CAIRO—Traveling in the developing world, I’m regularly challenged over my defense of free speech. One Egyptian government sympathizer once told me that, “Our media system is not like yours in the U.S. We cannot have a lawless system with news producers running around reporting whatever they wish about sex, defaming others, and ridiculing government officials. These are your free press values; not ours.” Individuals like this charge me with imposing my values on a society that I don’t understand.
Their objections are often echoing the views of their leaders, who are invested in having their citizens believe that calls for freer speech originating in North America and Western Europe represent imperialistic gestures overstepping cultural sovereignty—that telling governments to let their people speak freely is another example of Western finger-wagging at the economically and politically developing world. In a 2006 interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded to a question about his regime’s brutality against dissenting media in part by saying, “Do you truly believe that using American music is a sign of freedom?,” as if to say, “The kind of free speech you value is fundamentally different than ours.”
These martinets like to associate Western calls for a free press with cultural imperialism. But defending free speech is, at its core, as content-neutral and apolitical as demanding that people have enough food to eat and potable water to drink—and journalists and other free-speech advocates must recognize this if they are to successfully press for changes in countries like these.
The cultural imperialism defense for stifling speech is, of course, despotic hogwash, and when the words come from someone like the Tyrant of Tehran they may convince few. But beware; this justification supporting a status quo of curbed speech is more prevalent than you might think. I’ve been to many countries with dubious records on free speech, and whenever I’ve engaged a government sympathizer on matters of press freedom, I hear things like, “We’re not America; we don’t feel culturally comfortable allowing Holocaust denial, hate speech, and Hustler.”
A statement like this could persuade a mild cultural relativist to nod silently and change the topic. (While I support the rights of neo-Nazis to disregard the Holocaust and Larry Flynt to peddle smut, such bottom feeders haven’t made defending free speech around the world any easier).
But there is nothing imperialistic whatsoever in demanding that others be allowed to speak out to defend their interests, and no guilt should accompany such a demand.
Even if one feels uncomfortable specifically pushing the First Amendment in foreign lands, they should remember that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends this same freedom, and with even more specific and eloquent language: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information…regardless of frontiers.”
A few years ago I wrote an op-ed about malicious new press laws enforced by Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. The story was republished and linked to by a number of bloggers and civil liberty groups, but was also republished by two Egyptian groups with virtually diametrically opposed political aims: The Muslim Brotherhood and The Coptic Assembly of America. These organizations have pretty much nothing in common, except that they both are of Egyptian origin and they’re prevented by the Mubarak machine from using their voices to bring change to Egypt, however at odds their visions of change may be.
Defense of free speech isn’t political, but rather politically all-inclusive.
Not everyone supports this inclusion. An Egyptian colleague of mine was a primary author of an agreement (pdf) requiring Arab broadcasters to avoid content that that doesn’t protect “the supreme interests of Arab countries,” “comply with the religious and ethical values of Arab society,” or that “[insults] God, revealed religions and prophets.” The document was endorsed by the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, Egypt, and most other Arab countries. In my colleague’s view, a country can twist the right to free speech to fit its cultural fancy.
When the U.S. allows child pornography to be published on the front page of a national newspaper, then I will allow that its definition of 'free speech' is somehow fundamentally different from everyone else's.
This isn't such an outlandish example. As a Canadian, I laugh at American television networks' prudishness and wonder why they we never see swearing, nudity and rampant drug use (a la Trailer Park Boys, a runaway Canadian hit) on U.S. TV. Funny, that.
Until then, you're simply arguing about what sort of things you're willing to tolerate in your society. We're pretty comfortable with things like sex, swearing and nudity on television. But we draw the line at promoting hatred and racism, things that I guess are OK in American media.
#1 Posted by Stephen Downes, CJR on Tue 10 Aug 2010 at 06:26 PM
Why is it that when a journalist seeks to discuss issues of free speech, especially as it applies to all forms of media, they juxtapose America, and occasionally Europe) with some third world autocracy/dictatorship. Such regimes are defined as lacking in basic freedoms. So why the argument? Why not, instead, focus on examining free speech issues within our own culture? Where does the activities of someone like Andrew Breitbart fit in the first amendment argument? What of so much of the tripe that is fed to viewers of Fox News? Is deceit and deception protected by the First Amendment? Should they be?
#2 Posted by Jack, CJR on Tue 10 Aug 2010 at 06:50 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen's opinion on this: that "free speech" is not an absolute freedom that can be wielded regardless of all other cultural values. To surmise that the mention of free speech in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives it some kind of ultimate legitimate power in all countries and contexts is wildly ignorant. There a NO rights without limitations; and the limitations of each right generally end where they impose on the rights of others in some way.
In the case of free speech, all western democracies, including the USA, have laws such as libel and defamation, which limit what one can say if it unfairly imposes on others. Likewise laws such as copyright limit how we can express ourselves using the work of others, but if there were limitless free speech we could use any content we wanted, any way we wanted, whether or not it was our own.
In other countries, commercial and liberal considerations that limit free speech may be accompanied by religious or moral ones. But these cannot be dismissed simply because our own culture has different values or beliefs. To simply dismiss the values of other cultures because they do not equate to our own is bigotry of the same ilk as racism.
#3 Posted by Leonard Low, CJR on Tue 10 Aug 2010 at 08:26 PM
And so what if it is cultural imperialism?
#4 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Wed 11 Aug 2010 at 05:07 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jack. Free speech comparisons aren't being made between Western and developing countries for comparison's sake. Greater freedom is the end in mind. There are plenty of writers, bloggers, analysts examining free speech issues in the United States, including (and especially) the shortcomings of people like blogger Andrew Breitbart and networks like FOX. I would argue that there's a shortage of commentators, however, consistently examining free speech issues in countries of tyranny. There should be more of it, unapologetically.
#5 Posted by Justin, CJR on Sun 15 Aug 2010 at 05:42 AM
The Canadians have no free speech rights.
The "Trailer Park Boys" is a tame cable show- we have similar cable shows here full of nudity, profanity and drug use here in the States.
Fundamentally, the right to free speech is the right to hate - the right to piss people off - the right to be as intolerant in thought (though not in deed) as one wishes and the right to convey this hate and intolerance to others.
You can't have a truly free society without this right. And the fact is that Canada lacks this right - indeed it puts people on trial for criticizing Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8
To defend this type of governmental intolerance by reference to a rauncy sitcom is just a silly dodge.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 15 Aug 2010 at 08:07 AM