Yet another example of caving in to threats of violence from Islamic radicals:
Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.
I'm beginning to think that many Americans don't really believe in free speech, and we know that the rest of the world doesn't care much about it. They believe in free speech as long as it's convenient or as long as it doesn't offend a protected group. There are people who want to destroy our right to speak out on anything that offends them and they are willing to kill and maim to make sure that happens. If our response to those threats is to shut down our own right to do so, then their goal is achieved without firing a shot. We simply can't let that happen. Our freedom is too important and it cannot be negotiable.
The solution is not to refuse to publish the caricatures, it is to publish them everywhere so there's no one to target. That's why I published them here, with my full and real name exposed along with them. And I am appalled that a bookstore - a business that relies completely on the right to free expression for their very existence - would cave in and refuse to even stock a magazine that contains the caricatures.
- Log in to post comments
Dammit. Borders just lost my custom (I have a three-a-week fantasy habit).
*Gets writing a nasty email to their PR people*
As I read this I'm wearing a Borders shirt. I used to work at one of the two in North Raleigh. I quit one day when my manager revealed herself to be completely nuts. Perhaps in the intervening 4 years she's been promoted to CEO.
Do we now??
Speaking as one lonely inhabitant of "the rest of the world," this sounds very much like the sort of broadbrush unsubstantiated statement that really should not have a place in any blog with the the word "science" in the masthead.
And if you check around a bit, you'll find some small corners where some of the backward inhabitants might even have the temerity to suggest that the US just might have more of a problem in that regard these days that some others.
Scott wrote:
I have documented at considerable length the significantly weaker protections for free speech that exist throughout much of Europe and Canada, particularly for speech that is viewed as anti-religious, anti-gay or is viewed as demeaning or offensive to some protected group. No doubt there are exceptions to that, but as a general rule the US has much stronger protections for free speech, and far more narrowly drawn exceptions to it, than the rest of the democratic world.
The existence of "small corners" - i.e. exceptions - to my general statement don't disprove that statement. I didn't do an exhaustive list of every nation in the world and their laws in this matter, I was making a broad statement about the level of free speech protections. On that measure, the US is much more protective than most of the rest of the world. Sorry, that's just reality.
The email for Borders is ccare@bordersstores.com -- I just sent notice that they have lost my custom.
Well, Ed, if you're comfortable standing behind an absolute statement that, "We know that the rest of the world...", I have no further comment and there's little point in continuing the conversation.
Scott,
Ed is referring specifically to the "hate speech" type laws, which are in fact infringements on the freedom of expression that aren't found in the US. Are you disagreeing with that, or are you claiming that they aren't representative?
I'm beginning to think that many Americans don't really believe in free speech, and we know that the rest of the world doesn't care much about it.
Ed, stop claiming that the US is the sole beacon of free speech in the world. It ain't.
There is no good solution. The cartoons are being used as a wedge between us and muslims. Publishing the cartoons plays into that. But caving to the rabble rousers means abandoning our principles, and leaving the liberal-minded muslims in our midst out in the cold. They too deserve the right to speak their minds, including saying things theocratic bullies don't like. Our freedoms are not particularly in jeopardy from muslim theocrats, but the freedoms of muslims in our midst are very much in jepordy as they are terrorized by their fundamentalist bretheren.
I will not be publishing the cartoons, I do not wish to offend muslims. I have the right to do so, but I can choose not to exercise it. But I am adament that those who publish the cartoons should be free to do so without intimidation (as quite distinct from criticism). This freedom from intimidation (and terrorism!) is what hate crime laws should be about, to turn them into being about freedom from offense is to get things bass-ackwards. Unfortunately, protecting this freedom is not a simple matter.
True enough, though I would point out that a freedom enumerated in a constitution does not necessarily correspond to freedom in practice. Nonetheless, legal restrictions on freedom of speach in the United States are pretty lax.
However, outside the sphere of government, restrictions on speach in the US are rather tighter than many places. Your media has whored itself out to advertisers, and simply will not run certain types of stories. Many of your media forums do not allow much diversity in view. (This may not be a restriction on freedom of speech per se, but it sure does limit what sort of speech will be heard). And your corporations have taken it upon themselves to meddle in the private lives of their employees.
I don't know the grounds on which Borders and B/N decided not to sell the issue of Free Inquiry with the controversial cartoons in it, but it is possible they made what they considered a prudent business decision, seeking to avoid having their stores targeted by militant protesters. Since their primary obligation is to their owner/investors and they are private business entities, I'm hard put to criticize the decision, if that was the basis for it.
Of course, a bookstore failing to take a risk or two in defense of the principle of full and free access is not an inspiring sight.
All of this is yet another argument for patronizing independent bookstores [an endangered species if ever there was one] rather than mega-chains. If "Ed's Corner Bookstore" decides not to carry a controversial work, the decision will have little but local impact. If mega-chains like Borders and B/N do, then vast numbers across the land lose easy access to whatever it is they decide not to sell. The homogenization of the bookstore business has many unhappy consequences, I think, and this is but one of them.
Roman wrote:
Reread what I said. The US has far stronger protections for free speech than any nation in the world that I know of, and far narrower exceptions. I have documented that many times and I regard it as a good thing. I'm more than happy to criticize my government on a wide variety of things and do so often, but on that score we are indeed better than the rest of the world (though I'm concerned that things are moving in the wrong direction here too).
Andrew Wade wrote:
I think this is a misanalysis of the situation. It isn't the cartoons that are a wedge between us and Muslims. What comes between us and (at least some) Muslims is the fact that they think their offense justifies either legal coercion or death threats and violence. We criticize and caricature religious ideas all the time in America and it doesn't cause these sorts of problems.
Diversity of speech has nothing to do with freedom of speech, in my view. As long as individuals remain free to speak their minds, there is free speech. But I would add to your list campus "hate speech" codes at universities in the US as an unacceptable abridgement of free speech as well. We aren't perfect; we're just a lot better on this particular issue than the rest of the world (and there are plenty of areas where we lag far behind, unfortunately).
We aren't perfect; we're just a lot better on this particular issue than the rest of the world (and there are plenty of areas where we lag far behind, unfortunately).
Yeah but that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't care much about free speech. Or maybe we might as well just throw our hands in the air and declare that nobody in the world cares much about free speech.
Hi Ed,
"we know that the rest of the world doesn't care much about it."
As a libertarian, you should know that governments often do silly things, and that it would be a mistake to judge the citizens of a country by its government. For example, compare the reaction of the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, defending the rights of a private newspaper to publish the Mohammad drawings with the waffling response from Bush and the downright appeasing statements from Clinton. Yet it would be a mistake to say that you as an American doesn't care much for free speech.
So go ahead and criticize the governments that are willing to trample on the freedom of its citizens in a mistaken display of respect, but don't for a moment think that no Europeans share your sense of disgust.
Krauze wrote:
I didn't say or imply that no Europeans share my views.
Hi Ed,
"I didn't say or imply that no Europeans share my views."
You said that "the rest of the world doesn't care much about" freedom of speech. As part of "the rest of the world", I disagree.
The reason Borders won't carry the magazine with the cartoons is, they say, "For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority."
Assuming they're not lying, a major retailer has decided that there is a genuine risk of violence if they stock the magazine. I wonder what risk assessment led them to this conclusion. I also wonder if they contacted law enforcement authorities in their various locations and if so whether the law enforcement agencies agreed about the risks and were unable to provide protection against them.
I can't believe people are interpreting my statement at such a ridiculous level of specificity. There are two basic ways to interpret "the rest of the world doesn't care much about freedom of speech". The first is the perfectly reasonable and well supported claim that the US tends to take free speech more seriously than most other countries and has narrower exceptions than most other countries. The second is the patently absurd claim that no one else in the world cares about free speech other than me. Now, given the volumes I've written on the legal differences between American free speech law and that of Canada and most of Europe, and given that I'm a more or less rational person who couldn't possibly believe that I'm the only human being on the planet who cares about the issue, how would a reasonable person interpret that statement?
Well because it was written as though there are only two options; you care about freedom of speech ultimately and completely over everything else, or you don't "care much about it," which of course is not true. I think that is a problem that you have, that you assume all people have the regard to liberty as a concept supreme to all others. So it sounds like you're preaching to a choir that doesn't exist; instead of engaging from the other perspective to make your point as to why freedom of speech should be protected over other ideals.
Matthew wrote:
I wasn't making an argument for why my ideals of freedom of speech is better than the alternative, I was simply making a descriptive statement. To some extent, you're beating up a straw man here because no one, including me, believes in freedom of speech "ultimately and completely above everything else". I make exceptions for fraud and perjury and falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, just like everyone else does. But I do argue, and will continue to argue, that if you believe someone's speech can be curtailed merely because those views are offensive to someone, then you don't really believe in free speech at all. And that is the problem with many other countries that have laws which punish speech that is anti-religious or anti-gay or anti-virtually anything else. They don't really believe in free speech at all, they believe in a mere shadow of it, speech that is free unless someone has the political power to get it banned. And that isn't free at all.
Stupid question:
Why is Borders obgligated to carry a specific book or magazine, and how is this functionally different than moderating out a troll in the forums?
Is the New York Times obligated to print every anti-semitic letter to the editor? Isn't that a form of censorship? If Powells chooses to stock an entire shelf of racist literature from the 1930's, wouldn't the company's customers feel that the product is making a statement?
And yet at the same time, television networks and advertising companies makes value statements all the time regarding which advertising they are willing to accept, and the rightward tilt is increasingly evidence as companies refuse to accept ads attacking Republican politicians or advertising gay-tolerant churches.
The First Amendment restrains GOVERNMENT, not business or private individuals. Congress has no say in whether Borders carries a magazine or not, or whether a magazine carries images or not. But a magazine sure as hell can choose not to publish a cartoon for any stupid reason whatsoever.
Yes, Borders taking over editorial control of the magazine is a foolish choice. It gives power and legitimacy to those who use violence to achieve censorship. It also goes against the principals and ideals of free speech, even though they are perfectly within their legal rights to do so.
But when the private editorial decision of a couple corporations ultimately plays a role of functional censorship in America, that says a lot more about the role of major corporations and the loss of distribution channels in the functional expression of freedom of speech in America than a couple of radical mullahs ever could.
Left Wing Fox wrote:
No one said they were obligated to do so.
I think people who agree with some of these speech restrictions really do believe in freedom of speech. Their line is just at a different place than yours. To use the example of holocaust denial; the reasoning behind banning it is that it creates a hostility between religious and ethnic groups which is bad for society. Presumably your position would be that the loss of the freedom is a greater concern than the possible hostility that could be created by said freedom. You've hit a brick wall because you come from conflicting philosphical axioms; however it's not true that the two sides don't care about the concerns of the other. I think you are misrepresenting the position of your opponents here, and that is why people get offended.
But you write about a lot of different subjects and so naturally have a diverse group of readers. Sometimes when you write to a libertarian audience your going to get disagreeable comments. Which is much better than nodding heads, i suppose.
I'm not so concerned, Ed, with the tangent the comments have taken as much as I am with the idea behind this:
"I'm beginning to think that many Americans don't really believe in free speech, and we know that the rest of the world doesn't care much about it. They believe in free speech as long as it's convenient or as long as it doesn't offend a protected group. There are people who want to destroy our right to speak out on anything that offends them and they are willing to kill and maim to make sure that happens. If our response to those threats is to shut down our own right to do so, then their goal is achieved without firing a shot. We simply can't let that happen. Our freedom is too important and it cannot be negotiable."
Along with our right to free speech is the right to assess the consequences of that freedom, and determine whether we are willing to accept those consequences. I know, for example, that I have every legal right to call my former employer a micromanaging freak; I also know that my right to say that would not have protected me from that employer firing me. So I didn't say it. Does that mean that I don't care about free speech because it wasn't convenient to me at the time, or because I would have suffered for saying it? Not at all---because along with the right to free speech comes the right to refrain from speaking when it is wise to do so.
Borders, it seems to me, think it prudent to not carry the Free Inquiry, not because they don't value free speech but because they value the right to refrain from doing so when it does not serve their own interests to do so. That seems to me to be quite reasonable and acceptable action for a business to take. I don't find their conclusions about the risk to be reasonable, but that is quite different than conflating that to an act of cowardice.
Matthew wrote:
No, that's not my position at all. My position is that if you're going to allow such reasoning to justify a ban on some types of expression, then you don't have free speech at all because the very same argument could be used to ban virtually any type of speech that anyone else objects to. The list of things one could say that could potentially cause hostility between religious or ethnic groups (or literary, or philosophical, or for that matter fans of different sports teams, those of different gender or those who like and dislike ballroom dancing) is literally limitless. You simply cannot allow such a broad justification for prohibiting free speech and still claim to have free speech. At that point, you only have free speech as long as you don't say something that might offend someone else and therefore cause "hostility". Once you allow the hostile reactions of one group to squash the free speech of another group, you don't have free speech anymore.
The problem isn't that I'm misrepresenting their position; I'm not. They really do think that if speech offends someone's religious sensibilities, it should be banned and the speaker punished. The problem is that I make very blunt statements in judgement of the stupidity of that position. And on that count, I simply say, tough. That's my position and if it offends someone, I couldn't possibly care any less. And as long as we keep such people from gaining power, the freedom to say those things will remain intact.
robis wrote:
All accurate, but the analogy actually works the other way. Of course Border's has the legal right to decide what to put on their shelves; no one, least of all me, has questioned that. But having the legal right to do it doesn't mean being immune from criticism for having done it. When a major business entity caves in to threats of violence, they are showing cowardice and a lack of support for free speech, not because they are legally obligated to do it but because, in my view, they are ethically obligated to do it. That's my position and just as they are legally free to take their position, so I am legally free to criticize them for it. Their decision has consequences too.
Ed:
The question, though, is whether that action truly equates to "caving in" or "cowardice". To make that claim, it seems to me that one would have to show that their decision is radically different than the one they would have made had the threat not been so egregious. Certainly one could say that their concerns are probably unwarranted. But removed from the context of the usual standards upon which they make such decisions, we certainly can't determine that their decision is not the usual, predictable one they would make. That is why I point out that, in light of the fact that they have the right to NOT bear the consequences of carrying the magazine, coming to the decision they did is both reasonable and acceptable. Perhaps I should have stated "reasonable and acceptable according to their own established standards of operation".
Robis-
It's not reasonable or acceptable to me and I'm the one doing the writing. It's obviously reasonable or acceptable to them or they wouldn't have made the decision. They admitted that the only reason they did it was out of fear of violence. I think that's bad. I think it only encourages more threats of violence. If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. The fact that they think I'm wrong is irrelevant, and whether their decision is "usual and predictable" is even more irrelevant.
I think you're wrong because you blow Border's decision out of proportion, based not upon that decision but upon your own belief that it is bad to base such decisions upon a fear of violence---as if Borders has any responsibility at all to some greater ideal other than the safety of their customers and staff. Are they overestimating the security issue of carrying the magazine? Most assuredly, and I would agree with you there. But that does not mean that their decision is neccessarily an act of cowardice, or that it encourages anyone to make more threats of violence. They haven't attmpted to close down all avenues through which the magazine can be sold. They haven't created some conspiracy of booksellers to keep the magazine off the stands. They haven't even encouraged the magazine to remove the cartoons. They have simply stated that they will not carry the magazine. So by calling it an act of cowardice or stating that it will lead to more threats seems to me to be blowing the whole issue out of proportion.
First, Borders may be caving as a publicity stunt, something to generate buzz, which may end with Borders bravely and graciously seeing the light (of a million angry emails?) and changing their mind. Some bookstore chains did something similar in pulling, then re-shelving, Rushdie's book "in response to popular demand" or something.
Second, re-publishing the same damn cartoons over and over no longer makes the point it made early on. We've seen them already, we know where to find them, they weren't (IMHO) all that funny to begin with, and they're old news. And in ordinary circumstances, most editors would have passed on them because they would have (rightly) considered them tasteless. (Didn't they originally come from extreme-right fringe publications?)
We don't need to reprint the same cartoons; we need to publish more up-to-date information about the anemic and bigoted political cultures that produce the violence and intolerance we've recently seen from the Muslim world.
Robis wrote:
I think they do. That greater ideal is what protects their right to do business in the first place. A bookstore would be in a world of trouble without that ideal and I think we all have an ethical obligation to stand up for it when it's under attack. I think that's true even when it is used to protect ideas we find abhorrent. And I think it's especially true when fascists of any stripe are trying to tear it down. You disagree? Fine by me. Just don't expect me to change my mind or to care very much.
With all due respect, Ed, that sounds pretty much the "I've made up my mind and there's no changing it" attitude that is not at all conducive to an exchange of ideas. You expect that Borders should hold the same ideals as you and if they don't they are cowards. But you give absolutely no reason why that is. And what's more, you expect them to hold those same ideals when there is no expectation that you will bear any of the responsibility should Border's fear prove to be well-founded. It is easy to hold those ideals when hitting the post key is the last you have to worry about it.
I'm not even trying to change your mind, all I ask is that if you're going to call them cowards, you could at least create a compelling case for it instead of simply appealing to the "you'll never change my mind" attitude that really doesn't support your position.
Robis,
"[A]bsolutely no reason"? That's a bit strong: Ed's suggested that they are motivated by fear, and they've admitted as much. Being motivated by fear isn't sufficient to make one a coward, but it is certainly necessary. What's cowardice? Failure to "do the right thing" because of excessive fear of the consequences. Whether their fear is excessive, and whether stocking a magazine they normally stock is the 'right thing' are subjective, but certainly, those are reasons to suspect cowardice. It's certainly not bizarre to suggest that the 'right thing' is for a bookstore to support free speech.
In the 4+ years since 9/11, we have seen profound reductions in our constitutional protections, especially those under the 1st and 4th ammendments. If the goal of the terrorists was to negatively impact our way of life, well, it seems to me they're winning...
mikey
Robis wrote:
Well you certainly aren't going to change my mind with lines like this. I've given my reasons for my conclusion. You understand my position perfectly well. You disagree with it. Fine by me. But don't pretend I didn't give it. They admit that the reason they did it was because they fear that violence might result. They are choosing that expediency over principle. They have that right, but I also have the right to criticize it. You don't like it? Tough shit.
Nonsense. I've already done exactly what I think they should do, and I did it more explicitly than I expect of them (they don't have to put the caricatures on the front window, just don't refuse to stock one magazine out of hundreds merely because they include them). I published the caricatures on my webpage with my full name available for all to see. And it had nothing to do with bravery or anything like that, it had to do with my principles. And frankly, I think the risk is highly exaggerated. So do you, by your own admission, yet here you are waxing eloquent about that horrible risk they face that I am allegedly callous to. If anyone is demonstrating an inability to reason out their position, I would suggest that it's you.
All the letters to Borders threatening loss of customers won't do a dang bit of good. Frankly, I'm not sure anything would, but I'm going to have some fun with this. Here's my suggestion.
Ooops. Sorry for the bad link. Go to: http://chemjerk.blogs.com/chemjerk/2006/03/borders_support.html
Now they want to forbid a movie about... Jesus Christ
This is a classic example of how you spoil a child by yielding to its hysteria.