At Popehat;
Anthea Butler, a professor at Penn, defended calls for the arrest of the man who made [Innocence of Muslims], suggesting that it had "inflamed" people across the globe, putting Americans at risk. Garrett Epps wrote that blasphemy is not the "essence of free speech" and that other nations understand freedom differently than we do. Professor Peter Spiro reacted to the film by suggesting that "international norms" about hate speech should prevail over our relatively absolutist free speech values.We should address such views, not ignore them. But as we consider them — as we evaluate whether anti-blasphemy laws will ever be consistent with the modern American values embodied in our First Amendment precedents — we should examine what the competing values truly are. What are the "other values" which other societies believe outweigh free speech? What sorts of things "inflame" people in those societies? If other societies understand free expression differently than we do, how do they understand it? What "international norms" are emerging on blasphemy?
I decided to try to answer those questions by looking at how the nations of the world have treated blasphemy during one year: October 2011 through September 2012. In other words, I decided to examine how one year reflected the competing values concerning free speech and blasphemy.
The rest is here.
P.S. "Incidentally, the “Innocence of Muslims” guy is still in jail. Plus, he’s been banned from setting foot in the UK."
Who cares if other nations understand freedom differently, since that was the case in the Soviet Union and is the case in China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and other places. That is irrelevant. Perhaps he should take the time to read and study his constitution and Bill of Rights.
Can one expect blasphemy laws to be equitably applied or should one just leave blasphemy to be judged by respective religious bodies?
We have really come to this. If one were to demand that "The Da Vinci Code" producers be jailed for blasphemy, the laughter would never die down. Who laughs now?
Great analysis by Popehat. The cries of blasphemy tend to be from one group only, and clearly they want to hold free countries by the gonads...and squeeze.
What is blasphemy to one is free speech to another.
This article is just more apologist clap-trap to appease Muslims.
Blasphemy does not seem to be a big issue for Muslims who rail against Christians at every opportunity. Ammending the constitution to say you have the right of free speech except if what you're about to say might offend some Muslim is not going to change their behaviour toward the west.
If the west gives in on the issue of free speech we might as well start knocking down our church steeples because it's only a matter of time before we're all going to the mosque.
robw...if you read the conclusion to that article you will see that the you agree with the author. His article summarised the 'cries of blasphemy' so that we could see the trend.
Osumashi is right in saying, "We have really come to this".
These professors clearly tell us that the Marxist-Soviet totalitarian mindset is the way they look at this and no doubt about many other aspects of a liberal democratic capitalist.
It has been discussed many times on these pages about how the radical left hates liberal democratic capitalism so much that it would make a pact with the devil, radical Islam, to destroy it.
Penn State . . . no doubt Mikey Mann would approve.
Hide a decline is about the same as hide an opinion.
Osumashi, the only acceptable conclusion is that all blasphemy laws have to be struck down. As the author correctly notes, blasphemy laws only serve the purpose of oppression of relligious minorities.
Ken, the fact that supposedly well educated western intellectuals could come to such conclusions speaks widely to their lack of understanding of the basic freedoms on which our society was built. The concept of freedom of speech was not something granted by the state. It was fought for and blood was shed over it in England, in the 13 Colonies and in France.
But then these are the kind of intellectuals that deny that bloodshed ever has anything to do with the course of human history. The article's author is right to hold them up to derision.
The proponents of these speech restrictions invariably fall into one of two categories: yelling rabble or yellow rabbits.
When I notice that the imams of the world are no longer insulting Judaism and Christianity, I may, possibly consider a personal moratorium on blaspheming the Islamic god and the Islamic chief pervert, I mean, prophet, Mohammed.
The smartest people in the country, these liberals and "progressives" have taken the US from a country that used to export its values of freedom and democracy in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence to a country that apologizes for our freedoms and seeks to limit them inside the US because some savage in an uncivilized country might be offended.
"Progressive" has (IMHO) become a contronym - it can mean move forward or go backwards. Most progressives these days are eagerly moving towards a seventh century future.
The only people who are afraid of freedom of speech are statists who have a lot to hide. The "international norms" that morons who believe in the idea of prosecuting "hate speech" are accompanied by the perverse point of view that truth is no defense. There is no international right not to be offended. Likely bringing up the fact that only certain groups of individuals are allowed to be offended would get one accused of "hate speech" in some countries.
A free society depends on free speech and a tolerance for differing points of view. This concept is quite foreign to the followers of a 7th century pedophile.
I suppose we could turn the tables on the proponents of blasphemy by making it blasphemous to criticize any portion of the US constitution. Thus, those muslims who criticize the first amendment would be sentenced for blasphemy in-abstentia and executed by either airstrikes or predator drones. I'm sure this position would have a lot more support in the US than the proposed laws to prevent speaking the truth about 7th century pedophiles.
Presumably The Book of Mormon, currently appearing on Broadway, will have to be shut down forthwith then?
And when will the US Government begin confiscating all Life of Brian DVDs on sale?
"Anthea Butler is an Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Africana Studies at The University of Pennsylvania."
Oh dear.
Ken, leftists and Islamists are certainly hand-in-glove when it comes to their respective wishes and these so-called blasphemy laws are just one such symptom of a society gone sick.
CGH, bingo. These uneven and obviously biased laws benefit the group(s) people say there is no reason to fear. No secular society needs these laws. I don't care what goes on in canonical circles (ex.- excommunication) but for a liberal democracy to embrace these laws should be unthinkable.
Dont forget, the right to free speech is not a right granted to the populace by the govt, but a statement that limits government!
cgh, Osumashi and others, these people have replaced the Magna Carta and the Bible with Karl Marx's Das Kapital.
"Garrett Epps wrote that blasphemy is not the 'essence of free speech' and that other nations understand freedom differently than we do."
The "essence" of free speech is that speech be free, unless it threatens coercion or has a valid reason to be stopped. Blasphemy - criticism of others' religious beliefs - is not a valid reason.
As has already been noted, some of the nations that "understand freedom differently" do not believe in it at all. The Kant-Hegel cult at work.
"Professor Peter Spiro reacted to the film by suggesting that 'international norms' about hate speech should prevail over our relatively absolutist free speech values."
Better: other nations should adopt our "relatively absolutist" norms.
Posner, Butler, Epps and Spiro are anti-intellectuals. The barbarian in the ivory tower is way behind the man in the street.
We in the Western Democracies have evolved to a culture of unprecedented freedom and prosperity. God forbid that we would permit that freedom to be eroded away by acquiescence to the tantrums of immature cultures. We must defend our freedoms and rights to free speach at all costs or return to the Dark Ages.
We in the Western Democracies have evolved to a culture of unprecedented freedom and prosperity. God forbid that we would permit that freedom to be eroded away by acquiescence to the tantrums of immature cultures. We must defend our freedoms and rights to free speach at all costs or return to the Dark Ages.
I see from the comments that we are all on the same Page here. I'm going to say it a little more bluntly. This is another gambit by the intellectual Left to shut down freedom and shut up the Internet.
Blasphemy laws are perfect for the purpose, because it allows government to deploy all the technology and manpower one needs for a full-court censorship policy, but in the name of "tolerance".
You can see the little gears going around in their pointed heads these days.
I seem to remember articles written before ww2, arguing that speech antagonizing nazis should be forbidden..
the nazis had their own agenda..
as the muslims do now..
embutler said: "I seem to remember articles written before ww2, arguing that speech antagonizing nazis should be forbidden."
Yes, and Barry is Chamberlain all over again.
The two situations are very close, actually. In the 1930's we had a government in Germany creating international incidents to further its aims, and now today we have several Muslim countries doing the same thing.
The thing to keep in mind is that these are -tyrannies- we are dealing with. "Spontaneous" demonstrations just don't happen in places like Iran, Pakistan etc. If such a thing does occur you can tell because they shut off the phones and the internet, like they did in Egypt, like they did in Syria.
Every time you see something like the attack on the US embassy in Egypt on 9/11 this year, if the local government doesn't step in and start shooting people in job lots and tanks don't show up in the streets, its a put-up job.
We aren't dealing with some kind of Pan-Arab social movement. We're dealing with acts of provocation by dictatorships, put on for the internal political purposes of the dictators.
Which really is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Canada pulls their embassy from whatever dumb-ass country it is, kicks that country's embassy out of Ottawa, and we're good. It isn't like they can last very long without doing business with the West, is it? Russia is busted, and China is too. They just hide it better, so far.
The real enemy is the Usual Suspect Left here at home, using this "unrest" as a tool to ratchet up the regulating here at home. Given their head, the Left in this country will have us passing all our correspondence through a state censorship board to insure we don't "offend" the overseas dictatorships.
I propose we BEAT them this time like a friggin' rented mule. Just for a change, you know. Leave 'em busted and leaking by the political roadside with their ribs kicked in, as it were.
If Roosevelt had been a gutless coward, who secretly sympathized with the Japanese anyway, he might have chosen a similar path after Pearl harbor was bombed.
In other words, he might have had Peter Lorre arrested for his "Mr. Moto" movies, and slavishly sought to assure the Japanese that we didn't approve of the Mr. Moto persona.
Not that that would have done anything to address the real problem.
Leftists very existence is blasphemous to the camel jockeys.
As Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics all deny that M'd is a prophet, let alone a God-inspired prophet, we are all blasphemers.
People who don't understand that are morons.
Fred, "Penn" usually means the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The pecking order is Penn, Pitt, and PSU, with "Pitt" being the University of Pittsburgh and PSU being the Pennsylvania State University,
a.k.a "Penn State", home of Michael Mann, Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier etc. "Penn" is the Ivy League joint. PSU is for plebians like me.
Believe me, the Americans are very sensitive to such pecking orders.
Ahhh... The tyranny of the most easily offended.
These are the people who now take responsibility for Governments lying & mistakes. No more does any fault lie with a Politician. Even the mob never had it so good.
Ah, John Lewis, you've reminded me of the old Police Squad episode where one character is a young guy who had been a promising student but had then turned to crime and was trying to rehabilitate himself. He wore a team jacket which changed every time he was shown on screen. First it would say, "Penn State"; then next time, "State Penn".