Freedom of speech has nothing to do with right or wrong
Authorities has just uncovered a plot by radicals to kill the Swedish artist Lars Vilks because of his, according to some, controversial art. Those familiar with his name will no what kind of radicals want to kill him and why. For anyone else a simple google search will tell you everything you need to know.
Who or why is however, completely irrelevant. The important thing here is freedom of speech. This morning one of the national television stations had a poll whether it would be "right" or "wrong" to publish Vilks' art again after this plot was uncovered. That is also irrelevant.
Freedom of speech can, and should and never will be "right" or "wrong", that's the whole idea behind the concept.
If you say that it is "right" or "wrong" to publish a certain piece of art, or a book or perform a certain act (flag burning for instance) that you indirect and automatically also do both of the following:
First, you tell everyone and anyone that disagrees with the performed act of freedom of speech (or rather, freedom of expression) that they are "wrong" and second that there are some acts that are more worthy of protection than other which in turn could imply that those other acts should not be expressed and thus be subject to censure.
Freedom of speech is not about "right" or "wrong". I know I've said it before but it bears repeating. Freedom of speech is, has been and always should be about being able to express your opinions, regardless of if they're right or wrong. If you don't agree with an opinion you have the very same right to express that but you can never take away another person's right to free speech.
As a law student I could very well go into the legal definitions of the matter and delve deep into the differences between certain freedoms and their individual limitations. That however, is also completely irrelevant. I could, for instance tell you about negative freedoms. For instance, here in Sweden we have freedom of association. That means that anyone is free to create an organization, political party or labor union without restrictions and that no-one can be banned by the government from joining said organization.
This freedom also includes the right NOT to be a part of any organization, political party or labor union that I personally does not want to be a member of. The government can't force me to be a member of "the Party" since that is my choice alone.
Freedom of speech also includes a negative freedom of speech. This right however, does NOT give people the right to ban or in any way attack people who express opinions different than their own. Some people, from right-wing nut-cases who wants to ban flag-burnings to left-wing nut-cases who wants to beat up nazis to religious fundamentals of any and every denomination, seem to think that.
This is, of course, completely and utterly wrong. A negative freedom of speech gives you the right not to listen to anyone whom you don't agree with. It gives you the right to say nothing at all and it gives you the right to totally disregard any and all opinion that you dislike. Be prepared however, that people will do just the same to you and your opinions.
If I walk down the street and someone yells at me "Get a haircut you lazy bum!" it is his right to say that. It is however, in my complete rights to either ignore that remark (negative freedom of speech) or reply with a quip of my own, say "Screw you asshole!" (positive freedom of speech).
So, when someone asks you if you think it's "right" or "wrong" to publish a controversial cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet as a roundabout dog* the correct answer is: It does not matter. What does matter is that people have the option, the possibility and the freedom and right to do so if they want to.
This is a universal truth that everyone should live by. You are of course very welcome to completely ignore everything I just said. ;)
Go in peace.
*A roundabout dog is a Swedish phenomena that occurred a few years ago. People made dogs from wood, plastic or whatever and placed them in roundabouts all over Sweden. A popular but short-lived fad.
Who or why is however, completely irrelevant. The important thing here is freedom of speech. This morning one of the national television stations had a poll whether it would be "right" or "wrong" to publish Vilks' art again after this plot was uncovered. That is also irrelevant.
Freedom of speech can, and should and never will be "right" or "wrong", that's the whole idea behind the concept.
If you say that it is "right" or "wrong" to publish a certain piece of art, or a book or perform a certain act (flag burning for instance) that you indirect and automatically also do both of the following:
First, you tell everyone and anyone that disagrees with the performed act of freedom of speech (or rather, freedom of expression) that they are "wrong" and second that there are some acts that are more worthy of protection than other which in turn could imply that those other acts should not be expressed and thus be subject to censure.
Freedom of speech is not about "right" or "wrong". I know I've said it before but it bears repeating. Freedom of speech is, has been and always should be about being able to express your opinions, regardless of if they're right or wrong. If you don't agree with an opinion you have the very same right to express that but you can never take away another person's right to free speech.
As a law student I could very well go into the legal definitions of the matter and delve deep into the differences between certain freedoms and their individual limitations. That however, is also completely irrelevant. I could, for instance tell you about negative freedoms. For instance, here in Sweden we have freedom of association. That means that anyone is free to create an organization, political party or labor union without restrictions and that no-one can be banned by the government from joining said organization.
This freedom also includes the right NOT to be a part of any organization, political party or labor union that I personally does not want to be a member of. The government can't force me to be a member of "the Party" since that is my choice alone.
Freedom of speech also includes a negative freedom of speech. This right however, does NOT give people the right to ban or in any way attack people who express opinions different than their own. Some people, from right-wing nut-cases who wants to ban flag-burnings to left-wing nut-cases who wants to beat up nazis to religious fundamentals of any and every denomination, seem to think that.
This is, of course, completely and utterly wrong. A negative freedom of speech gives you the right not to listen to anyone whom you don't agree with. It gives you the right to say nothing at all and it gives you the right to totally disregard any and all opinion that you dislike. Be prepared however, that people will do just the same to you and your opinions.
If I walk down the street and someone yells at me "Get a haircut you lazy bum!" it is his right to say that. It is however, in my complete rights to either ignore that remark (negative freedom of speech) or reply with a quip of my own, say "Screw you asshole!" (positive freedom of speech).
So, when someone asks you if you think it's "right" or "wrong" to publish a controversial cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet as a roundabout dog* the correct answer is: It does not matter. What does matter is that people have the option, the possibility and the freedom and right to do so if they want to.
This is a universal truth that everyone should live by. You are of course very welcome to completely ignore everything I just said. ;)
Go in peace.
*A roundabout dog is a Swedish phenomena that occurred a few years ago. People made dogs from wood, plastic or whatever and placed them in roundabouts all over Sweden. A popular but short-lived fad.