Freedom of Speech

There was a boy in the tenth grade who, in a final exam for English, had to write about his idea of Freedom of Speech. The Professor was pleased with the young boy’s confidence when he handed in his completed essay before the rest of his classmates. Unfortunately, he was assigned an F: “This is my idea of freedom of speech” was scrawled in blue ink on the very last page of the exam booklet, while the rest of the pages were unmarked. As amusing as it sounds, it was not a very smart move. Think about all that this young boy could have said, but chose not to. It is a shame how the world has negatively taken advantage of the right to freedom of speech. We no longer THINK before we speak-we have ceased to care about the opposition’s feelings, and we have ignored all ethical and moral etiquettes when it comes to expressing our views and opinions.

Ever since the uproar of the Danish cartoon fiasco in 2005, there has been a constant debate about the understanding of freedom of speech. Published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, the reaction towards the caricatures of the Muslim’s Prophet Muhammad was either peaceful protest or violent remonstration from the Muslim world. Danish and Norwegian embassies were burnt in Syria and Beirut, and foreign ministries from eleven Islamic countries demanded an apology from the Danish Government, which were denied on the grounds that the government did not have any control whatsoever on the media and/or newspaper publications. Twenty-three of the thirty-one polled cartoonists agreed to make caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Supporters of the cartoons justified their right to exercise freedom of speech, whereas critics claimed that it was an act of intolerable blasphemous insult to the religion of Islam.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law, in his article Cartoon Rage vs. Freedom of Speech, stresses the importance of the literal meaning of the word “free.” He believes in upholding the essence of freedom, and is against the boundaries and limitations placed on the expression. In his article, he quotes,

Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, and to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket. (Spencer, Cartoon Rage vs Freedom of Speech)

The fact that the cartoons were re-printed and published all over Europe demonstrates the unwillingness of the Western point of view to make any special preference over a certain ideology-secular or religious.

The Muslim world is not opposed to the idea of freedom of speech, but they are cautious as to what boundaries are to be placed upon the much-debated ideology of the term. When speaking the mind freely, one should not transgress the limits that are strongly felt but that are invisible to human. However, humans are bound to make mistakes that can either be irreversible or rectified, but the efforts in attempting to be mindful and respectful of other people counts a lot. Surely, there were people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike who would agree with Mohammad Al-Shaibani from Kuwait’s Al-Qabas daily who wrote “Such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights.”

Many Muslims strongly condemn the acts of those Muslims who were responsible for the catastrophic events that followed the publication, but even though Jyllands-Postan issued an apology letter at the end of January 2006, it was not what the Muslims were expecting. The response from the Danish newspaper was as follows,

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Even though an apology was manifested, the rage continued, because the apology was written insincerely.

Not only did Muslims condemn the Danish newspaper’s publication; many Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims alike attacked the issue as being an insensitive act of blasphemy against the Muslims. I believe that the Jyllands-Postan, and all other publications who has published similar works,should stand up and apologize for every rude and satirical remark they have made, not only about Islam but about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions. According to a British newspaper columnist, freedom of speech is one thing, but “absolute freedom” is a sign of newborn savages.

The boy from my tenth grade class used his best discretion to fulfill his obligation of completing the exam. Perhaps it was for the best that he chose not to write anything at all; similarly, it is probably best not to say anything at all if we fear we might hurt or anger someone. The Danish cartoons were insensitive, offensive, and insulting to a great number of people, particularly the Muslims. The question is not “should they have done it,” but it is “what should they have done about it?” My method is pretty simple: Be mindful of how you articulate yourself when talking to a single individual or a large gathering because there can be severe consequences; consequences that the rest of the world has to endure when innocent victims are killed. It would benefit us all if we took this right of freedom of speech as a privilege rather than a mere tool.