The real issue now, is whether the democratic states of the West will unite and stand firm in upholding the reality of freedom of expression, as opposed to merely giving lip service to the abstract idea of freedom of expression.
The freedoms of speech and of the press, cited in the Constitution of the United States, are particularly and deliberately defined as freedoms - not to be abridged. Freedoms not to be reduced in scope.
To suggest that the degree of offensiveness, or of insensitivity, or the degree of popularity or general acceptance is a rational argument in support of banning a thing from being spoken or published, is relativistic weaseling,.
Any grouping of words or images, can to some, be offensive, insensitive, unpopular or all of the above.
Promoting the banning of particular words or images is a highly subjective and dangerous practice in any society.
Those using violence and threats to attempt to enforce their ban, do not themselves understand or respect the principles of freedom. They abhor those principles, and fight to destroy them.
The Islamists who protest peaceably, have that right.
Those whose protests are violent and destructive and murderous, regardless of any perceived offense, have no rights.
We should not ameliorate the former or reward the latter by abridging our constitution through accommodation and inaction.
The democracies of the West should show a united front in support of the Danish fight to retain their and our democratic ideals and freedoms.
So far, the major journalistic organs of the United States, have fallen on their faces, in subjugation.
Post a Comment