Charles Krauthammer adds his two cents' worth on the subject of the Mohammed cartoons:
As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators' sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts -- intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States -- are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and they declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.
So many intellectuals in the West stand ready to decry the "chilling effect" of any kind of calls for restraint – warning labels on movies, games, and music – calls for restraint on the part of the news media or in politics – laws calling for parental notification in abortion or requests for birth control. Any kind of restriction on content, or even criticism from a conservative group, creates a "chilling effect" on free speech.
Well, here's a real example of a chilling effect, and Western intellectuals are pouring on ice by the carload.
What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear. They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.
How is the appeaser defined? The fellow who feeds the alligator, hoping it'll eat him last? Sounds vaguely familiar somehow.
No comments:
Post a Comment