Reza Aslan: Press Freedoms Are Not Absolute
NPR: All Things Considered - February 3rd, 2006
[…]
Robert Seigel: Well, this is a very personal question. You’re an American of Iranian extraction and a Muslim. You’re also an academic and you’re I think a person who lives a secular life, no? Reza?
Reza Aslan: That’s right
Robert Seigel: You see a satiric, insulting image of The Prophet. Does your blood boil or do you say “those crazy Danes.”
Reza Aslan: Well, my blood boils, not because I’m offended by the image. My blood boils because I feel as though that the purpose of publishing these depictions was to deliberately provoke Muslim societies in Europe. So, I’m angry that there wasn’t more care and concern about trying to maintain a sense of reconciliation and unity, not so much about the pictures themselves.
Robert Seigel: It’s the motive you infer from the publication that ah…
Reza Aslan: Absolutely.
[…]
Listen to the entire interview to get a full picture of Aslan’s perspective. But be warned; it’s not a sexy, free speech position.
Aslan doesn’t spend much time analyzing the ills of the various cartoons. Instead, he takes the same position that I’ve been pushing for the last few days. Understanding that there is a small, but fanatical sub-section of Islam within the delicate balance of religious co-existence in Europe, it is irresponsible to provoke Muslim society by republishing these depictions.
At least the European newspapers that republished the depictions have skin in the game; their readership and neighbors represent a vocal community of Muslims. The European balance of Islam and Christian faith will be tested once again, but like I said, they’re already engaged. What baffles me is this apparent need for the right blogosphere in the US to jump in and support wholesale “free speech.” Without skin in the game, it’s beyond irresponsible; it’s reprehensible.
Chickenhawkish, actually.
Tags: academia, Islam, Muslim, New World Order, personal, political cartoons, politics, Prophet Mohammed, Reza Aslan, secular.
Search
No Tweets RSS feedLatest Posts
- grateful for the silence while…
- getting back to the basics: me…
- can’t sleep. in a bad way…
- singing words of wisdom… let…
- i finally understand the conce…
- thinking about painting my bed…
- getting to know the morning ci…
- what a ride this week has been…
- 37 years is what it took for m…
- i’ve got the 9:22 blues… tim…
What I Write About (see all)
- 9 11 accountability activism Adam Smith Problem advertising America antiwar artsy fartsy blogging business capitalism change citizen media community Congress corporation corruption creativity disturbing experience design film funny George Bush government graffiti Greensboro Hip hop humanity information architecture innovation inspiration internet Iraq War journalism lyrics media music New World Order New York City North Carolina personal philosophy photography poetry politics reality Republican Party terrorism video World 2.0
It is easy for Americans to be preplexed with the fanatical sub-section of Islam’s reactions to the published cartoons depiciting the Prophet Mohammed.
It is also easy for us in the West to cloak and defend ourselves with the “freedom of the press” shield, which we fully expect the American public not only to embrace, but quickly rise to defend. That being said, it is just plain “stupid” not to expect the reactions that these cartoons have caused within the fanatical sub-sections of Islam.
As much as I love our “Freedom of the Press”, I, like you Sean find it simply irresponsible to provoke these factions. I’ll add that our continued failure to understand this may become a major contributing factor towards the disruptions in the delicate balance of religous co-existance in the European Union.
As long as we Americans continue with an unwillingness to understand other races and religious cultures, yes, I know some of you will say, but we are a “melting-pot and we have freedoms-of-religion at home”, we are sure to go down the wrong path.
Perhaps it’s just me, but my opinion is that if American continue with an attitude of, “our American way and culture is hollier than thou” type of mentality we are sure to prolong not only our governments inability to correctly identify and target our true foreign enemies, but also render us completely ineffective towards our “war on terrorism”.
hey, tony. yeah, i know it’s easy to be perplexed with the way other people live their lives, but if americans blog about world events, i expect them to be old enough (read: mature) to delve into the conversation with some common sense. but then again, if building community isn’t the agenda at hand (well, except for building an ignorant, right-wing community), then we can’t expect too much.
it’s not just you. i notice every day the badge of honor some americans blatently display, thinking that their profession of sovereign righteousness will defend them from an “invading” ideology like a cross to a vampire. it’s extremely annoying and self-defeating.
citizen media exposes both the insight and the warts of citizens.
I loved Reza Aslan’s post on Slate - you should check it out. He captures the difficulty of taking any extreme position on the recent controversy. Before jumping into the fray to support wholesale free speech rights, all of us should examine legitimate limitations on the freedom of speech - extreme hate speech, for example, or “fighting words” - the US constitution does not protect such speech. If your theory and Reza’s is correct, and the intent of publishing the cartoons was to incite violence, then such limitations might apply. I would be curious what other bloggers might say about these distinctions and the gray areas that arise when freedom of speech runs smack into religious tolerance and pluralism.
thanks for the heads up, i’ll look up the article.
i don’t think the dutch paper tried to incite violence, but after reading the entire timeline, it’s obvious they attempted to force “discourse” after the children’s book illustrators refused to depict the prophet. they knew it could become a very hot issue, so they were irresponsible on one level or another.
as for the papers and blogs that followed suit last week, well, they simply added fuel to the fire; nothing more, nothing less. does that fall under the label of hate speech? probably not. fighting words? well, they were definitely incendiary.