When considering freedom of expression in the US, it seems to me that every hateful bigot has the right to spread his killing words and feel protected by the constitution and by those naive liberals who are trapped in thinking that their first duty is to protect Free expression no matter what...Two recent examples- Michelle Malkin's hateful video on Muslims and the Columbine father accusing the scientific teachings in public schools for being responsible for the shootings - show how hate and bigotry can reach the national stage without provoking any debate other than that of the freedom of expression...It seems as if this principle is an all or none principle.Well it is actually not when it comes to the criticism of Israel. The cartoon here is from Latuff (Thanks FurGaia)
Tony Judt, a prominent antagonist of the Israel Lobby, was prevented from speaking on october 4th on the lobby in a space rented from the Polish consulate on the basis that he and others, speaking on the Israel lobby, are encouraging anti-semitism. The accusation, which is being defended by Chris Hitchens, came from the ADL, assorted with an implicit threat of legal action.
I think we are going through a process of radicalisation of the public opinion by which honest debates about important matters like the war on Iraq, Lebanon and the situation in the middle east in general are suppressed, information is held from the public by both authorities and news outlets, while everything else from hateful anti-Muslim expressions to provocations and manipulations are unleashed without any reasonable restraint.
In this context, it is very dangerous to leave the debate where it is now, at the level of an unconditional protection of free expression, without trying to regain equal rights for all individuals, to reestablish balance in the public debate and accountablility from our newsmen and women and our leaders.
Freedom of expression was established in a context in which other equally important rights were established; the right to be informed and the duty to inform, the right to exercise one's own civic and democratic responsibilities and the duties that go with them; the right to defend oneself from attacks and the right to be defended against attacks; the right to have access to courts and legislation that protect the citizen and the duty to keep laws and legislations in the sevice of justice. Without the democratic state there can be no democratic virtues. We just have to ask ourselves, are we living the democratic promise in the US right now ? I believe not since George Bush was elected. So lets work to reestablish our basic democratic rights before giving the right to free expression to someone like Ms Malkin.
I would like to quote here Jean Baubérot French historian who teaches the history of Seculairsm at the École Pratique des Hautes Études. Commenting on the recent controversy around the anti-Islamic and offensive publication of Robert Redeker's article and the ensuing controversy, Baubérot writes in Le Monde: '' We are walking on a road lined by two precipices and I am afraid that the intellectuals who defend the freedom of speech of Redeker and the likes are seeing only one precipice and walking backward so horrified from it to fall in the one they did not want to see.''
Defending unconditionally free speech in the actual context amounts to an irresponsible surrender motivated only by fear of what we know to fall in the darkness of what we don't want to face and try to know better.
Since March 29th 2006