Finding the balance between Freedom of Speech and being considerate of people with different values

Wow, that’s a long title.  But I really feel that it’s important to take some time and really examine this issue in greater detail.  I’m thinking, of course, of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France and the response around the world.  At the very least, violence on that scale (or any scale) is not the answer, and I’m not condoning that.  There is definitely something that worries people in the west about the response of some Muslim people to the insults that are part of modern life.  We look at the religion we are members of (or no religion), and think they are over-reacting.  Of course we disagree about the violence, but I’m trying to get at the fact that their feeling of offense and outrage over this kind of thing is foreign to western society.  At least for modern western society.  We think it’s strange for them to get so upset over a cartoon.  But that’s not really taking them seriously as people.

One scholar has said, “But you know, I’m not sure if the type of response that we have seen as of late, regarding depictions of the Prophet has to do with the depictions themselves or whether it’s about the negative depictions. My hunch is that it has a lot more to do with the negativity associated with the depictions and the message that they’re sending as opposed to the actual depiction itself. Let’s say for the sake of argument that somebody drew a picture that they said was the Prophet Muhammad, and it was actually very positive, and there was no malicious intent behind it and it was actually conveying a positive message; I find it hard to think that there would be the same type outcry.” -- Imam Sikander Hashmi

So although modern Christians wouldn’t be upset with depictions of Christ, people surely were very upset in the past when artists portrayed important Christian figures in negative ways (Piss Christ, for example).  Christianity has a long history of enforcing respect for the prophets or saints with violence.  I think we are a little hypocritical for judging the Muslims for taking depictions of the prophet Mohammed so seriously. 

So how can we be respectful of people who take their religion seriously while protecting everyone else?  It’s a big question and I don’t have the answer.  I don’t think it’s a good idea to tell the satirists of the world that they can’t depict any Islamic prophet in a negative light, especially if they are in a country where the majority of people are not Muslims, and aren’t offended by the depictions.  But at the same time, there are certainly other subjects for images that are not acceptable in western society.  You can’t get away with showing Jewish folks in a caricature like they were depicted before WWII; you can’t depict racist stereotypes of African-Americans or Native Americans without suffering serious backlash.

Maybe that’s a solution.  Don’t legislate what is acceptable speech, but expect there to be consequences when media goes too far.  The issue with depictions of Mohammed is that not enough people would reject an organization that published negative images of Islam because of the world we live in and the perception of the people and the religion.  Many people I think are happy to try to provoke Muslims so they can feel superior about how they are getting all worked up over nothing. 

Let me know what you think.  It’s important to discuss this topic until we get somewhere, I think.

Eric Garner

Sometimes I feel like what’s the point about talking about this issue anymore.  The issue of police violence against poor people, especially brown people.  But how can I just sit by and not call out what I see? 

Eric Garner’s case seems to be the most clear-cut of the ones we have seen recently.  His “crime” was selling loose cigarettes.  You can argue about whether that should be a crime or not, but you can’t argue he was not engaged in anything violent.  He didn’t attack the police; he just expressed frustration with being arrested again.  Why is this an offense that requires arrest anyway?  Can’t they just fine him?  There’s no violence, no theft. 

We have a video, so we know what happened.  There’s no question regarding the behavior of the police or Mr. Garner.  In the Mike Brown case, you can wonder if he really reached into the police car as the police claimed, and we know (pretty certainly) that he shoved that clerk at the convenience store.  There’s no video to show if he was coming toward the officer or not.  But in the case of Mr. Garner, there is no question.  They choked him to death because he didn’t want to be arrested.  And because he was a large black man, which means dangerous, no matter what he does. 

And now he’s dead.  I think sometimes when we see these news stories so often, we forget he doesn’t get to go on.  His family doesn’t get to see him at family dinners and holidays.  He doesn’t get to contribute his perspective to society.  It’s over for him.  And no consequences for the police officers who killed him.  What message do you think that sends to other people who have interactions with the NYPD?  Do they trust them to protect their rights?