|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Machan's Musings-Cultural Relativism and Freedom that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, expression, speech, and so forth. Both types of liberals have been supporters of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution’s First Amendment (although modern liberals have been known to cave in when it comes to the demands of political correctness). At least when it comes to political ideas, both groups champion the position that people may not be censored and otherwise intruded upon in their beliefs and in their efforts to express these peacefully. Yes, there are problems with some of this. Can a modern liberal, who is hostile to the principle of the right to private property, really stand up to public pressure concerning various opinions? On public property—which is what many modern liberals consider all property—can individuals retain and practice the right to free expression? After all, suppose those representing the public prohibit certain kinds of speech or artistic expression? Basically, those who do not respect private property rights cannot consistently stand up for the right to freedom of expression. And this is very evident just now, when all around the globe some Muslims are not just peacefully but aggressively protesting the expression of views and images critical of their religion. It hasn’t yet come full blown to these shores because much of America is privately owned—newspapers, magazines, film companies, television stations and so forth do not belong within the public sphere. But elsewhere it is evident that without respect for the right to private property, freedom of speech is seriously jeopardized. In some areas Muslims, who feel offended at cartoons printed in privately owned newspapers, have attacked the embassies of the countries in which the papers are published. In particular the Danish have been under assault en masse because some Danes have ridiculed and made fun of Islam. Interestingly, many who vociferously defend the right to free expression at home—people often associated with the ACLU—are silent about the threats to and attacks upon free speech abroad. Why is there no outcry about this from the usual sources? It is quite possible that those who often speak out against censorship and state intimidation of freedom of speech have been disarmed by a relativism they also accept. Sure, when the Bush Administration is suspected of violating freedom of speech—by means of secret wiretaps and so forth—that’s roundly condemned. But what about what thousands of Muslims are doing abroad just now, attacking people of whose ideas they disapprove? Why are their targets not receiving vigorous support? It may well be the influence of moral and political relativism that accounts for this. The essence of such relativism is that what one ought to do, and what laws ought to govern varies from place to place, time to time, country to country and culture to culture. For a relativist defending free speech here in America it may be OK if people abroad are not free to speak out. These are the same folks who hold that economic principles are relative, as are many others—what is true for Americans is not true of Iranians or Pakistanis or Cubans. So, should a bunch of Americans protest certain Hollywood movies, magazine articles, or newspaper cartoons by attempting to shut down the forums which make room for these, that would be a bad thing. It would then be justified to call in the American Civil Liberties Union—because this would be an American issue. But if people abroad are attacking those with whom they disagree, that may be difficult to complain about from a relativist position. When several years ago the novelist Salman Rushdie had a contract on his life because his novel, The Satanic Verses, offended Muslims, many did speak up in his defense, recognizing that what is written or spoken does not qualify as some kind of attack upon people. The old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” still held back then, in the minds of many Western intellectuals, pundits, and other commentators. But now that multiculturalism and relativism are rampant among these same folks, they have become silenced in the face of attacks upon free expression. Yet this is wrong—men and women everywhere have the right to free expression, and those who want to violate and void that right need to be vigilantly criticized and restrained.
Discuss this Article (1 message) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
