Re: Free speech, vs itself

On 2021-10-09, idiomdrottning wrote about how free speech is a self-destructive system.

Free Speech vs. Itself

As a backdrop they use the Salman Rushdie fatwa and calls that a "speech act". A fatwa is not a speech act, it is a command of law given by a recognized Islamic authority. To plainly say that Rushdie is a traitor of the religion and deserves to die is a, though tasteless, appalling and inhumane, still in itself harmless, act of speech. To formally usher a fatwa carries the intent of commitment and is practically a death sentence. That transcends speech and as such must not necessarily be protected by the ideas of free speech.

I do believe in free speech. I also believe that free speech is self-supporting rather than self-destructive. It allows us to denounce what other people are saying without enforcing silence. Denouncing someone else's speech is not an act against free speech, it's an example of the strength of free speech and the reason why it is so powerful. Free speech is the only tool for a culture to self-heal. If we start removing from our rights to speak freely, we soon start taking away our rights to speak the truth, and after not speaking the truth for a while, we stop seeing it. Admitting the truth is the first step to recovery.

When it comes to Salman Rushdie, I can't say I know the details, but it does not seem like the intent of The Satanic Verses actually were to provoke the Islamic world. Nevertheless it was indeed much provoked, hence the fatwa but also import bans, mass-protests and book burnings. As for import bans and mass-protests, they are up to the respective country and people and when it comes to book burning, I think it is rather wasteful and not very environmentally friendly. At least the books should be burnt in a proper fireplace and during the winter so the heat can be utilized. The fatwa, as mentioned before, is bad, there I totally agree with the author of the original article.

When it comes to Lars Wilks (RIP) and Jyllands-Posten, their respective motives were also quite different. Lars Wilks wanted to create a work of art much bigger than himself and the drawing he made, he basically made the rest of his life the work of art. What you should and should not do in the name of art is not obvious, it's a thin line to walk. Jyllands-Posten published the caricatures because they were concerned about the state of free speech in Denmark; they wanted to prove that exercising their rights would be problematic. A point they definitely proved. Did they need to prove that? Did Lars Wilks need to drag half the world into his artwork? If not, is that still a reason not to do it? If we in the West are restricted from saying certain things and drawing certain things because someone in the Middle East might be upset, is that a problem worth pointing out? I could agree that once that problem has been pointed out I really don't see the point of pointing it out again. That's just mean. But once was necessary for us to see how bad things are.

I would also argue that a caricature of a religious figure is not racist. A religion is not a race. I am also against racist caricatures. I am against anything racist, to be clear. To call this a caricature of a religious figure is somewhat oversimplified though, it isn't any religious figure. Charlie Hebdo made caricatures of virtually every religious figure they could find, but only with one religion was this a problem.

I think this is complicated and that the original post makes it too simple. Should you be allowed to and able to offend someone without them coming after you to kill you. Absolutely. Should you then offend someone just to prove you have the right to do so? Probably not. If we turn the perspective around and ask more difficult questions: Is it everyone's right to be offended by any arbitrary thing someone does on the other side of the globe? How voluntary a reaction is being offended? I have never been offended to the degree that I would consider deadly violence as a response, I wonder what it would take. Then maybe I would understand.

To wrap up: The thing I don't agree with is to call a fatwa a "speech act" and with that for me the self-destructiveness argument falls. The rest is just me being way out of my comfort zone trying to make sense of a nonsensical world.