Just as it would be indefensible for a government to claim that “our people do not use and consume water the way your culture does, and so we will not distribute water equitably to the masses,” it’s also unconvincing to support muting speech in a given culture because the society’s fabric is of a different pattern.
And those defending free speech around the world should bear no cultural guilt for doing so—for a society that limits speech is a society that cannot adequately defend its culture. In Egypt, the government regularly cracks down on large public festivals called moulids, Sufi gatherings honoring deceased saints, because Mubarak’s regime fears that large, un-cordoned meetings are places where celebrants might conspire to overthrow the unpopular regime. Freer speech in Egypt would make the moulid tradition more secure, not less.
In a June press conference granted by President Obama and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah in Washington, D.C., the Saudi king implied that his religion and culture are under attack by American journalism, saying, “I want to also thank our friends, the American people, and I also would like to thank our friends here in the media. May God spare us from all of the bad things they can do to us.” It was meant as a joke, kind of. Saudi kings don’t regularly face bold press gaggles.
Expatriates need to be very clear that the high ground on which free speech advocacy rests is Andes above any petulant charges of cultural imperialism or cultural hegemony lobbed by bureaucrats, government officials, or other sympathizers who cradle the status quo. Reactionary autocrats need to know that, rather than being a tool of cultural imperialism, assailing barriers to free expression promotes cultural reverence. Rather than destroying nations, a snarling press makes them stronger than ever before.
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