|
February 08, 2006
Legality is not morality
The editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten has decided to print Iran's Holocaust cartoons: February 8, 2006 (NEW YORK) - The Danish editor behind the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that ignited deadly riots in the Muslim world said Wednesday he's trying to coordinate with an Iranian paper soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust.I have a question: would your average American newspaper be more willing to publish Iran's Holocaust cartoons than the Danish Muhammad cartoons? I think so, and I think so would many bloggers. Once again, I think it's primarily because of fear. While most bloggers who might publish Iran's Holocaust cartoons would be doing so as a way of expressing disgust and disagreement, the fact is, they wouldn't be afraid of publishing them. In the case of the Danish cartoons, whether they're published in order to express disagreement isn't considered relevant; the general idea seems to be whether or not they dare to be published. In my earlier discussion of Iran's Holocaust cartoon festival, I didn't mean to suggest any moral equivalency between Holocaust cartoons and the Danish caricatures of Muhammad or logical relationship between the subject material of the cartoons; only that they're both forms of speech. (Legally, at least in the United States, both types of cartoons are protected by the First Amendment, which is generally blind to the moral implications of free speech.) Meryl Yourish has a lot more on the merits and the moral implications, pointing out not only that there isn't any logical relationship between the Holocaust cartoons and the Muhammad cartoons, but that the moral context is completely different: Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the publication of the cartoons. The fact that the Iranians plan to hold a Holocaust cartoon contest is utterly irrelevant to the issues at hand. But not to the AP, which will turn itself into pretzels trying to explain how the issues are similar.They are presented without context, and the context is of course vital to understanding the moral implications. The European laws against Holocaust denial (which I disagree with) were enacted to prevent a resurgence in Nazi activities, and it isn't fair to compare them to purely religious laws. I think the reason they're getting away with it is because of an open season on Jews. There's nothing to fear. In logic, Holocaust denial is about as relevant to depictions of Muhammad as would be pornography. The only thing it has in common is that both touch on the applicability of laws regulating speech. But suppose the Iranian mullahs held a "child rape cartoon contest," and then dared the Western press to print the results lest they be guilty of "hypocrisy." Wouldn't that be dismissed out of hand as an irrelevant and ridiculous argument? I suspect it would. (Now that I think about it, that hypothetical is not so far from the mark, as I'd be willing to bet that the Iranian cartoons will include the old blood libel about Jews murdering children to drink their blood. Which means, I guess, that the hypothetical would only be seen as ridiculous if non-Jews were depicted as the rapists. Violence against Jews, of course, is usually given a pass. "That's just part of the Arab culture. We have to be understanding.") The First Amendment does protect free speech, of course, which includes the right to insult the prophet, deny the Holocaust, and maintain the earth is flat. That's a far cry from saying these things are the same. What about that great religious leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? He visited the death camps, and obviously thought Hitler was doing God's work. [Or would that have been Muhammad's?] Here he is, meeting with Adolf Hitler: Hmmmm.... Maybe the Iranians are unwittingly making a moral equivalency argument after all. MORE: Via Pajamas Media and Solomonia, I see that an Egyptian Newspaper published the cartoons! In October -- and not a word of protest. Talk about manufactured outrage! Here's one of them: Almost feel like saying "Heh." Rarely have I seen such rank hypocrisy. The Grand Mufti would be proud. UPDATE: In what's starting to seem like a bizarre comedy, now it's no Iranian Holocaust cartoons! The Culture Editor has been overruled by the Editor in chief of Jyllands-Posten: The top editor of the Danish newspaper whose caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad sparked rage throughout the Islamic world said Wednesday the daily would not reprint Holocaust cartoons being solicited by an Iranian newspaper.It's looking like just about everyone has been had in one way or another in what Austin Bay correctly spotted as an information war operation. I'm glad they're showing some spine. posted by Eric on 02.08.06 at 05:29 PM
Comments
While I agree with rodander, the Good in this case is exposing those who would slit our throats for simply disagreeing with them, while there still may be a chance to stop them from doing so. gus3 · February 8, 2006 07:50 PM While we're talking about the fears that silence the MSM, let's be clear on one thing: the MSM here are not merely afraid for their employees' lives; they're afraid of being blamed for any violence against US troops in response to cartoons printed in the US. And they are, in fact, right to be afraid; remember the Newweek fiasco? If anything bad happens in Iraq, Bush and his supporters will jump at any excuse to resort to their default-position: "Everything is the fault of our traitorous librul MSM!!" Raging Bee · February 9, 2006 10:30 AM Oops, that's "Newsweek," not "Newweek." Sorry... Raging Bee · February 9, 2006 10:31 AM The Newsweek "Koran flushing" story is very different, as the facts were at issue, whereas these cartoons are opinion and speak for themselves. Austin Bay adressed this earlier today.
Eric Scheie · February 9, 2006 07:52 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Sadly, many interpret the "right" to do something as a statement by the Gov't that the something is a Good. In other words, they illogically conclude that because governments prohibit things that are bad, things that are not, or cannot be, prohibited by the Gov't must be good.