The Freedom of Expression: A Clash of Interpretations

It is English common law - and plain human logic: You are in a crowded theater.  Some idiot stands up and yells out a falsehood: "Fire!! Fire!!"  The audience panics and rushes aimlessly in every direction, seeking an exit.  As they run for their lives, they trample under foot several others.  Death and injuries occur.  Was that free speech?  No!!  The perpetrator, if found, would be led away by the police on criminal charges!!

A rabid anti-semite scrawls on the tombstones of a Jewish cemetery in Queens, Long Island, the despicable swastika.  Was that free speech?  No.  It is an incitement to hatred!!

A KKK clansman, under the cover of night, burns a cross on the lawn of an Afro-American family to express his racist hate for the blacks moving in his neighborhood.  Is that an exercise of his constitutional right under the First Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press..."

That offending clansman cannot get away with it under the cover of this first article of the American Bill of Rights.  Why?  An incitement to racial hatred in a society which prides itself on diversity.

A woman, during the 2008 presidential campaign (Obama vs. McCain) tells Senator McCain why she was going to vote for him and against Obama.  "He (meaning Obama) is an Arab!!"  McCain disagrees with her at a minimum level.  "He is not an Arab?!," he admonishes.  McCain's message would have been a great lesson in American diversity had he added: "So what if he was an Arab?!!"

A bunch of criminals orchestrate the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  A great U.S. (and world) Ambassador, Chris Stevens, together with three other U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel, are martyred.  Does that inconsequential little nothing of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad, put together by a renegade Copt who is now back in jail for parole violation, reason enough for that heinous crime?  Absolutely no.

That video, together with the satire expressed about Muhammad in the weekly French "Charlie Hebdo," resulted in ugly upheavals in more than 2 dozens of States, Members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  In these rage-full demonstrations, people died, property was destroyed, U.S. flags were burned, and a price of $100,000 was placed on the head of the video producer by a Pakistani cabinet member.  Did the provocative causes justify those dastardly effects?  No.  They simply painted Islam with a color with which it had absolutely no relationship.

What we are faced with today on a world scale is a very ominous clash of ideas competing for interpretation.  For the Muslims, the provocations which, since 9/11, took the form of a patriotic response to those events, are manifestations of anti-Islamism.  For the West, especially in the U.S., they are protected speech by individuals over whose actions the government hand is stayed.

The two sides are reading the same events, but justifying their responses on the basis of a variety of different texts, different value systems, different historic traditions, and different historical experiences.

To an American, the U.S. Constitution has settled the case in favor of the freedom of expression.  President Obama affirmed those beliefs when he told the UN General Assembly 67th session on September 25, 2012:

"I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.  Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

But the Muslim world is reading a different text.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, paragraph 2, states:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

The Muslim world is also turning to Al-Azhar's historic document of January 11, 2012 which, in my blog of January 24, 2012, I described it as "The Egyptian Magna Carta."  In addressing the "Freedom of Thought and Expression," Al-Azhar, as per my words in that blog:

"describes this freedom as being at the root of all freedoms, as is manifest in the utilization of all means of expression in writing, artistic production and digitized outreach.  It encompasses the right to assembly, to the establishment of parties and other civil society organizations, freedom of the printed, audio, visual and digital press as well as access to information necessary for informed consent.

This freedom, the Charter cautions, does not include the right to inciting violence, sectarian discord or radical calls for discrimination.  It quotes the maxim of the great historical Muslim scholars which states: "My view is correct but is subject to error, and the opposing view is wrong but is subject to rectification." 

On the day following Obama's speech at the UN, Egypt's President Morsi, in a clash of interpretation of the freedom of expression, told the same General Assembly in Arabic, translated by me into English as follows:

"Egypt respects the freedom of expression.  By that we mean an expression which is not exploited to incite hatred for anyone.  It is not the freedom of expression which targets for attack a particular religion or a particular culture.  A freedom of expression which confronts extremism and violence.  It is not the freedom of expression which enshrines ignorance and denigrates others.  But, at the same time, we stand firmly against the use of violence as a means of expressing rejection of these imbecilities."

Again in connection with making fun of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, a general call issued forth calling for a Trial of Muhammad World Day.  The Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Aly Gomaa, a renowned leader of moderation in Islam, condemned that call as well as the video produced in California.  An American newspaper charged Gomaa of incitement to violence and terrorism.  And in response, Gomaa publicly denied that false charge and called on the UN to enact an international instrument criminalizing attacks on any religion and on its symbols.

So goes the clash of interpretations of the valued principle of freedom of expression. Who is right and who is wrong?  This is an impossible question to answer in any definitive manner.

However, the long range response might be for world leaders, educators and foundations to encourage learning about and respect for all faiths, cultures and values.  There is also a crying need for mass knowledge of foreign languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu.  We need to bring our continents closer together through all types of exchanges, trade, tourism and the performing arts.

From the point of view of one of the newly democratically elected Arab presidents, President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, a Salafi is as dangerous to world peace as is a westerner ridiculing Islam.