Dinesh D'Souza is a little glib when it comes to the question of racial speech codes: there are good historical reasons why black Americans are more sensitive than other groups). But the parallel he draws between the Don Imus furore and the Muhammad cartoons is worth considering:
The Middle Eastern media is treating the Imus story--and how our little scandals travel worldwide!--with a certain degree of relish. And I think I know why.... When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed the cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, many in the West viewed this solely through the lens of free speech. The media coverage suggested a confirmation of Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis. We believe in free speech and they don't...
Clearly the embassy-burnings and rabid protests of the Islamic radicals showed that there is a faction in the Muslim world that completely rejects open debate. But the traditional Muslims fell silent. They did not join with the radicals, but neither did they defend the cartoons. And indeed some commented that the way in which the West was treating the controversy was unfair and hypocritical.
The Imus controversy vindicates the argument of these traditional Muslims. How often during the Imus brouhaha have you heard the words "free speech"? Hardly....No wonder the Muslims are chuckling. They see that when our sacred cows are gored, we scream bloody murder and demand accountability and heads on a platter. By contrast when someone elses's sacred cows are gored, we proclaim ourselves loftily on the side of free speech and demand that they "get over it."
How true. Double-standards know no boundary.
"we scream bloody murder and demand accountability and heads on a platter": ah, the difference between literally and figuratively.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 05:55 PM
Cherchez le Soros: How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus
Posted by: Sissy Willis | Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Clive,
I've been thinking about this, and I believe you're wrong. Freedom of speech has consequences, which may range from being fired to having your country's embassy torched. That does not mean that that freedom should be circumscribed.
There is no hypocrisy here. What the cartoon protesters want is for it to be impossible for anyone to publish such things. What the Imus imbroglio shows is that it is possible to say anything you want, as long as you're willing to face the aftermath.
The difference is that one approach tries to intimidate free speech by violence or threats of violence, while the other says that you can say what you want, but you might get fired if your audience calls up and complains. Which form of restraint would you prefer?
Best regards,
Peter
Posted by: Peter Jackson | Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I believe Peter Jackson's put his finger on it. There's the matter, too, of appropriate response. No one was crying for Imus's literal head on a platter. Further the action taken was performed by a non-state actor--the broadcasting companies. Nor did mobs gather to burn down the various stations broadcasting the program.
I believe the word I'm looking for is 'proportionality'.
Posted by: John | Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 03:52 AM