Ever since there were riots over the depictions in the muslim papers there have been long lines of pompous (usually white) folks talking about freedom of speech and why they had a right to publish certain things. Of course there are a couple of basic issues with this sort of thinking that often remain unaddressed.
1st off, the 1st Amendment is an American law placed in the United State's Constitution. To think that Muslims in the Middle East should be checked for not subduing to an American idea is mostly ridiculous.
2nd, Even with the 1st Amendment there is no protection for yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. This basically means that the law does not protect inciting speech, or even fighting words for that matter. The riots in France not too long ago should serve notice on some of the issue of offending this population, especially given the tensions that were not just a French issue.
3rd, and most compelling in my mind is that these arguments misunderstand the premise at the basis of the 1st amendment. The 1st Amendment never intended for all speech to not have consequences, but only that the government could not censor or harass you for it. If the presses statements got them boycotted, or verbally attacked they had to deal with those repercussions. Hell, even if the statements of the press got the physically attacked, the charge would be a state charge for assault not a federal charge for violating the first amendment rights of the press. All actions have consequences. Of course I had to learn that this was not a universally understood fact when I first went to college. When I first went to college, In New Hampshire, many of my friends and I were taking aback by many of the statements that the white students used as jokes that would have gotten someone hurt when we were growing up. Soon we found that even beyond jokes, students (regardless of race) from fairly affluent and safe neighborhoods were much freer with open insults as they had never grown up with the idea that there could be repercussions for insults. The school supported this view since fighting was one of the most harshly punished activities at the school which could lead to multiple year suspensions. This led me to find that in general the more "civilized" of our society were generally much more ill-mannered than those of us from "dangerous" areas because we had to learn to temper what we said to the potential reactions as offending the wrong person would lead to dangers. We were forced to understand the basic issue of the cost of our actions. No one told you that you could not say what you wanted, but it was important to understand that you statement could be the cause to quite a negative effect, and the fact that the intelligentsia would have called the person a savage for assault you for exercising your free expression, is not a very helpful consolation prize for a hospital stay or worse.
That in a nut shell is the problem with many parts of American foreign policy. We are the big kids we are the bullies, but when someone fights back we are the punk kid that runs to the teacher and screams unfair. Freedom has a price, when those without power or money are pushed far enough they will react with the only power left to them, force... it's only understandable.
No comments:
Post a Comment