The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

The freedom to offend

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Guest Columnist:

Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)

by Guest Columnist

Monday, February 20, 2006

Controversy has beset The Badger Herald for publishing an editorial accompanied by a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as bomb. Critics have hurled several accusations at the Herald, including questions about the timing of the speech act, the motivations of the editorial board and the claim that the board could have achieved its purpose by describing the image rather than publishing it. Such charges often attend the publication of contentious or offending comments or portrayals and are a proper part of the critical examination of any controversy. Human motivation is often complex, and the decision to publish something controversial is no exception to this fact of life.

But the most prevalent elements of this criticism — that the Herald editors should be punished for showing the cartoon or condemned because the cartoon was blasphemous — are ones that no democratic society should accept. We must resist the idea that the expression of a political idea or a statement of criticism or satire should be subject to sanction or prohibited simply because one group or another finds that idea, criticism or satire offensive.

Many examples of historically important expression caused great offense in their time. Socrates was put to death for blaspheming the Greek and Athenian gods. Galileo was threatened with torture for claiming that the earth was not the center of the universe, an idea that conflicted with the established position of the Church. Martin Luther King was arrested and spied upon for his opposition to Jim Crow. To be sure, most offensive expression does not rise to the level of these paragons of intellectual and moral stature, but there is no principled way to know, in advance, what will ultimately be of value. Indeed, Socrates was considered dangerous precisely because of the strength of his arguments. Galileo's heretical claims were, in fact, scientifically valid. And Martin Luther King's moral truths are self-evident to us today.

The Supreme Court has rightly ruled that offense may not be the basis for punishment because there is no principled way to draw a line that distinguishes ideas from the offense that they might cause. The alternative is to reinforce orthodoxy and to encourage tepid expression rather than the kind of probing that sparks serious thought and counter-thought.

Allowing offense to be the basis of reprisal or censorship, moreover, simply gives groups or individuals the power to suppress the speech of anyone with whom they happen to disagree. In our liberal democracy, no group — however virtuous or religious — may claim an exemption from criticism or scrutiny, nor may any religion demand that secular society adhere to its own definitions of heresy or blasphemy. When such policies are attempted, they lead to bullying, favoritism based on power and the end of meaningful freedom of speech and thought. The inevitable result is that certain issues and ideas become off limits to any discussion at all based on a subjective and always-moving standard of who might take offense. We suspect that few people would want to live in an environment where the mere expression of an idea could lead to punishment.

The question is doubly important when we are speaking about the press. Newspapers — including The Badger Herald — routinely publish articles, cartoons, satire and commentary that one group or another will find offensive or even dangerous; consider how the campus might react to editorials disparaging affirmative action, supporting a boycott of Israel or mocking fundamentalist Christians. Insisting that newspapers not publish anything that might be deemed offensive or blasphemous is an untenable and hazardous standard, one that subjects public discussion to a heckler's veto.

Today, the question of the role of religion in American and international life is as important as it has ever been. In wrestling with the difficult questions of religion and politics, we need more freedom of speech and the courage to speak our truths, not less. For this reason, despite questions concerning timing, motive and form, the Herald could be said to have performed a service for the community.

Let us now take advantage of this controversy to examine these questions. Criticism of the Herald is necessarily a part of this important process, and a principled argument can be made that the editors of the Herald exercised faulty judgment. The paper may claim no exemption from scrutiny. But such criticism must accept the basic tenets of free speech in a liberal democracy.

Donald Downs and Kenneth Mayer are University of Wisconsin professors of political science. They express these views as members of the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights, a group of UW faculty members who advocate academic freedom and whose members join in supporting this essay. Professors Steve Bauman (mathematics), Larry Kahan (biomolecular chemistry), W. Lee Hansen (economics emeritus), Lester Hunt (philosophy), Anatoly Khazanov (anthropology), Marshall Onellion (physics), Stephen Robinson (engineering), John Sharpless (history) and Kenneth Thompson (education) wish that their endorsement of these views be noted for the record.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 9:55am):

Donald Downs - speaking truth to power in perfect form, as always. Excellent piece.

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 10:59am):

"Insisting that newspapers not publish anything that might be deemed offensive or blasphemous is an untenable and hazardous standard, one that subjects public discussion to a heckler's veto."

A heckler would be much more acceptable than murder and mayhem. I'm all for respect but respect must be mutual and not a one-sided submission.

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 12:43pm):

David Irving, a British historian who denies that the Holocaust happened, has just been sentenced to 3 years of jail time in Vienna. Where is the freedom to offend you are talking about? WHERE???

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 2:03pm):

I clicked to "add a comment" and I was surprised to see instructions asking me to keep my "feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful". "Respectful", you mean to tell me there is a place for self censorship, maybe even government censorship in the West? Well I hope so. Or else we could not bring legal action for slander. It is a hate crime in the US to paint a swastika on a synagogue or mosque. It is unacceptable to print classified documents. It is a crime to incite violence. And most recently, Governor Doyle signed a bill into law, prohibiting picketing at the funeral of war veterans. Freedom of speech has never been absolute. It has always been a question of where to draw the line in the sand. It is ethnocentric of you to insist that the Muslim world is uncivilized for not drawing the line where the West does. You were disrespectful to the Muslim world and you should apologize.

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:49pm):

Somebody wrote: "David Irving, a British historian who denies that the Holocaust happened, has just been sentenced to 3 years of jail time in Vienna. Where is the freedom to offend you are talking about? WHERE???"

Vienna, last I checked, is not in the United States, and they don't have out First Amendment there.

Someone else wrote: "you mean to tell me there is a place for self censorship, maybe even government censorship in the West? Well I hope so. Or else we could not bring legal action for slander. It is a hate crime in the US to paint a swastika on a synagogue or mosque. It is unacceptable to print classified documents. It is a crime to incite violence. And most recently, Governor Doyle signed a bill into law, prohibiting picketing at the funeral of war veterans. Freedom of speech has never been absolute."

-Slander laws don't provide abridge free speech; they provide recourse AFTER THE FACT to those who have been slandered.

-Painting graffiti, offensive or not, is illegal; however, painting a swastika on your own property is not a crime.

-The prohibition on leaking classified information has nothing to do with free speech. Instead, it is a matter of upholding a voluntarily entered contract.

-Publishing a NEWSWORTHY CARTOON is not inciting violence, it is NEWS.

-The law Governor Doyle signed likely will be overturned by the courts, as similar laws have been in other states.

Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:57pm):

"It is ethnocentric of you to insist that the Muslim world is uncivilized for not drawing the line where the West does."

Ethnocentric thy name is Islam. To insist that I submit to Islam is unacceptable, and make no mistake it is submission not respect which is being demanded. When there is a Christian church in Mecca you can accuse the west of being ethnocentric, NOT BEFORE.

I promise not to spray cartoons on a mosque - that would be wrong. To say I can't see cartoons - any cartoons - in the paper is also wrong.

Adam Sitte (February 20, 2006 @ 8:52pm):

Slander laws don't provide abridge free speech; they provide recourse AFTER THE FACT to those who have been slandered.

no one is pushing for an abridge to free speech. we just want our newspaper to be respectable. if the editors want to publish racist propaganda, fine, but dont let them hide behind some veil of 'free speech.' because that is not, and i hope the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights comes to this realization, about free speech. its about not scrutinizing a minority. this also isnt about blasphemy or avoiding religious taboos. the way in which the prophet was depicted is much more important than the fact that he was depicted. nor is this about submitting. such standards of not blatantly and pointlessly marginalizing a minority on campus is something i would hope extends to everyone. and before someone goes on about how if we dont offend anyone, there will be nothing to say, we have to realize that there are boundaries for offense, and no, that boundary doesnt just exist for islam.

moving on, i am disgusted at how people have characterized the muslim response. have you read any releases by cair? or even know that cair exists? the fact that they dont get the media attention they deserve, and what would be logical, doesnt detract from what their message has been. have you seen one case of violence on this campus in result of these cartoons? no. the response has been nothing but respectable. letters before the fact asking the badger herald not to publish the cartoon. after the fact, letters explaining why they shouldnt have published it, a meeting with the dean of students, an open house aimed to educate people on the prophets life, a panel discussion with the herald. not only non-violent, but productive forms of expressing our disagreement with the badger herald editors.

"To insist that I submit to Islam is unacceptable, and make no mistake it is submission not respect which is being demanded"

no, submission is not being 'demanded.' have you heard any muslims on this board or in their articles say that? we are completely asking for respect, however

Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 12:49pm):

This article is well written and right in many fundamental ways. We need to remember that our country was founded without a national religion so that all religious views could be expressed, positive or negative. Suppressing these cartoons, although very offensive to many people, leads us down the road towards forcing our religious views on others, something our country has always officially stood against.