Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the defending-free-speech dept.

Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked on January 7th:

The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports. [...] Kushner, in an email to The Times, said she was withdrawing from the May 5 PEN gala because she was uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo's "cultural intolerance" and promotion of "a kind of forced secular view." Those views, The Times added, were echoed by the other writers who pulled out of the event. Carey told The Times that PEN, in its decision, was going beyond its role of protecting freedom of expression." A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom-of-speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" he said in an email to the newspaper. Novelist Salman Rushdie, a past president of PEN who spent years in hiding because of a fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses, criticized the writers for pulling out, saying while Carey and Ondaatje were old friends of his, they are "horribly wrong."

Glenn Greenwald has written about the controversy over at The Intercept, which is hosting letters and comments written by Deborah Eisenberg and Teju Cole. Greenwald notes:

Though the core documents are lengthy, this argument is really worth following because it highlights how ideals of free speech, and the Charlie Hebdo attack itself, were crassly exploited by governments around the world to promote all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with free expression. Indeed, some of the most repressive regimes on the planet sent officials to participate in the Paris “Free Speech” rally, and France itself began almost immediately arresting and prosecuting people for expressing unpopular, verboten political viewpoints and then undertaking a series of official censorship acts, including the blocking of websites disliked by its government. The French government perpetrated these acts of censorship, and continues to do so, with almost no objections from those who flamboyantly paraded around as free speech fanatics during Charlie Hebdo Week.

From Deborah Eisenberg's letter to PEN's Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, March 26, 2015:

I can hardly be alone in considering Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that satirize Islam to be not merely tasteless and brainless but brainlessly reckless as well. To a Muslim population in France that is already embattled, marginalized, impoverished, and victimized, in large part a devout population that clings to its religion for support, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not. And yet the staff apparently considered the context of their satire and its wide-ranging potential consequences to be insignificant, or even an inducement to redouble their efforts – as if it were of paramount importance to demonstrate the right to smoke a cigarette by dropping your lit match into a dry forest.

It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible. The point of protecting all kinds of expression is that neither you nor I get to determine what attitudes are acceptable – to ensure that expression cannot be subordinated to powerful interests. But does that mean that courage in expression is to be measured by its offensiveness?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM (#176274)

    By the looks of it, the magazine specializes on inflaming demographics. Some of them would be marginalized ones.

    So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech. If you have to resort to obtaining illegal automatic weapons and shooting the people you disagree with, then you have absolutely no place in a society that values freedom of speech.

    Anyone who actually defends those who resort to violence also has no place in a society that values freedom of speech.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:21PM

    by tftp (806) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:21PM (#176290) Homepage

    So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech.

    If so, you need to explain why laws about libel and defamation exist. Without them I could tell lies about you to all your friends and neighbors and employers and business partners, and all you could do would be... to tell them that I'm a liar? Much good will that do to you. You don't even know whose exactly minds are poisoned by my lies. If you deny your wrongdoing to someone who hasn't heard about it yet, you'd be doing my work for me.

    Or, perhaps, you are talking about your own speech in court? I don't think anyone here will be defending the shooters. However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court. Freedom of speech and all that. Where does that leave you, or them? Should they have packed up and left the country? Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone? It doesn't matter that they are Muslims - the previous attempt of this very kind involved Jews.

    It is also important to note that minorities, just by the fact of their small number and smaller influence in the society, cannot respond to every word of their opponent with their own word. It's called tyranny of majority, and the laws exist to make sure that no group, large or small, is permitted to mistreat another group. In case of France, a certain group was permitted by wink and nod of the court to mistreat a minority, even though the minority repeatedly asked to stop this activity.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:41PM (#176300)

      Saying something bad about someone is only improper when it isn't true.

      Truth: Muslims worship a prophet who slept with children.
      Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill an infidel.
      Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill anyone who converts away from islam.
      Truth: Many muslims would kill a person if they thought they had even inadvertently destroyed a koran.

      All fucking verifiably true. So I am not lying about you to your friends and neighbors, I am warning them about you.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM (#176335)

      Libel and slander aren't crimes. They're torts. The government will never bother you about either of these things; you can say whatever you want about someone, and the government will never put you in jail over it. You can be sued, however, just like you can be sued any time someone wrongs you; if the judge (or jury) agrees with you, you get a judgment and maybe you'll get the defendant to pay it.

      However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court.

      Boo hoo. Making fun of a religion is not the same as falsely defaming a person. If I say that "John is a pedophile" (and worse, tell his employer that), that causes John material harm. If I say "Scientology is a stupid religion", who does that hurt exactly? There's no person there, just a large group. Plus, my claim isn't even non-factual (which in the US at least is required for it to be actionable), it's a matter of opinion.

      Should they have packed up and left the country?

      If they can't stand their stupid religion being mocked, then yes, they should have left the country. Otherwise, STFU; everyone gets made fun of at some point.

      Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone?

      Twelve dead people at Charlie Hebdo disagree with you about them not hurting anyone.

      No one "ostracized" them; they were lampooned. It happens to every group. Are you saying political parties shouldn't be mocked? So why is a religion above all criticism?

      Honestly, it's really pathetic that people like you are actually calling for limiting free speech and criticism of anyone just because they're a minority and are apparently so easily offended they'll resort to mass murder.