Any debate that results in disagreement leads to either 1) a call for violence or 2) seething accusations and blame. Finally, people the world over - muslim and non-muslim alike - were conquered and oppressed by the Europeans. But do you see non-muslim Chinese, Indians, Phillipinos, Mexicans etc. run amok at the slightest invocation of historical injustices? Do you see or hear them teach and preach hatred as a culture - one that is fully supported by "responsible" leaders and the laws of the land? In these societies people are able to discuss Ram, Buddha, Jesus, Moses intelligently and even laugh at what may not be appealing. It is in these societies that Muslims have full and equal rights. I am sorry - that cannot be said of any Islamic country. Just because you don't like our culture of free speech doesn't mean we are going to let you quieten us down - no matter how lame and circular the point you put forward.
Just last week a movie called Oh My God was released in Indian movie theatres. It was approved by the Indian censor board. It basically presents a atheists' point of view (and ofcourse the opposite point of view as well). But in presenting the atheists' point of view many things are said which could be disrepsectful to Hindus. But while some people protested, there are no deaththreats and there has been o violence. Why should an atheist not have the right to rpesent their viewpoint simply because it offends some Hindus? Same concept.
The important thing to recognize is that offense cannot be given, it is taken. If you choose not to take offense, you have denied the power to offend to the other person.
Also one ,more thing: The video had been uploaded in july. No one knew about it and was offended until Sept 11 when an Egyptian channel translated the clip into Arabic and repeatedly ran it. In Pakistan, no one was offended until the 13th when the Pakistani channels repeatedly ran the coverage related to the reactions in Egypt. So are the Egyptian and Pakistani and other channels responsible for getting people all riled up?
Many North Indian Hindus worship the cow. When Muslims kill and eat the cow, those Hindus feel this is sacrilegious. Would Muslims agree to stop killing and eating cows in order to pass a law against insults to religious feelings? Would Pakistan jail Muslims for cow-slaughter? And what about Ahmedis? After all, insulting Ahmedis and Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is considered quite acceptable for many Pakistanis. Would Pakistan agree to stop insulting Mirza Ghulam Ahmed?
No matter what one says, someone, somewhere is offended. Does it mean that: 1) Everyone should shut up. Or much worse : 2) Everyone can kill everyone else that offends them. I say this author is offending me...and shall I put out a bounty of $100,000 on his life ? This collective feeling of being offended to the point of looting, killing, is absurd...you are just hurting yourself...everyone else is amused.
@KnoWhat?: Fox News are not the only one who fight for freedom of speech . ACLU who are as left as you can get will stand up for it too. When it comes to first amendment, it is not up for debate in US. Any religion (yes that includes JUDAism) CAN be questioned and mocked and it woud not be against the law in US. There is no reason Islam should be an exception because some Muslims threaten to kill people whenever they are offended.
trinity college is a great school
A little late to the 'freedom of speech comes with responsibility game - eh?
Actually offending someone is not the stop of freedom of speech it is the start of freedom of speech. If you can only on-controversial things, that is no freedom. There are people petitioning for gay rights that geatly offends te right wiong Christians but they cannot stop the gay rights parades. The Right to choose greatly offends right to life people but that dos not take away the women's rights over their bodies. The fact that evolution is taught in schools greatly offends people who believe in creationism. That IS the test of free speech that it can be said even if large groups of people are offended. If all you can say is I love my Mom and gaajar ka halwa, what freedom is that?
By the way there are many things in your religious scripture that are inherently showing disrespect to other religions. Are you prepared to get all the imaams stop preaching those aspects of your scriptutre, so that no-one else gets offended? Are you prepared to stop uploading video films of cows being slaughtered for bakri id and being uploaded to you-tube because it offends Hindus? Are you willing to change the anti-Ahmadi laws in your country and the require to denigrate their prophet before someone can even apply for a Pakistai passport? Are you willing to stop dawah since you do not allow apostasy? It does offend us you know? Think about what you would have to give up if the world imposed the same standards on you as you are trying to impose n the world.
What kind of a stupid article is this? So, according to the writer, we should divide the speech into two classes. One class of speech that defends the interests of the wretched and "speaks truth to the powerful" ( whatever that means) should be allowed, while the other kind of speech that is indefensible, such as "insults" to other's beliefs, should be censored and not allowed. There are three problems with this logic. First, who should be authorized to decide which speech falls under which category? Second, There are many other kinds of speech besides these two categories, so under what criteria would they be allowed or disallowed? Third, this idea of pre censorship negates the very concept of free expression.
It's unfortunate that many of our people simply cannot comprehend the concept of free speech, may be because throughout their existence in Pakistan, censorship seems natural to them. In America, free speech means uncensored, unfettered free speech absolutely, with one judicial limitation that any speech should not contain language within itself that expressly incites some people to commit imminent violence against others.
Muslims have been reacting to insults to their faith as the others had been for many centuries. The difference is that the others, Christians, had been and are not against open debates, which involve such criticism of Christianity which Muslims cannot even think of turning to in their own case. The others, first as a minority and then as a majority preferred reason over religion in their social behavior, while even remaining individually faithful to Christianity. They had realized that the dark ages would continue if authority and ideas of pastors were not challenged. The rebels faced resistance and punishment but they moved on and slowly and steadily gained acceptance. The problem is that Muslims are not ready for change. They do not realize that they are already at least one thousand years behind others in all spheres of human intellect and actions. The bigger problem is that Muslims have perhaps gone through evolutionary conditioning of attitudes. They have become rigid to the extent of almost irreversibility. And that is not only widening the intellect gap but also leading the Muslims to a stage from where the others may one day choose to disengage with them. And this may happen even within the currant century.
Only few ppl here in Pakistan would b knowing what FOX news has been doing for a long time but they r succesful. Still Pakistani media has not played role in answering such hateful,double standard argument of freedom of speech. When Pakistan maintains list of very good artist,directors,media persons why they don't think that this issue should b addressed?.Guess this is called Media Power. They don't consider it worthy ISSUE which agonizes whole country...? Guess there is no one like Sir Syed who wrote Loyal Muhammadans of India when ppl tried to ruin Islam, image...!
You miss the point that the person making this video does not represent the west -he is a fraudster and convict who was not allowed to use the internet as per his probation terms. Secondly that most of western people/civilisation do not mis-use freedom of speech when it comes to the Islamic world -and those that do such as the Danish newspaper etc have economic not social reasons for doing so i.e. more free publicity in the international media= more sales. Thirdly that if Muslims are reacting to this video in a violent manner based on a historical sense of being wronged and oppressed by the west as you argue then that is an even stronger case for their irrationality. So Fox News (which isn't the only one prescribing to the 1st view point that you mention) and others are right if they assert the irrationality of killing in response to publicity stunts by fringe attention seekers.
Free speech is self implicit. Who is to know what will insult somebody? Anything that is said or written can hurt somebody somewhere or can be construed to hurt somebody or the other. Does this mean that we should stop speaking and expressing our thoughts and live in an Orwellian world ?
Wow - what an unbiased article; circular logic at its best.
excellent article....
Why do anthropologists always write stupid stuff? Freedom of speech is a necessary liberty because the opposite is horrifying, arbitrarily bad for all kinds of underclass and limits human ability to improve conditions. It is not asserted as a cultural value by any group of wise people. Implying that them-imperialist-baddie-westerners suggest it is necessarily a cultural value as is lazy as brain dead idiots implying rage is a Muslim cultural value.
Wonderful! I like to add a few words too: Fox News is considered to be run by Republican White, Born again Christian, Rich and Southern anti Muslim and anti-immigrant Class. It definitely don't represent the majority sentiment toward Islam or other U.S. minorities. People who watch Fox must also watch NBC, ABC and CBS channels along with PBS. General public watch more of other channels than Fox News biased and baseless reviews. The Idea of freedom of speech originally started from London's Hide Park for the purpose of common man's right of expression against the elite and the Royals. It now has lost most of it's meaning and the Top Class has specially designed methods to bypass or defy it.
In the words of Richard Dawkins, "I'm offended by chewing gum."
Let's all respect people's beliefs and stop chewing gum. You know, because it hurts their feelings. It is unbearable for them to see people chewing gum, even though they have the choice to turn their heads...it is so unbearable that it would be quite understandable if they were to kill people for chewing gum. I mean, you cannot just mock people's beliefs like that and then complain when they threaten to kill you. Preposterous.