If there are certain pieces of world news that one may not escape, the scandal of “Innocence of Muslims”, the so-called anti-Islam film, is definitely one of them. In other words, if you haven’t heard of it, people will give you some weird looks.
What this article will give you isn’t a summary of the scandal: Wikipedia can provide you with that, any major news website has updates on this story daily, while Youtube can even show you the trailers themselves. Let’s not just talk about how bad, inappropriate, outrageous, ridiculous (a parody of a parody?), etc. this film might seem. Instead, let’s explore the questions which “Innocence of Muslims” raises on a broader scale.
We’re jumping into an intellectual debate on freedom of expression. So hold on. Freedom of expression.Hot topic? For sure! With an array of articles on it in various regional and global declarations, it remains a hotly debated concept. If not in terms of definition, then in terms of restrictions placed on it.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
People who want to make small-budget movies insulting certain religion affiliates, unfortunately, do fall into that category: everyone. Should we, then, conclude it with a “oh well, it’s a pity” remark, or should we insist on placing certain restrictions on freedom of expression? If so, whereto place them? And if we’re applying them, how are we supposed to evaluate specific cases?
“If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all”, a famous phrase by Noam Chomsky goes. According to Chomsky, people who despise him have their right to do so – and talk about it as much as they want (which, in my opinion, makes them hate Chomsky even more!).
But let me ask you this: does thought-provoking automatically lead to action-provoking? Is that why we’re supposed to ban hate speech? Is the “badness” of a piece determined by the reaction it receives? For example, if I don’t go torching headquarters of a newspaper, does that make its overtly homophobic piece less insulting?
If what I’m expressing insults others, do I still have my right to express them? Are certain kinds of insults worse than others? What if I’ve just insulted you with these questions? Am I still allowed to keep them?
Don’t get me wrong. These are extremely serious issues and concrete situations that can take the highest toll possible: human life (“Innocence of Muslims”, sadly, serves as an example here). In situations like these, a concept as abstract as freedom of speech can transform itself into consequences that are painfully real. Suddenly, we jump from the cloud of our intellectual debate onto a gloomy ground of reality.
For a piece as short as this, there are undoubtedly many question marks. But let’s make space for the last ones: What do YOU think? And why do you think so? Visit us on Facebook (facebook.com/TheCEUWeekly) and express your opinion by leaving a comment on this very article – as respectfully as university students can write, of course. Let’s discuss delicate issues and allow different opinions to coexist, like they do in open societies.
Justina Poškevičiūtė
Political Science
Lithuania
0 comments:
Post a Comment