Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to They do not understand "Freedom of the Press".

So people who object to something published have no right to say so?
Mary Anne — (archived)

Stipulating, as I have throught this thread, that violence is not acceptable:

Or any other freedom either. Just the "Submission" to "divine" (read "crackpot") authority.

Do you think all religiously-motivated protests are directed by crackpot authority, or only Muslim ones? Do you think this of the prayer meetings equally with the street marches, and the street marches that involve peaceful protest equally with the ones that have become violent?

When a group that has been vilified and degraded for a long time has an issue like this thrust upon them, and a significant (or at least vocal) number of outsiders attack an important part of group identity, the chances of there being an internal dialog in the group about the importance of the attack is greatly reduced by mockery from outsiders. People tend to close ranks in the face of criticism from the outside. The "get a sense of humor" remarks and general expression of glee from Westerners, though legal and I suppose gratifying to the people who make them, are not helpful. The group will find their point of understanding on their own through intragroup dialog, or not at all. Stop the dialog with mockery, and nothing goes forward.

Freedom of the press is ensconced, in American tradition, in the First Amendment, which also protects individual free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Muslims apparently understand that the group are all connected, that is, the way one of the freedoms is exercised is subject to criticism using another one. Freedom of the press was used to challenge the religious freedom of Muslims not to have representations of Mohammed displayed. Muslims are using individual free speech and freedom of assembly to criticize the way freedom of the press was used, as they see it, to abridge their freedom of religion. Ditch one, you ditch 'em all.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean that everything published must be swallowed without comment by people offended or injured by it.

Neither does support for freedom of the press mean that one must support everything published, but merely must support the right exercised to publish it. Voltaire said it well: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (73 posts)