Nothing is Sacred...Except Islam

In this morning's New York Times Op-Ed columnist Ross Douthat offers a great piece on the latest South Park/Muhammad depiction controversy.

For those not up to snuff, the creators of South Park recently received death threats/warnings for depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Facing the possibility of death, the show used alternative and comedic means to avoid showing the prophet's face--including dressing him in a mascot uniform and having him in the back of a U-Haul trailer. Leave it to South Park creators Parker and Stone to make censorship fun!

But the censorship isn't all fun and games. Douthat notes, "In last week’s follow-up episode, the prophet’s non-appearance appearances were censored, and every single reference to Muhammad was bleeped out. The historical record was quickly scrubbed as well: The original 'Super Best Friends' episode [a previous episode that featured the Muslim prophet] is no longer available on the Internet."

This sort of pandering to Islam is nothing new. It seems that time after time each religion is fair game for criticism and mocking, except for Islam. Anti-religious documentaries primarily sling mud at Christianity. The new atheists find their prime opponent in the Christian God. On and on the one-sided offensive behavior is railed. Islam is left relatively untouched, and the forced censorship continues.

It should be noted that the South Park "Super Best Friends" cast includes the leaders of every major world religion, including my savior Jesus Christ. I am often offended by the mocking and misrepresentation of my Lord and my faith in pop culture, but I would never support the censoring of such. I adhere to the classical Christian view regarding freedom of conscience, and I know that it is not my place to forcibly bring change in one's behavior. It is God who brings true, lasting change--not me, not censorship, not force. 

In Psalm 2 the Bible speaks of the heathens raging against God--mocking, disrespecting, and defying. The passage goes on to say that God "sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them [the mocking and self-assured world] in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury..." Knowing of His own sovereignty and the power of His Son, the LORD is no respecter of persons or their mocks. Knowing this same thing, Christians have no reason to fear the scorn of the world. Islamic fringe elements, on the other hand, lack that surety.

A large part of the censorship and egg shell walking surrounding Islam involves fear, and the only way to break this fear is to defy any attempts to squelch expression. In a country founded on freedom of conscience and expression, we cannot stand for this type of fear-induced censorship.

Douthat concludes:

In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.

Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.

For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down.

A Victory for Free Expression...Court Upholds Unpopular Expression

The Washington Post  reports on the latest victory for free expression:

The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs. 

"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." 

The law was passed in 1999 in an attempt to prevent the sale of "crush films"--fetish films in which animals are crushed. The law, however, is so overly broad that it could be used against hunting videos and mere depictions of violence toward animals.

Writing for the Court, the Chief Jusice noted that as written the law “creates a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.”  The SCOTUS blog reported, "Noting that the government had given assurances that it would enforce the law only against commercial portrayals of “extreme cruelty,” the Chief Justice wrote that the Court would not uphold an unconstitutional law “merely because the government promises to use it responsibly.”"

The Cheif Justice is right to call into question reliance on responsible usage of the law. Any chance for abuse must be nipped in the bud when its knowledge arises. 

It should be noted that the Court's ruling was not against the ability of the federal government to legislate against animal cruelty. Rather, the ability to ban videos depicting such was called into question. The Court thankfully took the right stand refusing to further gut First Amendment protection.

It has long been noted that the First Amendment is not needed to protect popular expression. Rather, it is the unpopular which warrants protection. Indeed, those of us who value liberty are oft in need of the First Amendment's protection.

I find animal cruelty despicable, but so is the violation of First Amendment protection. If states want to enact laws against cruelty to animals, that is their prerogative. But banning a form of expression is outside the pale of acceptability. If we are to maintain a free society, let us fix these problems by changing the culture, not by changing the law.

In his magnum opus On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." Write he was then, and so he is today.