History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
David Beito’s post below has sparked a very interesting dialogue on free speech. Below is a response to that discussion.
Let us face the fact that the Syrian demonstrators calling for the beheading of the Danish cartoonist have achieved de facto if not de juror censorship over almost all of the Western press. On the Colbert Report he said they were taking the principled stand to not show those cartoons because they might be killed. Colbert was, of course, going for the laugh but the paper I read The Washington Times did not show the cartoons either. In any other situation, something so central to something so controversial surely would have been shared with the readers or viewers. From a purely news standpoint those drawing should have been printed in every major daily newspaper in the country as well as being shown on the ubiquitous television news programs.
Now, did The Washington Times and so many other papers choose not to run the cartoons because they felt them to be deeply offensive or did they choose not run them because they did not want their editorial boards to end up on some cleric’s list of people it was every Muslim’s duty to murder? Will we ever really know?
What if there were a controversy because the Washington Post printed a graphic cartoon depicting President Bush being fucked up the ass? I don't think it would be reprinted by most newspapers even though it would be newsworthy.
Images that people find really offensive generally don't make it into the media. The only question is whose theory of what's offensive is going to rule. Personally, I think the cartoons were offensive enough that they shouldn't have been printed or be reprintd, though this says nothing about the newspapers' actual reasons for not printing them.
Granted, but I thought we were talking about "credible threats" to our liberties, which threats would seem to require "overt acts". Or is it that those taking the postiion that there is a "credible threat" mean by that there will be or could be [or something even more lame] and overt act by some unidentified person acting due to the inspiration of the demonstrator? [Some link seems to be missing somewhere.]
Sheldon Richman -
2/12/2006
The common law requires that there be an overt act along with a threat in order for it to be consided credible. If a completely paralyzed person threatens to kill someone, the law would not countenance the "threatenee's" shooting the "threatener." Similarly, if guy in Syria holds up a sign saying "Behead the Danish Blasphemer!" the Danish (not to mention the U.S.) government would have no authority to go over and kill that guy or bomb Syria. If someone in Copenhagen holds up such a sign, the cartoonist (and his free-market defense agent) is entitled to watch for overt acts.
Sheldon Richman -
2/12/2006
I wouldn't call that a case of censorship. The publisher is the owner or the agent of the owner, with the ultimate authority to determine what gets printed. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "censor" with words like "authorized" and "official."
But let's not get lost in the semantics. If someone kills or injures someone else for nonviolent expression, the first person is committing an evil. However, it is useful to categorize the sources of such evil.
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
As a lawyer your job is often to obscure meaning. No where in any of my posts until now have I used the expressions free speech or freedom of the press. I am merely saying that the editor in our hypothetical wants to say something in the paper and the publisher has censored him. Since the editor decides not to print the piece the publisher has practiced censorship without government involvement.
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
Why must the solution always be government action? If there is one Danish cartoonist then the threat of violence is credible, however, if every paper in the US and all the TV stations ran the drawings then the threat is much less credible
Craig J. Bolton -
2/12/2006
Suppose you were the editor of a paper and you wanted to run a story saying a certain product was dangerous. The publisher saw the article and called you up saying the maker of the product was a big advertiser and you can not run it. Would you not call this censorship even though there was no government involvement?
=============================
As a lawyer, I would not. We can use words in any way we want, but sometimes a particular usage becomes so encompassing that its obscures rather than clarifies and results in the word having no meaning. It seems to me that is what is going on here.
"Free speech" and "freedom of the press" are terms created to refer to prior restraint by government. They do not refer to the ordinary functionings of a market or the voluntary interactions [or decision not to interact] of peaceable individuals.
On another board right now I am responding to a poster who believes that there is no free speech in the U.S. because the owners of newspapers tell their reporters what to report or not report. Presuming that newspaper owners do engage in this activity, I believe you would have to agree with his conclusion. After all, "free" means "no consequences," right? I presume that there is also no freedom in job choice because you have to do what your employer tells you to do if you work for him?
Craig J. Bolton -
2/12/2006
I believe that your terminological clarification has resolved at least part of my concern over this issue, but there is at least one additional component that I'd like to explore before turning loose of this discussion.
As I understand it many of the posters on this episode [and perhaps even you?] are of the view that the Syrian demonstator who holds up a sign stating [strangely, in English] "Kill the Infidel Cartoonists" is to be taken seriously. I mean by that not merely that he seriously believes what his sign says [because on that point I would immediately agree] but that there is a credible threat that he or one of his sympathizers will in fact attempt to kill one or more of the cartoonists.
So here's my problem: there is no common system of law and enforcement mechanisms between Syria and, say, the United States. Indeed, the government of Syria probably welcomes such demonstations of hatred toward the West so long as the Syrian government isn't obviously implicated as a sponsor and the only thing burned is the embassy of one of those hated Western nations that is reasonably powerless to do anything about the damage.
So, if we have people in Syria making credible threats against our citizens merely because our citizens are exercising their rights, then, ah, what is the policy implication?
To me, an entirely rational implication seems to be that George Bush is right. Not only should we have more limited liberties at home [for instance, the "right" to say "I think that politician should be hung." has got to go, as must the liberty to strongly identify with anyone who would threaten one of our citizens] but we should also encourage our government(s) to go about the world hunting down those who are threatening our citizens.
After all, that's what governments are for, right? They SHOULD hunt down and neutralize those who credibly threaten the lives or property of their citizens, right?
So, given the foregoing, what would be the libertarian objection if George boy ordered the invasion of Syria tomorrow morning, or, at least, after he goes through the formality of demanding that the offending demonstators be "turned over" to U.S. authorities?
It seems to me that there is a "disconnect" here. On the one hand some [many?] libertarians would like to maintain that the street demonstator in Syria who wants to "kill the cartoonists" is credibly likely to kill the cartoonists [either himself or his sympathizers] but, on the other hand, the same libertarian objects to his government doing what its suppose to do about said credible threat.
Now I know, Sheldon, that the above conclusion does not express your views [albeit some of the language used in the two posts above is a bit near the line] but I really don't see how those other people who have posted on this issue by maintaining that there is some vast Muslim conspiracy to suppress free speech through violence everywhere can avoid the conclusion. Maybe someone can help me on this issue?
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
Also I do not think this is a case of self-censorship. Self-censorship is when you do not say or print something because you think there may be adverse consequences. In this case editors know there will be adverse consequences if they print those cartoons.
Suppose you were the editor of a paper and you wanted to run a story saying a certain product was dangerous. The publisher saw the article and called you up saying the maker of the product was a big advertiser and you can not run it. Would you not call this censorship even though there was no government involvement?
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
The online dictionary defines censorship as "The act, process, or practice of censoring." It does not mention anything about government being involved. The proof of censorship lies in what is not seen. What is your explanation for the absence of these cartoons in the American press?
Gary McGath -
2/12/2006
A partial answer to Craig Bolton's question about how many people were targeted is provided in Wikipedia:
"Meanwhile, further violence occurred around the world, with the firebombing of bookstores at the University of California at Berkeley which stocked the novel, and the offices of The Riverdale Press, a weekly newspaper in The Bronx, in response to an editorial which defended the right to read the book. On February 24, five people were shot and killed by the police during a protest outside the British consulate in Bombay. Several other people died in Egypt and elsewhere. Muslim communities throughout the world held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed at the university where he taught in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, north of Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven people died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator."
So far we're seeing more threats than homicidal violence in the present controversy, but certainly publishers haven't forgotten what happened then.
An additional thought: "self-censorship" carries with it the idea that the reason for keeping quiet is fear of the consequences, perhaps violent consequences. I'd rather call that silence through intimidation than self-censorship, which strikes me as a self-contradiction. I don't think of suicide as self-murder.
Sheldon Richman -
2/12/2006
But it does not change the essential point. Although I would not call mob violence against a cartoonist censorship,I would call it an abominable crime. If the mob, being too far away, simply advocated beheading the cartoonist, I would condemn the mob for advocating right-violating violence against a nonaggressor. (State) censorship is not the only evil with regard to freedom of expression.
Craig J. Bolton -
2/12/2006
Finally, someone who wants to use key terms in a nonOrwellian way.
Craig J. Bolton -
2/12/2006
Keith, I think that the last two sentences in your blog entry are much more sensible than the first several sentences. Indeed, we will never truly know whether a given newspaper failed to reprint the cartoons out of fear of violence or because they just thought they were offensive [or maybe that the whole controversy was just silly].
However, I think that we can get a pretty good idea of which view would be more sensible in this way: just how many newpapers that did reprint the cartoons have experienced violence or legal sanctions? How many that popularized the Satanic Verses book of a decade ago were "targeted for violence."?
I really think that we need to think carefully about what is being maintained here. Should we really be taking seriously the ravings of a street rioter in Syria as a credible threat to our liberties? If so, then maybe Bush is right, maybe we should be out policing the world if such threats are credible. Indeed, how do you avoid such a conclusion with the premise that such threats are credible?
For myself, I don't think I'm going to advocate "pre-emptive action" against a crazed person in my home town who advocates "killing all libertarians" or one in Syria. But to each their own. I believe someone once had something to say about the courage to live one's life and liberty, but he was probably an old dead punk white guy who is best ignored in these modern times of new dangers.
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
They did play the Jackson clip on broadcast TV and basic cable but they blurred out the essential part of the screen. If you wanted to see what went out live during the Super Bowl then you had to go to the internet.
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
I believe the Janet Jackson case you describe to be a case of de juror censorship. The broadcast media did not run the live version of the event because of the fact of million dollar fines being handed out by the FCC like candy on Halloween. Basic cable did not play the live clip because it would have added to the argument for FCC regulation of cable TV.
Keith Halderman -
2/12/2006
I think you are talking about de juror censorship and I am talking about de facto censorship. They did not print the cartoons where under normal circumstances they would have.
Sheldon Richman -
2/11/2006
I'd restrict "censorship" to acts of government, just as we restrict "taxation" to acts of government. Taxation is theft, but we don't say all theft is taxation. Similarly, while censorship is prohibiting expression by force or threat of force, not all prohibitions of expression by force or threat of force are censorship (which is not to say they aren't crimes). Likewise, "self-censorship" is strange. Let's just say "keeping quiet" or something similar.
Sheldon Richman -
2/11/2006
Jonathan--I'm not sure what you're saying. I have must seen replays of the Janet's malfunction a million times, even long after the event.
Jonathan Dresner -
2/11/2006
When Janet Jackson had her "offensive" moment, how many media outlets reproduced the offending image? No, you had to go to the blogosphere, to people who'd done screen captures from TiVo feeds.
But woe betide the Steelers fan who depends on Comcast: there's censorship, if you want it.
Anthony Gregory -
2/11/2006
Is that really de facto censorship, though? If someone sends a death threat to a journalist for writing antiwar articles, which seems to me a more direct threat than is posed to western papers afraid of publishing the cartoons, that might very well intimidate him out of publishing something. Is that a censorship issue? Or is it just a matter of a belligerent jerk?
I really want to sort through these issues. I think Roderick made a good point about the difference between advocating violence and threatening it. Where is the line?
