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Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical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The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports.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 janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM (#176299) Journal

    So if I am a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can I have a ban on all pictures, references and jokes that contain colanders?

    Why is it only pictures of Mohammed that need black rectangles over the eyes? Why not depictions of the Pope, Christ, and Buddah also? All are frequently depicted in CH without a murmur being heard. So what can atheists or those that chose a more obscure faith ask to be censored or treated differently? Or does the restriction only apply to faiths that someone has agreed should be recognised. Is there a list somewhere of religions that must be 'respected' as opposed to those that have no such protection? Have the Muslims approved it? How about Druids, those who believe in the Norse Gods, or those that believe that the wind and sun should be worshipped? What about people who have never heard of a specific faith? Are they also guilty of not showing the appropriate respect?

    I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing. You can celebrate it in groups if you desire, but it is something specific to an individual. As such, it should not, indeed ought not, to affect anyone else at all. Charlie Hebdo doesn't mock any specific religion for the sake of it - but it does question why a caring deity demands the heads of those who who wish to laugh, dance or educate both sexes equally. It does question the extent of Catholic influence in France. It does question why the death of a number of athletes in a multiple helicopter crash was even possible in the name of 'entertainment' when everyone else involved travelled safely by road. The camera crews travelled by bus and car, why did the athletes have to be flying fast and low to get to the same place? And it does question why one religion demands a level of respect that is not afforded to, nor expected by, any other.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:55PM (#176307)

    > I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing.

    You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true for everybody. For many people, probably even a majority, their religion is part of their culture and culture is a shared experience defined by the community itself.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:34PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:34PM (#176330) Journal

      It doesn't make my belief any less valid. There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture. Those cultures are free to follow whatever beliefs they wish, but they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion. This is the problem with the teachings of several popular religions - they specifically say that 'there is but one God, and you shall have no other Gods but Him'. The problem lies in deciding who 'He' actually is.

      However, it is also said that one should never argue about religion, and so I'm off to my bed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:48PM (#176336)

        > It doesn't make my belief any less valid.

        Sure, for you personally it does not. For everybody else who see the world differently it surely does.

        > There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture.

        Religion is not based on culture, it is part of culture. Just like music, politics, art, food, etc are all part of culture too.

        > they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion.

        That's a phrasing that will lead to a conclusion that misses the broader issue. Every culture has norms. The question is do you want to respect a culture's norms or not? How about when your culture is the 800lb gorilla and their culture is the 95lb weakling? I am of the opinion that the 800lb gorilla has a duty to the 95lb weakling to give him more leeway than he would another 800lb gorilla.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:34AM (#176380)

          > they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion.

          That's a phrasing that will lead to a conclusion that misses the broader issue. Every culture has norms. The question is do you want to respect a culture's norms or not? How about when your culture is the 800lb gorilla and their culture is the 95lb weakling? I am of the opinion that the 800lb gorilla has a duty to the 95lb weakling to give him more leeway than he would another 800lb gorilla.

          How much murder does your leeway allow for?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:40AM (#176385)

            We aren't talking about murder. We are talking about disrespect.
            Peculiar that you would go there though.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:55AM (#176395)

              We aren't talking about murder. We are talking about disrespect.

              "We" includes more than just yourself as one AC and janrinok. There's Geotti and one more AC in the form of myself, which is at least three individuals any way you slice it.

              I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect". Lack of respect is a far cry from murder and in no way justification for it. When you claimed to allow for more leeway for minorities, it interested me to know just how much murder your leeway would allow for. After all, what will "demands [soylentnews.org]" accomplish if they aren't backed up by a threat?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:31AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:31AM (#176425)

                > I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect".

                Then go reply to someone else who is talking about what you care about.
                Your conflation of the two unrelated issues suggests agenda pushing rather than truth seeking.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:09AM (#176491)

                  Then go reply to someone else who is talking about what you care about.

                  I read something that appeared to be deceptive and had a chance to ask for clarification, so I did. The issues are of course related (even within this thread), because you are proposing that "more leeway" should be given to religious minorities. Within context of this thread and article, this suggests you are stating that murder is something that should be given leeway. I asked how much leeway/murder you considered appriopriate for repugnant speech.

                  So... how much do you consider to be appropriate?

  • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:56PM

    by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:56PM (#176308) Journal

    Well, there is a distinction between recognized religions and sects.
    But I do understand your point, and I guess the only way to address it is on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it was a potential affront (i.e. blasphemy [wikipedia.org]) to a *lot* of people [wikipedia.org] (though many of those probably care little about satire).

    Let's also not forget that in Christian history, blasphemy was punished as well until, well, not too long ago [wikipedia.org] and depictions of Christian holy characters was controversial [wikipedia.org] as well.

    In the end, I'm sure dialogue can solve many issues and yet still there will always be fringe groups of fanatics.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:23PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:23PM (#176325) Journal
      And I understand your point too. BUT, who is it that creates the list of recognized religions and sects? Which country decides and who has influence in the choices? Freedom means that I am free to worship whatever god I choose - I don't want nor need anyone else's approval. And if, for example, a god says that his followers should not recognise any other gods then they probably wont. There is no need for anything to be addressed on a case-to-case basis - there is nothing with respect to my faith that needs anyone's permission. We are all free to worship as we choose - no other religion should affect that. I cannot, for example, demand anyone recognise the FSM, nor can members of any other faith demand that I must pay special reverence to their god.
      • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:27PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:27PM (#176328) Journal

        I agree with all that you say and yet, I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin. That's my belief, of course, but it's quite a good foundation to build a society upon as far as I see it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:21AM (#176418)

          That is a phrase entirely hollow, without meaning. What rights? how far do they extend? Does everyone have the same rights? Does everyone have equality in those rights? Are all rights two-way or just some, or maybe none? Who decides the answers? Are there really any practical rights or only societal rights? Either way whence does rights come? Who decides that? and so on.

          The phrase "I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin." is only indicative of a lack of overlap, which itself is wrong. Communal property, businesses, marriage assets, even free speech or the right to life. There are plenty of overlap for things generally agreed as being rights.

          It is not just my belief, but my logical summation that any society of significant civility would have to begin with something at least rational. That sentiment is not.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:25PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:25PM (#176705)

      You call 1730 "not too long ago"?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:14PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:14PM (#177102) Journal

        As a matter of fact, in this context, I do. (My point being, give 'em some time, Muslim faith seems to develop at a faster rate, comparatively speaking.)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:31AM (#177815)

          Muslim faith seems to develop at a faster rate, comparatively speaking

          Would you provide some exposition on this?

          I'm hard-pressed to even write a summary of a guess at your specific reasoning, as the logic for my abandoned draft post branched out almost exponentially regarding historical events, dates, times, and comparisons between both Christianity and Islam.

          • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:04PM

            by Geotti (1146) on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:04PM (#178119) Journal

            Maybe it would be prudent to give the Muslim faith at least 610 years [wikipedia.org]

            additionally, before comparing it to the modern Christian understanding?

             

            Would you provide some exposition on this?

            I'll provide my reasoning instead, though I'm unsure, whether you will accept this as a valid argument: if we take e.g. state secularism into account, and/or the tolerance towards other religions, I think they do develop at a faster rate, societally speaking. Just look at where Christian society was half a millennium ago.