NYCLifeinaFishbowl
By
Antony Chow
Today's
comic:
Commentary:
Today's commentary is devoted to a discussion (ok, my monologue) on the
protests over the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that were
originally published in a Danish newspaper last September.
From my personal experience dealing with Europeans (both East
and West), I know that they have very different views from Americans,
and I will refrain from commenting on what's happening overseas.
For America, the most interesting aspect is the intersection of free
speech rights, and freedom/respect for religious beliefs. An
overwhelming majority of American media has declined to reprint the
offensive cartoons, perhaps as a sign of respect for their Muslim
readers, or as a nod to religious sensitivies. A very small
number of
American media, however, has reprinted these cartoons, claiming an
exercise of free speech rights, and a refusal to cower over to a show
of
force and violence by protesters.
So who is right? I think the starting point is the right to
free speech and its limits in America: you have the right to free
speech, but are responsible for such exercise. For example,
you have the right to call out "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but
you are responsible if a stampede results as people try to get out of
the
theater. The law of defamation builds on this idea of
responsible exercise---you can say what you want about a person, but if
the statement is false and proves harmful to that person's reputation,
you are (monetarily) responsible for the resulting harm.
These two examples clearly demonstrate the restraints in free
speech
rights in America.
How does this principle relate to publication of the caricatures?
In America, the publishers are also bound by these
restraints. The publication of these caricatures have already
been proven to incite violence overseas. Thus if an American
newspaper decides to republish them as an exercise of free speech, that
American publisher is responsible for any acts of violence that results
from protests incited by such publication. The overwhelming
majority of American publishers understood this principle, and no doubt
it was part of the reason why they refused to reprint the offensive
caricatures.
Yet, a small number of publishers still decided to do so. In
my opinion, by publishing these reprints, they have FAILED to excercise
professional judgment. They have needlessly placed their
publications at risk of liability for inciting violent protests, and in
doing so failed their duty of care as managers to the ownership of the
publications. In short, the few American publishers who
reprinted these caricatures should be forced to resign.
