Global Community Issues

Articles

Cartoons strain freedom's limits

Opinion by Srinivas Aravamudan
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Feb. 8, 2006

Many Americans seem to view the Muslim protests against cartoons about the prophet Muhammad as the actions of wild-eyed fundamentalists with little regard for democratic freedoms such as free speech.

I'm not a Muslim myself. I'm a United States citizen who was brought up in India, where there can be considerable freedom of expression amid cross-religious understanding and deference, as well as deadly religious riots when understanding breaks down.

I disagree with any violent protests that primarily seek to silence another person. But I confess these protests in the Middle East remind me of outbursts I've seen before, coming from some of the same Americans who are now clucking about intolerance in the Muslim world.

Think about this: How might you react if I began this piece with a few tasteless jokes about the Holocaust, slavery or child sexual abuse? Or illustrated it with Andres Serrano's artwork depicting a crucifix submerged in urine?

Don't worry. I'm not going to do any such thing, and even if I wanted to, it is unlikely that this newspaper would publish it. Does that restrict my freedom of speech? Most definitely not. Freedom from government censorship is different from the decisions media outlets make every day balancing news with their responsibility to a broader public.

What the controversy demonstrates, though, is there are standards of taste in any society that help prevent the needless broadcast of inflammatory or tasteless speech. Of course, if you feel deprived of racism, anti-

Semitism or kiddie porn in your local newspaper, you need not look very far. Just remove the filters from your Internet search engine.

The cartoons initially published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were commissioned by the editor, who claimed there was too much deference to Muslim sensibilities in the press. Subsequent republications around Europe have sparked deadly protests, rioting and threats of retaliation in a number of countries, including Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Palestinian areas, Syria, Lebanon and Indonesia.

Interestingly, while the story has received wide coverage in the United States, the first American newspapers published the cartoons just this week. The U.S. print media seem more responsible than the Europeans in this regard.

At the same time, I think some of these cartoons are actually interesting, as they are not all the same, and they don't all mean the same thing. (You can easily find them on the Internet.)

One portrays a rather ominous-looking Muhammad almost hidden behind his mustache and facial hair with a lit fuse for his bomb-shaped turban. This is clearly racist, playing into the stereotype of the Muslim as a terrorist. It recalls the hook-nosed Jews of anti-Semitic portraiture.

Another cartoon shows the prophet, arms outstretched, telling a line of burned-out suicide bombers approaching heaven: "Stop, stop. We ran out of virgins!"

This cartoon could obviously be read as anti-Islamic, as it suggests that suicide bombing is essentially Muslim. However, there are subtler possibilities.

The prophet's reaction implicitly criticizes the bombers who take the mythical idea of virgins in paradise too literally. It ridicules suicide bombers for committing their acts for something as ridiculous as sex in the hereafter. These readings might suggest that Muhammad (and Islam) is not directly responsible for the phenomenon of suicide bombing.

If we find these cartoons funny, it tells us more about ourselves — our prejudices and our fears — than it necessarily tells us about Muslims or the prophet. Defenders of the cartoons suggest that if Muslims don't find these cartoons funny, they could be a provocation for a dialogue about intolerance within Islam.

But last time I checked in the playground, you don't start a dialogue with an insult. And, to reach for another religious metaphor, it is easier to focus on the mote in the other's eye than the beam in one's own.

The intransigence of free-speech fundamentalism is often racism wrapped in liberal sanctimony. I am not suggesting that we should not be able to criticize Islam, Christianity or any other religion vigorously. Indeed, that's what free speech can be about. But unchecked, it can also be very dangerous.

What the controversy ultimately tells us is that speech can indeed be free, but not everything is always appropriate for every forum.

The message to the global media is no different from the one we might give ourselves: Don't repeat everything you hear to everybody. And don't forward dirty e-mail jokes to Aunt Bertha.

Srinivas Aravamudan is director of the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University.

Copyright 2006 The Atlanta Journal Constitution. More information: www.ajc.com.

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information, visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.