How Sacred Is This Sacred Cow?
By Azher Quader
Chicago, IL
We are repeatedly told that free speech is a sacred cow in the functioning of our open and free civil society. But we are also reminded that there are certain limits to the exercise of this important right in our democratic society which is based on the rule of law.
The usual example given to bolster this argument is that we cannot call ‘fire’ when there is no fire, in a crowded theater, which can lead to a stampede when the crowd tries to hit a few exit doors, crushing some and hurting many as a result of the panic it creates. So the limit on the exercise of this free speech is clearly the feared outcome and its inevitable consequences.
We are also told that if we exercise this right and it is perceived as a threat to the life and security of a public official, we may and can be censored, fined or jailed. Of course depending upon the status of that public figure, this right may be censored even when there is no such imminent threat to life. Like when someone shouted “you lie” in the midst of President Obama’s Health Care speech to both houses of congress in 2009, and was loudly reprimanded by both Republicans and Democrats. Congressman Joe Wilson (R South Carolina) later apologized to the president for showing ‘lack of civility’.
Then again there is the examples of some famous whistle blowers who have found this protection so questionable that they have left their homely havens of free speech to live in the protected territories of such less freedom loving nations as Russia and the Ecuadorian embassy. The embarrassing stories of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are regularly brought to our attention by Amy Goodman and associates of Democracy Now, who never fail to point out the inescapable hypocrisy of our position in the defense of this sacred cow.
Two years ago when Snowden started exercising his free speech right, the argument was that his disclosures were a threat to our national security and hence he should be punished under the law, if he returns. No such threats have materialized thus far. A lot of threats to the peace and privacy of ordinary citizens came to light though, as a result of the widespread intrusions of our agencies, abusing the powers granted to them under, regrettably again under our own system of laws.
The bizarre logic of free speech took another dangerous turn when our Supreme Court declared free speech and money are equal, giving big money unbridled power to corrupt legally and influence our political system. The argument goes that money is needed to communicate ideas and if money is restricted in political campaigns it is like restricting the flow of ideas and the exercise of free speech. Further, since corporations have previously been defined by the court as people, they also can exercise their first amendment right to free speech and spend money freely without any limits. The result to our political system from the exercise of this form of free speech is clearly evident in the corrupting influence of money, which now resides with super rich individuals.
All this background on free speech has to come finally forward to the realm of journalistic and satirical free speech, the exercise of which has led to the recent tragedy in France where 12 innocent lives were lost, plus the death of two perpetrators, who were later killed in a shoot out with the police. The shooting occurred at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, a well known French satirical magazine firm, which had on several occasions published cartoons depicting and denigrating the Prophet of Islam.
The Western world has witnessed this show of violence provoked by this kind of free speech on multiple occasions in the past and yet remains indifferent to the sensitivities of over a billion Muslims globally. This is of course not a new phenomenon. The violent reactions to Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ and the mass protests in the Muslim world, in which over 50 died, that followed the publication of the Danish Cartoons are some better known examples from our times.
Reasonable people would not cling to the logic of free speech, when they see such reactions within the Muslim communities, if their heads are not buried in the sands of arrogance. This is not a constitutional issue for most Muslims, which is anchored in the hallowed grounds of journalistic freedoms. Nor is it a matter of tolerance embracing the rights of others. Denigration of their Prophet (pbuh) is a deeply painful experience that is hurtful to their religious consciousness. For over fourteen centuries Muslims have passionately protected from depiction, any images of their Prophet (pbuh) from appearing anywhere, to avoid being overtaken by the desire for image worship. The personhood of their Prophet (pbuh) is revered and loved by them, because of its many human perfections, and when there are any attempts to distort or damage that reality, they will likely always respond with the same degree of disapproval.
So this sacred cow may graze wherever else we permit it to graze, but sadly when it wanders into this Muslim pasture, it will remain an unwelcome intruder.
(Azhar Quader is President, Community Builders Council, Chicago)
