Chronicles of a Wandering Mind

The recent controversy over caricatures of Prophet Muhammad boils my blood. I despise the people who have published the caricatures that depicted the Prophet as a terrorist. They have desigrated more than the religious symbols by abusing the freedom that is provided to them by the society.
I firmly believe in freedom of speech. I believe there are VERY rare situations where speech should be restricted, and I am not even sure this is one of those situations. Whether or not it should be illegal by law to publish such caricatures that desigrates sacred religious symbols and provoke members of a major religion, (especially in an era where the relationship among religions are already strained) needs to be discussed by each society.

Freedom comes with responsibility. Just because one can publish or say his/her heart desires, does not mean that one should.

The publishers of these cartoons abandoned their public responsiblity to have sense, and abused their freedom by publishing them. I wonder whether they are proud of themselves with their accomplishment, they certainly don’t seem to have any regret for having insulted some people. It is equally unfortunate that many people in the West, look at the matter as a simple freedom of speech and Islam extremism perspective and choose to support the Danish publisher, equating anyone that would be sensitive to the cartoons with the extremists.
Having the freedom of speech has a cost associated with it for the society. To protect the integrity of the principle, it is sometimes necessary to allow speeches and publications that we may consider harmful to the society. As a society, we believe this is a price we must accept to pay, to ensure our freedom. The publishers of the caricatures just have increased that cost dramatically, potentially eroding public support for freedom of speech in the future. Society may decide that the cost is simply too high and choose to restrict the free speech, given the significant social unrest caused by the incident. Would that further the cause of free speech as it was intended by the papers that re-published the caricatures for “solidarity”?

What is even more ironic is that freedom of speech is not absolute even in the western countries with liberal democrasies. In US, there is the notion of “screaming fire in a crowded theatre”, indicating that if your “speech” causes harm to the public directly, you would be held responsible. It is common sense.

In fact, in most European countries there is precedence for restricting free speech already when it concerns a sensitive topic. For example, in several countries, including France (I think Denmark as well but I could not verify it), it is a crime to dispute the official version of Holocaust history publicly. People are prosecuted and convicted for denying that Holocaust happened the way it’s officially stated. These laws are justified based on the trajedies of the past, and sensitivities of the public on this matter. Given the obvious conflict with the principles of freedom of speech, it is suprising that liberal democracies of the west would have such laws yet they are there. This is a restriction to freedom of speech that does not even pass “direct harm to the society” test stated above that is prevalent in the US.

Given that freedom of speech is not absolute, and is restricted for certain circumstances, it is unacceptable to use freedom of speech as an excuse for the desigration of sacred religious symbols. At minimum, muslims demands need to be taken seriously, instead of being brushed aside, using freedom of speech as a shield, as it was done by Danish Prime Minister. The publishers of these caricatures must be condemned, strongly, and not supported. Not for the sake of the religion, but to disarm the extremists that will most certainly cease this opportunity, and to ensure that the principle of “freedom of speech” is not further damaged by such irresponsible people.