Cartoons did not defend free speech
Feb 15, 2006
DEMONSTRATIONS have continued in various cities in the world condemning the publication of cartoons ridiculing Prophet Muhammad.
DEMONSTRATIONS have continued in various cities in the world condemning the publication of cartoons ridiculing Prophet Muhammad.
From London to Damascus to Nairobi and Karachi, thousands have reacted to the publication in a Danish newspaper last September and the subsequent republication in a number of European newspapers of a series of cartoons ridiculing Islam’s most revered personality.
The newspapers that published the cartoons justified their actions on the grounds of free speech — that in a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by the law. Granted. But newspapers do not exist in isolation — blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every single day the media decides on the balance of boldness, taste, discretion and recklessness. It decides what can be published or aired and what cannot. The initial publishers must have known that depicting Muhammad as a terrorist would enrage Muslims.
And that has turned out to be so. And where free speech is cherished, notably in the countries where those publications operate but elsewhere as well, this may have the unintended consequence of sharpening censors’ knives.
Self-regulation is important — where there is no self-discipline, governments tend to practice it on behalf of the media practitioners. An excess of censorship is not good.
We all cherish the civilisation we live in — sacrificing some freedom to live together in harmony. The media still has to balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others. There are ethical and legal parameters that help govern what can be said and not said — the laws of libel and slander, fair comment, right of reply, not stirring racial hatred and, in Uganda’s case, not stirring sectarianism. There must be judgement at all times.
The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy. In this case, publishing the cartoons undermined free speech.
From London to Damascus to Nairobi and Karachi, thousands have reacted to the publication in a Danish newspaper last September and the subsequent republication in a number of European newspapers of a series of cartoons ridiculing Islam’s most revered personality.
The newspapers that published the cartoons justified their actions on the grounds of free speech — that in a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by the law. Granted. But newspapers do not exist in isolation — blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every single day the media decides on the balance of boldness, taste, discretion and recklessness. It decides what can be published or aired and what cannot. The initial publishers must have known that depicting Muhammad as a terrorist would enrage Muslims.
And that has turned out to be so. And where free speech is cherished, notably in the countries where those publications operate but elsewhere as well, this may have the unintended consequence of sharpening censors’ knives.
Self-regulation is important — where there is no self-discipline, governments tend to practice it on behalf of the media practitioners. An excess of censorship is not good.
We all cherish the civilisation we live in — sacrificing some freedom to live together in harmony. The media still has to balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others. There are ethical and legal parameters that help govern what can be said and not said — the laws of libel and slander, fair comment, right of reply, not stirring racial hatred and, in Uganda’s case, not stirring sectarianism. There must be judgement at all times.
The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy. In this case, publishing the cartoons undermined free speech.