Censorship

Censorship is a serious issue, and the term should not be bandied about without just cause and without thinking of the other side.

The former managing editor at France Soir misuses the term censorship, and he does so in an irresponsible way. He claimed to be fighting censorship when he re-printed the infamous cartoons. However, his support is not valid for such a claim, and his support shows that he is not, indeed, fighting censorship but is rather contributing to sensationalism and doing a bit of censorship of his own.

According to the MSNBC article “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” this editor (not named) wrote: “The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen…. In these circumstances, that meant publishing these drawings.”

“These circumstances” are not very clear. The Danish paper DID publish the infamous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. In point of fact, they WERE published, not censored. I, and I’m sure many others, looked these up online. So, they weren’t censored there. In fact, I found at least five sites the posted these pictures within seconds. I would call these pictures EASILY ACCESSIBLE, not censored.

Did the editor really fight censorship when the information was readily available to anyone with access to the WWW? Did the French, who have been recently blasted about discrimination issues, really need to offend citizens by re-printing these pictures? If the pictures had been suppressed and unavailable, then perhaps his action could be appropriate. However, the pictures were not suppressed. Furthermore, these pictures, which ARE offensive to many people, are not something that we need to see, like perhaps pictures of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or pictures of the coffins of troops being sent home from Iraq (which HAVE been suppressed).

For those who have protested the pictures, Muslims and anyone else, they are NOT calling for censorship. The pictures HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED. Rather, they have tried to explain, to many deaf ears who only hear “CENSORSHIP”, that to make any form of drawing of the Prophet is a form of idolatry and is against their religious convictions. So, not only is it rude to draw these pictures, it shows disrespect for someone’s beliefs. And, certain people in the media continue to show this disrespect, like poking a stick, by re-publishing the pictures so that they won’t be censored. Ironic, since they have been published ALL OVER.

The editor is further quoted in the MSNBC article: “Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?"

This editor fails to see a major flaw in his reasoning for publishing the cartoons in the name of fighting censorship. Yes, we have a right to the freedom of press and freedom of speech. We have these rights in a democracy so we may take actions to keep our democracy safe and just, as well as to make changes according to our needs. However, we also have freedom of religion. This is NOT freedom to disrespect another’s religion. It means we have a right to worship as we believe and to practice the tenants of that faith without interference from the government or other citizens. No, we should not limit our freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech goes both ways and should not forsake the freedom of religion. So, if “the media” publishes pictures (which were hardly respectful or flattering) that go against someone else’s religious beliefs, then the media should expect this group to raise voices in protest. It’s their right. And, the media has no right to censor their protest and make into something it is not—it is not fundamentalist or in support of terrorism to protest these cartoons.

These protests against the caricaturization of the Prophet could, if the media lets them, be informative. The reasons for protest could be an insight into a faith and a culture. But, when the media or others see this protest as censorship, ironically, they do not realize that they disregarding the protesters’ rights and/or are misinterpreting their meanings. When the media does this, they are the ones doing the censoring. Why shouldn’t devote Muslims protest the caricature of the Prophet? If they think it is morally wrong, then why shouldn’t they speak up?

I typed this several weeks ago, and I am sticking with this argument. There are people who are, on both sides, using this issue to fuel several fires, but the initial argument remains. There was not censorship, and people do have to right to protest. I do not, however, condone violence on either side.