On Offense and Free Speech

An uncountable number of words are being written about a dozen or so drawings printed in a Danish newspaper several months ago. The images depicting the Prophet Mohammed have been seized by elements in the Islamic world and are being promoted as objects that should offend Muslims.

The concept of Offense has three broad meanings in English. In one sense offense relates to legal statues and in a second to actions taken with competitions of various types. The third sense involves emotions and as such is problematic precisely because feelings are both ephemeral and immeasurable. To be offended is to react with displeasure, anger, resentment or any of the other negative emotions, and because the state of being offended is a response, it may or may not have any rational correlation to the triggering event.

On Giving Offense: The feelings in the offended person are usually those that arise as he or she thinks that they are being regarded with displeasure, disfavour, and/or disgrace; not necessarily in the mind of the offender, indeed, more often, what the offended person thinks may be in the minds of his or her friends and acquaintances.

For all practical purposes, words and pictures perceived to be offensive is determined entirely by the person claiming the offense, and thus the validity of the claim is always dependent upon the integrity of the claimant. Rick Moran writes a thoughtful post concluding, “I reject the notion that there is no responsibility attached to freedom of speech. For the “rational among us, it is simple, common decency to think of how one’s words will impact others before uttering them.” While I understand his call for empathy, I doubt that tempering western actions will have any effect on individuals determined to be offended.

Offensive Illustration: I again note that what we are seeing is a clash of core values not shared between two cultures. Islamic societies are wrapped up in the idea of "blasphemy," a concept that barely exists in the West. Western societies are wrapped in "Free Speech," a concept that barely exists in the Islamic world. One side sees absolute importance in the importance of the individual conscience; the other, in the importance of communal values.

The point remains that in the West, individual values start with Freedom of Speech. If that freedom is abridged, then the entire concept of democracy is endangered. No country will willingly ignore its fundamental values. Equally, religion in the Islamic world is not a separate–or even separable–issue from day-to-day life. It underlies, infuses, and covers all aspects of life. Therefore, anything that attacks an aspect of religion is seen, is felt, as an attack on the entire body politic.

John Burgess who writes the analysis above, goes on to make the case that there is not a monolithic simplicity to entire Muslim population, and like countless examples in America, there will always be a range of hypersensitivity to religious and moral doctrine.

Sticks and Stones: We do not particularly enjoy it when such things are done in rude, crude or socially unacceptible ways, but that's just too bad: hypersensitivity is the problem of the hypersensitive and, as they say in AA, "Feelings aren't facts."

Feelings are not facts and emotions are not hurts comparable to maiming and killing. Muslim writer Ibn Warraq gets it correct by reminding Western Culture of our own intellectual development.

Democracy in a Cartoon: The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

If freedom of speech is a fundamental and foundational value of our culture, then it must hold true across the entire range of expression. This is not the time to be afraid of words and images. It is the time to be afraid of those who are responding with sticks and stones.