One of the most loathed Charlie cartoons was a picture of an African-French politician with the body of a monkey. Now I'm not sure what this was about, but a lot of people around the world jumped in to condemn the picture without any knowledge of the politician or what Charlie was saying about her (in French). One white American was quick to take offence, but when told that it was a comment on racism itself, said, "well, it's good to know the context for these things".

Of course it's good to know the context for these things. Knee jerk reaction to any image or statement, without context, is bigotry.

We're at a point in our history where we're free to express these things. This would never have been possible during the middle ages or even during the Enlightenment. Pamphleteers were routinely tortured and executed for complaining about their kings, parliaments or churches. Even during the 20th century, with its fascism and communism and communist witch hunts, there was huge censorship. Magazines like Playboy were banned in Australia until the 1970s. The Oz obscenity trial happened in supposedly enlightened England in 1970. Three defendants, the "Oz Three", received jail sentences.

Muslims are not the only group to have condemned Charlie. Without Charlie playing with the limits of free speech, we would not be having such discussions. Of the cartoons I've seen, I don't think, in themselves, they racially vilify anyone. Nor do I think the publication of the image of a prophet, in itself, should offend anyone. "A hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine"?

Civilization requires a certain tolerance of personally offensive viewpoints. Muslims are free to make rules and codes for themselves. I think they should be free to live under their own Sharia laws regarding family and property disputes. The Islamic ban on images of Muhammed has a purpose: it's about preventing the deification of Muhammed and not elevating him to the role of saint or demigod. Killing those who publish Muhammed's image goes against the very purpose of the ban on his image.

Regardless of this, non-Muslims are free to publish Muhammed's image. This knowledge in itself should be enough to prevent any offence caused. After all, if I enter a gay bar, I'm hardly entitled to express my offence at people expressing their gayness. If I'm a vegetarian, I'm hardly justified in being offended at the butcher's. I can feel physically sick, but the only right I have to prevent any personal offence I might feel is to not go to those places in the first place.

Vilification is another matter. If I publish an image that intends to stir hatred or violence, it deserves to be banned. Intent is important. Nude pictures of children, for example, are not illegal. Pornographic images, however, are. The image itself is not the point - nor is its use. The ban on sexual images of children is all about the intent of the photographer/publisher. It is still legal to take a picture of a nude child. It is also legal to be aroused by nude images of children. It's illegal, however, to publish images for that very purpose.

The same applies to vilification. I'm allowed to publish an image or make comments that define or caricature someone's race. Someone is also allowed to view that image and hate that particular race. But I can be sued for publishing an image that intends to inflame such hatred or violence.

Context is important. Jumping to conclusions about images based on our own prejudices is pointless from a legal or ethical point of view. If we want something to go unexpressed, it's up to us to prove how such a statement or image is intentionally bad.

Salman Rushdie weighed into the debate. He was on TV last night saying he always tunes out when people say, "I'm all for free speech, but..."

Rushdie affirmed that all speech should be totally free, no ifs or buts. There are no limits to free speech.

Presumably the people Rushdie is talking about are Western liberals. Rushdie, however, grew up in India. There, and for much of Asia, people have a completely different take on freedom of speech. When people live in small villages or high density areas, you don't want to offend your extended family and your neighbours. In India, there are deeply knitted hierarchies and people you don't want to p!ss off. The caste system is still alive. Your in-laws are often in the same house.

In China, there are state restrictions on free speech, but also cultural codes of politeness and face. These are huge, immutable social structures. Usually, what is said is not what is meant. In China, the idea of free speech is heavily qualified.

The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut.

Free speech comes with responsibilities. If it's just a form of reaction, it's slavery, not freedom. If it's just an ego trip, it serves no social good at all. The interests of the individual are not always in the interest of the community.

Such neoliberal ideology is considered ludicrous in most of the world. At its worst, it can inspire tyranny, not freedom.

Liberalism - the ideas of John Stuart Mill - is exactly what radical Islam stands against. Within Islam, freedom requires discipline, it just uses different terms. Freedom is not one of them. Submission to God is freedom. The family and community are the site of ethics, not the individual.

In this sense, sure, there is a clash of civilizations, but it's only radical Islam that is on the sticky end of it - in large part, due to its strident opposition to Western liberalism.

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

What is their version of freedom and why do you hate it?

I remember Abu arguing that chopping someone's head off for blasphemy is merely a "different take" on freedom. This is the first time I have seen a non-Muslim go down that path. Maybe we really do need a thread on this topic, so you can explain that Muslim terrorists really are freedom of fighters and cods can demand I remove the swear word filter.

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

Quote:


That is your dumbest post so far cods. Every time I ask you to explain this crap you run away.

fine dont read themn then   you never answer so why should anyone else.. and on top of that you are pig rude..


Quote:


You don't recognise it because it was handed to you on a platter cods. You are lucky, but you do not realise it.


why cant I call you a M)RON YOU STUPID ONE EYED LEFTY????....lets see if FREEDOM OF SPEECH WORKS ON FDS WEB?...

Quote:


Cods I have explained this to you at least a dozen times already. You are yet to even acknowledge the response. You just keep posting the same stupid thing over and over again. Not sure how to dumb it down any more for you. Which part are you having trouble comprehending?

Quote:


This is what cods wants.

In theory, yes, but I think the reality is this idealism is only skin deep. The mainstream media especially really only gives the illusion of this

Of course they are obliged to present opposing views, but this is merely tokenistic.

The reality is we live in a society where Kant and Socrates lofty ideals of rational thought are just things we occasionally fantasise about in the abstract

and grandstand about when tragedies like Charlie Hebdo happen

But when it comes down to it, we are as closed minded and irrational as the rest of the world.

The difference of course is that we could be more open minded and objective if we chose to - we have the social and political institutions in place to promote and protect us being so.

Yet we usually don't want it - and in fact more often than not we look to the state to suppress our freedoms, not protect them. And even worse, the establishment usually supports us in this endeavor: before everyone was "Je Suis Charlie", Charlie was condemned from all quarters, to the extent that people - including authorities were calling for it to be banned.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:34am:


In theory, yes, but I think the reality is this idealism is only skin deep. The mainstream media especially really only gives the illusion of this - a genuine argument is only achieved if the "truth" reiterates and confirms official establishment positions, with few exceptions. Of course they are obliged to present opposing views, but this is merely tokenistic.

The reality is we live in a society where Kant and Socrates lofty ideals of rational thought are just things we occasionally fantasise about in the abstract, and grandstand about when tragedies like Charlie Hebdo happen. But when it comes down to it, we are as closed minded and irrational as the rest of the world. The difference of course is that we could be more open minded and objective if we chose to - we have the social and political institutions in place to promote and protect us being so. Yet we usually don't want it - and in fact more often than not we look to the state to suppress our freedoms, not protect them. And even worse, the establishment usually supports us in this endeavor: before everyone was "Je Suis Charlie", Charlie was condemned from all quarters, to the extent that people - including authorities were calling for it to be banned. Then we have those ridiculous holocaust denial laws all over Europe. The current western philosophy seems to be - "we decide what is rational and acceptable in public discourse, now you are free to agree with this - and only this."