Free Speech in America

The Danish cartoon saga has placed the US media in a fantastic pickle over the competing cherished American imperatives of free speech and politically correct self-censorship.  So far only one major media organisation - the Philadelphia Inquirer - has published the offending cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. 

The approach of the rest was captured by the New York Times in an editorial yesterday, a characteristically pompous and ponderous piece of chin-stroking sanctimony.

News organisations, it noted, were right to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols". That homily raised a few eyebrows among those who remember The Times's lovingly recaptured depictions of works of art such as a crucifix in a vat of urine or an icon of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.  But we'll come back to that later.

The reticence, combined as it has been with fervent expressions of support for the principle (if not the practice ) of free speech, offers a useful glimpse of the modern American elite's attitudes towards freedom of expression and the limits thereto. 

The truth is that, despite the insistence that free speech is sacrosanct, public discourse in America is in fact hemmed in by some of the most restrictive, if self-imposed or socially-enforced, censorship anywhere in the free world. 

Some of this is quite proper.  Take the infamous word, n----r for example, the offensive slang word (when used by non-blacks) for a black person. This word has become simply unpublishable in the American media.   No newspaper or television network in the country will use it. Even in reported speech, it becomes "the n word".

The idea behind this - avoiding forms of expression saturated with abusive meaning and a hateful history - seems perfectly reasonable, though it can be carried to extremes.  A few years ago a Washington DC government official was forced to resign for using the word "niggardly", a term of absolutely no etymological relevance to the offending word, but one that just happens to suffer from a homophonic element.

But this self-imposed limit to free expression is an essential component of American social and political cohesion.  In an ethnically diverse country, with a long and dishonourable history of racial discrimination, it's right that the the language of public discourse has been steadily scrubbed clean in the last 30 years of potentially explosive terminology.   It is not just semantic censorship either. The heightened sensitivity extends into most forms of cultural expression so that ethnic stereotyping - even of the most benign sort - is generally forbidden. You can't , for example, imagine US TV networks broadcasting a comedy such as the hit British series, "Goodness Gracious Me" that affectionately but sometimes quite cruelly, send up the foibles of a particular ethnic group.

When it comes to religion, the American media preach the same creed, but practise somewhat differently. Not unreasonably,  some would say. Attacking or ridiculing someone for what they believe is obviously less objectionable than attacking them for what they are. 

This is true, but then why the double-standards? Why yes to Piss Christ and Elephant Dung Mary, but no to bomb-turbanned Mohammed?  Why are so many American media companies happily making money from the  Da Vinci Code, whose predicate, in case you're one of the twelve people who haven't read it, is that the Catholic Church was founded on a lie about the divinity and teachings of Christ, a lie that has been enforced through the centuries by murder, torture, and war?

Some have suggested it is about the power of fear and the limitations of cowardice.  Angry nuns and irritated members of Opus Dei don't burn down newspaper offices.  Some Moslems just might.  There may be something to this but it surely doesn't go far enough.

Part of the explanation may lie in the fact that in America Christianity is still the powerful, majority religion, and that attacking or undermining majorities is, in some ways , an essential and even a noble aspect of democratic discourse.
Perhaps.

But I think the main explanation is simply that this is another aspect of the steady corruption and alienation of many of those in positions of power and influence in the media in America - and Britain.  People who have succumbed, in varying degrees, to the self-loathing that is ready to challenge, attack and ridicule anything its own society has traditionally held dear, while defending, exonerating and praising anything that challenges it - however noxious that may be.

Comments

[John W. Smith]

Mr. Baker, you hit the nail on the head! Remember as well the U.S. press coverage of Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Most press agencies did all they could to discredit Mr. Gibson (his father was attacked) and create controversy by putting an anti-semetic spin on things. If the press truly wanted to be free and independent they would all publish the cartoons in question so as to take the heat off of those newspapers who have published them (mostly on the European continent). Thanks you.

[Pan Kolanis]

Yes, I agree with the author article that more than a merely subliminal cowardice has permeated the psyche of western media professionals. At botton this is the essence of that matter - what does Islam have to offer us? Who, among these media people, wouldl become a moslem. I daresay in their quiet moment they deplore it - which publically contesting that we tolerate it. Tolerate it, yes. But when some nobody can place a crucifix in piss and call it art, then we are a sick society.

[Ben C]

Freedom of the press works two ways. They have the right to say, just as they have the right not to.

The publications of America choose not to reprint the pieces. This is thier right. They still discuss the pieces and why they are offensive, but stop short of actualy showing them.

I think this is good judgement on their part.

Ben
Boston MA, USA

[Frodo]

Excellent article, but one that applies equally to the cowardly British media. It's shameful how editors have bowed en masse to the yammerings of a vociferous minority. The message it sends to extremists is that all they have to do is scream and shout and the West will obediently bend to their will.

Enough.

[Nathan Orth]

Bravo!!! Finally someone who tells it like it is. We need you, Mr. Baker, to start writing for U.S. papers. You hit the point dead on the head. Thank you.

[Mike Godfrey]

America seems to be a nation of complex morals that defy European understanding. Excessive violence in films and on television is the norm whilst subtle sexual innuendo, justifiable nudity or un-edited Men Behaving Badly is over the top for TV viewers. The excessive religous beliefs in places like Texas is at odds with gun ownership and the killings that follow. Clinton was impeached for lying about a minor sexual indiscretion but Bush gets away with lying about WMD and indirectly causes over 2000 US troops to be killed in Iraq. In some ways its almost as difficult to understand this as the furore over the cartoons published around the EU last week. Can anyone explain this ?

[Stephen M. Mattei]

Gerard,
I loved your editorial and I think that you hit the nail on the head. By the way I am an American citizen and I do take offense in our sacred institutions of free expression and basic republican, system of government not party, values founded in natural law being diluted or unevenly applied in the attempt of, pardon the phrase, white washing our culture. In fact I too have conceded to this pressure in my previous statement which is evidence of the social programming we have put in place that is benignly referred to as political correctness. There is nothing benign about the practice and it is resulting in a delusion of what made America interesting as well as an innovator. Political correctness is nothing more than a way of lying to one’s self. It eliminates the chance for real progress.

I would like to say on a different note that I take issue with the inference of your statement “with a long and dishonourable history of racial discrimination”. It implies in context that you, as an Englishman, are speaking from a place of moral impunity. Anyone that has even the most cursorily knowledge of history knows that Britain has had much more experience at this sin that America has even been afforded the opportunity to commit. If need be I could provide some highlights from England’s history to refresh your memory. This is not to say that what you said was not true, but instead my only issue was with the air of moral superiority inferred in the presentation. Outside of that one comment I found you article to be a delight.

Have a wonderful day and I will be looking forward to your next article.

[Bernard Harris]

Excellent article. you will recall, no doubt, what happened when, a year or so back, the Chicago Tribune published a cartoon that refered to US aid to Israel. It was branded as anti-semitic, the cartoonist and, I think, the commissioning editor were fired.There following weeks of painful abasement in editorials.

[Dan Rohret]

Gerard Baker is absolutely correct. The New York Times is an organization run by a group of people best described as
"Useful Idiots", a term coined by Stalin to describe the western leftests love affair with communism. Today's "useful idiots" are found clinging to any and all thoughts that are anti-western, and particularly anti-American.

A " Useful Idiot", by it's very nature is irrational. There is no sense in trying to rationalize their ramblings- be it in the New York Times or anywhere else.

The irrationality of the "Useful Idiot" manifests itself in in many ways, one of which is the contradictory treatment of religion.

[Aamir Ali]

Americans are far more courteous,accepting and sensitive a nation that British/Europeans. This is the reason that despite enormous religious and ethnic diversity, people by and large live in harmony with each other and the children of immigrants view themselves as Americans. The media has chosen not to publish the cartoons since they recognize the original purpose of the cartoons was to deliberately insult and provoke Muslims. American media does not need to defend its "free speech" rights since they are not under assault, and neither is european media.

[Eric Laimins]

No wonder us Americans are so grateful for our deep friendship with Britons: you, among other things, see aspects of ourselves that we may not. Well done, Mr Baker.

One comment regarding your summation. Beyond the "self-loathing" of the media "elite", and I use that term very loosely indeed, and of which I agree, there is also the matter the many tens of thousands of American troops are at this very moment stationed in Islam-dominated countries, trying very hard to rebuild these countries and turn them into functioning democracies.

No one here, the media power elite included, want to make matters more difficult for them and those efforts.

Eric
Plymouth, MA
New England
USA

[Jessamine Welsh, Greenville, SC]

Mr. Baker,

Thank you so much for your recent comments on the hypocricy of the US media. I particularly enjoyed how you put into words a notion I have been grappling with for some time, namely that "attacking or ridiculing someone for what they believe is obviously less objectionable than attacking them for what they are." This lays open one of the founding problems with political correctness. Well done.

While I also agree publications like The New York Times tread on very thin ice when critisizing those who print these ridiculous cartoons, I think you have overlooked one glaring fact. To my knowledge, The NY Times has not in modern times ever called for a contest of cartoonists to see who could best debase and insult one of the world's major religions. When some misguided wanna-be decides to make an "artistic" exposition of Jesus Christ floating in a vat of piss, the creation is for personal reasons(or demons). It is not created at the invitation of some major newspaper. It is certainly freedom of speech to PRINT photographic evidence of such controversial work. But that next step of INVITING such insulting expositions really crosses a big boundary in my mind. To me, such an invitation is tantamount to fomenting hatred by an institution that is supposed to do nothing more than provide an unbiased accounting of the world around us. And all this, after the politically correct among us have worked sooo hard convincing the masses we are at war with a few fanatical terrorists, NOT Islam in general....

[Eric Laimins]

No wonder us Americans are so grateful for our deep friendship with Britons: you, among other things, see aspects of ourselves that we may not. Well done, Mr Baker.

One comment regarding your summation. Beyond the "self-loathing" of the media "elite", and I use that term very loosely indeed, and of which I agree by the way, there is also the matter of the many tens of thousands of American troops that are at this very moment stationed in Islam-dominated countries, trying very hard to rebuild these countries and turn them into functioning, forward looking, democracies.

No one here, and most if not all of the media power elite included, want to make matters more difficult for those efforts abroad.

Eric
Plymouth, MA
New England
USA

[Ian Nicoll]

I agree with Mr. Ali from a few comments above. The reprinting of these cartoons don't seem to represent a logical defense of free speech to me. Go ahead and discuss them in print, defend Jyllands Posten's right to print them but I applaud the American media's decision to exercise their freedom of speech NOT to run the cartoons. It is just as Neo-Nazis technically have the right hold a demonstration but you won't find people brandishing swastikas in defense of that right.

Ian
Valencia, Spain

[LR Andrews]

God bless you, Mr. Baker. I suffer through the New York Times every day (as per Vito Corleone's dictum to keep your enemies closer), and fume at their shameless hypocracy with regard to political correctness. It is so uplifting for someone of your stature to reveal the nakedness of this particular self-appointed Emperor.

Please get a regular column here in the states. We need you. I recommend the New York Sun, an excellent counterweight to the intellectually-bankrupt Times.

[Andres Kupfer]

Gerard

Good post. I would speculate that America doesn't feel as threatened, culturally and politically by militant Islam as Europe does. My take is that the primary reason why we should not give up our right to critisize Islam is because Islam is the banner of the reactionary forces of Islamism (political Islam). Mariam Namazie has recently made this point in her blog.

Europe feels threatened by Islamofascists and is reasserting its right to critisise Islam as a weapon against that threat. If Muslims get offended by Europe's use of such weapon, they be more spoken and reclaim Islam for themselves, from the claws of the ultra-conservative Islamists.

If Europe didn't feel culturally, politically, socially and physically threatened by this new fascism, its newspapers wouldn't be trying to make a point. American newspapers aren't trying. America doesn't need to.

[Kjartan Kinch]

Quote:
------------
To my knowledge, The NY Times has not in modern times ever called for a contest of cartoonists to see who could best debase and insult one of the world's major religions.
------------
It was not a contest. The newspaper merely asked a number of cartoonists whether they were willing to draw a cartoon of Mohamed with their name on it (i.e. not anonymously). There was no stipulation that the cartoons needed to be debasing or insulting and many of them cannot be construed as such even with the best will to do so. Indeed some where more critical of the newspaper.

Agree a lot with Andres Kupfer above

[Alison]

Great article. And as you correctly summise in your last paragraph some of the same applies in Britain. I hope that starts to change soon?