Blog 1 - Your God My Speech

10/2/09


I believe that laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. We need to protect individuals’ rights rather than reinforcing group beliefs because not everyone wants to be part of a group, even if they’re born into a group, such as a religion. They may one day decide that they don’t believe in that religion and they need the right to explain why those beliefs are not for them.

We can look at history for an example; if colonists hadn’t been able to speak out against the injustices put on them by England, then America might still be living under British rule. Individuals have to assert themselves against a group in order to gain their rights to form their own group. In modern America we have a variety of groups to join; its part of the freedom of being American. And one the key attributes of our freedom is that our different groups are not forced to follow the laws/rules of other groups. Naturally there is the law which everyone has to follow. Laws that serve society rather than group beliefs and practices. People shouldn't have to follow a group's law, but there should be an agreed on set of laws for those living within a society. Groups and individuals would have to agree on a process of how laws are made and for what reasons. These laws would be made agreed upon by an elected government or council, depending on the kind of society. Laws like those would be to ensure the safety and security of a society but they wouldn't regulate the everyday lives and traditions of people and their groups. And so long as a group operates peacefully and within the common laws, they can live pretty much however they want.

In some Islamic cultures women are required to wear Burqas as part of their religious traditions. However many feel that it’s an outdated and oppressive requirement. In some middle-eastern parts of the world the Burqa is beginning to fade away. But in parts of Afghanistan under rule of the Taliban, women are forced into this practice in fear of death. Many women and other Islamic people may still wish to follow most of their religious practices, but they’re being forced into following the rules proposed by other groups and not their own leaders. Here in America we’re allowed to follow our religion of choice in whatever degree we please, the government doesn’t force us to follow our religion the way they see fit. If the individual’s right to speak out against a group wasn’t protected in America, it’s possible that women may still be unable to vote today.


When it comes to the controversy surrounding the cartoon depicting Muhammad, it’s certainly a slippery slope. On one hand there is the right to freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten claimed that it was making a point about being able to satirize every kind of religion, and that they felt that Muslims wanted special treatment. But we also have the fact that within the Muslim religion itself, they’re forbidden to depict Muhammad at all, much less disdainfully so it’s clearly an offensive issue to them. It’s also true though that so long as we aren’t part of a group we shouldn’t have to follow that group’s rules. In America, I feel that if I were judging this would be an easy case. The newspaper is within its rights to print whatever it wants under the first amendment. In my personal belief it kind of seems like the paper almost wanted to start trouble, but so long as they don’t hurt anyone or intentionally promote violence among others they can say or print anything, especially a fictitious depiction. However in Denmark there is a law under their Danish Criminal Code. Section 140 of the code is known as the blasphemy law, prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten was found innocent of any criminal intent, and the judge stated that Journalists are to be allowed to publish things that may be considered blasphemy if their comments relates to a topic of public interest. Seeing as how Jyllands-Posten claimed that the point of their cartoon was to raise questions about the treatment of Islamic culture in society, I would judge that they were within their rights and that they should be protected. Intent should be considered in cases such as this. The speakers claimed that there intent was to raise questions about Islamic culture in Society, so it seems that there was no criminal intent. However the message itself needs to also be considered. One may be able to lie about their original intent, so the message needs to be given a great amount of scrutiny to make sure that the message does match the claimed intent.


With regards to a different case, that of whether filmmakers in Dubai should be allowed to have the same rights as those in Hollywood, it’s hard to insist that they should. Never having been to India myself, and not knowing how the people themselves may feel, it’s hard to make a judgment. The majority of Dubai movie-goers may hate the idea of Dubai films becoming more like Hollywood. I could certainly understand if they wanted to keep their movies the way they are in fear of losing that part of their culture. Or they could love the idea, and I personally think that their opinion should be considered rather than just the government’s censors.

Thinking from a strictly financial point of view, it would be foolish for them not to. They want to bring in American companies to make movies and they also need more people to work the labor side of the process. But when it comes to the rights of the people, they may be prevented from fully expressing a compelling story if they do not have greater rights. Film is mostly a form of entertainment but it can also be used as an agent of social change and help spread awareness of an issue. Filmmakers not having the same rights as Hollywood studios are incapable of bringing certain messages and issues into their films. If the filmmakers in Dubai adhered to universal human rights, rather than laws that serve to protect their religious institutions then it would be possible for them to make films that truly impact their society.