In the Muhammad cartoon situation, I think a number of different problems or questions are unnecessarily being conflated together, when it would be best if our consideration of them were kept separate and distinct.
First, there is a question of policy: should a newspaper have the right to print the broadest possible range of material, even material that upsets some people, or insults their religious or cultural beliefs? To that, the post-Enlightenment Western World should of course answer "Yes, without any doubt."
(Of course, this question is easiest to answer for those who are free-speech or First Amendmendment absolutists, or who, like me, come quite close to that position. It's complicated, however, by the fact that many European countries have laws against hate speech, or denying the Holocaust, or which in some other way restrict speech in ways that we don't generally do here, where speech is restricted primarily by social inhibitions -- which is frequently a much stronger and more wide-ranging censor. That Europeans are not allowed to propagandize in ways that are anti-Semetic, but can publish cartoons which are perceived to be anti-Islamic, would surely rankle were I a devout Muslim.)
Second, there is the question of civility: is it civil, or polite, or politically correct to publish cartoons which depict the Propher Muhammad, when such depictions are certain to cause some Muslims (perhaps a sizable minoroty) to be angry or uncomfortable? The answer is, again quite clearly, "No, it was not a civil thing to do." This was a point that Atrios made when he wrote that it's best not to be an asshole when it comes to other people's political beliefs.
(Not everything that can be said, should be said, especially not when urbanized Western civilization relies on a certain amount of mutual politeness or tolerance -- or, at the very least benign disregard -- to keep things on an even keel. For that reason, the cartoons should probably not have been published, even though there should be no law forbidding it.)
This brings us to the third problem, the question of motive: Why, given the potentially inflammatory nature of the cartoons, was the decision made to publish them? I'm far from informed about the nature of the local politics, but I've read a number of claims that the newspapers that published them is a right-wing rag, and their purpose was to deliberately insult Muslims and perhaps to incite them as well. If that is indeed the case, then we can say that whatever their legal right to disseminate them, morally and ethically they should not have done so, and deserve public censure -- but not prosecution -- for their decision to do so.
Fourth, there is the question of reaction: What is a legitimate response to such a provocation, whether deliberate or accidental? There are many choices of how to respond: editorials, speeches, rallies, protests, boycotts or the response in kind, with anti-Western or anti-Christian or anti-Danish cartoons designed to insult. Almost anything, in fact, could be considered to be a legitimate response except the ones that have been taken, namely riots, violence and destruction.
Finally, this is the question of tolerance: Do Muslims have the reasonable expectation in the public arena of being shielded from those things which their religions forbids them to do? No, not in a pluralistic Western society, which almost anything one can think of will be considered to be insulting or taboo to somebody. Everyone has the right to be free from those things in their own homes, or in their freely joined private associations (if all members are in agreement as to the restrictions), but no one can or should be guaranteed not to be exposed to things they disapprove of, or which cause them religious or cultural anguish. The Western society must be very stingy about accepting taboos, and should only do so when interests of public safety, security or health are at risk, never on the basis of any one group's religious or moral beliefs (even the majority group).
There is no contradiction is saying that the publishers should have the right to publish those cartoons, whatever their contents and for whatever motivation, but that they should be subject to public disapproval and condemnation for having chosen to do so, but that at the same time, the violent and aggresive response by the Muslim street is unwarranted and wrong.
Addenda: Let me add that I'm completely aware that such an analysis as this, one which attempts to look at many different aspects of a situation, and which strives for fairness to all parties, is precisely the kind of thing which has been diagnosed as one of the problems of American liberalism. It's said that it's not possible to put such complex and sometimes convoluted arguments up against the simplistic and emotionally satisfying solutions favored by right-wing propagandists and win the support of the electorate and, perhaps as importantly, the media.
I don't know what to do about that. I'm as capable as the next person of emotional outbursts and simplistic thinking, but rationality is still my preferred mode of operation (most of the time), and sometimes complicated situations just can't be explored or explained except by complex arguments.
Of course "Everyone's wrong" is a pretty simple summary.
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.
