Your God, My Speech: Blog Post 1.

Communication laws often become a shady grey area. What is deemed acceptable and appropriate to one individual may be wholly different to another. Consequentially, the process of reconciling these two differences becomes an area of concern. How do we create an appropriate atmosphere for both schools of thought?

When it comes to religious expression, or denouncement of it for that matter, people are often up in arms following an act of free speech that is in contradiction to their beliefs. Ultimately, we all seek that in which solidifies our previously held beliefs. Look no further than the viewing demographic for both Fox News and MSNBC—two incredibly polarized news organizations.

It is with this ignorance and stubborn attitude that I argue towards the protection of individual civil liberty regardless of the fact if it is used against the group.

The group model does not work. It is failing. While individuals naturally flock to group settings, a collective community in this day and age (religious, political) is primarily established out of hate. An “us vs. them” mentality has been created in the United States wherein for interest groups those which do not within the boundaries of their viewpoints are automatically dismissed.

We all need to be watchdogs of these groups that spew language of hate, messages of intolerance and overall demeanor's of ignorance. By allowing a more individually based law governing communication, higher responsibility is placed on the individual to continually question and ask more of these special interest groups. The form in which this criticism takes is limitless to the degree that it does not physically harm other people. The declaration of international human rights clearly states that every individual has certain inalienable, innately human rights. In terms of communication and the harm principle, article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

The freedom of speech and laws which attempt to govern it comes with huge responsibility. At no point should the freedom to speak one’s mind be used to perpetuate issues of hate and violence. There is certain speech that has allowed for this and has no place in democratic dialogue. However, the freedom to say that which feel is a necessity to a healthy democracy. Silence is just as evil as hate.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burstyn v Wilson in the 1950s states that disallowing “sacrilegious speech” is ultimately a threat to the individual right to free speech is spot on. Free speech does not stop at the doors of the church. If anything, it becomes increasingly important to question and examine an institutionalized religious system that has caused so much pain and hurt over the centuries. Death in the name of religion has created an atmosphere where what many would describe as “sacrilegious speech” is increasingly important. If we do not question, silence will take over and ignorance will persist.

This is not to say individuals within these groups are denied their right to speak. Just like those who voice dissent, these groups have the law governing their side as well.

There are several reasons for this individual civil liberty approach. First and foremost we are not group thinkers. Humans are inherently individual creatures whom have the ability to think for themselves. Historically speaking as well it has been the power of the individual and the ability to criticize our government, groups, etc that has prove to be most effective and powerful.

When it comes to a recent editorial cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad, I would be most apt to protect the speaker. While offensive to many people, the cartoon itself was not in horrible taste. Even if it was, the fact that the individual created it bears responsibility on him but also guarantees his freedoms. Many described the cartoon as blasphemous and “sacrilegious.” What they fail to recognize is that although it may indeed be both of these things, there is no stopping an individual from expressing that in which they believe.

The cartoon itself is criticizing Muslim extremists who use their religion as a means to perpetuate fear, hate and violence. If anything it was a criticism against an extreme form of religion that has no place in our world.

Responding to the cartoon with violent protests seemed to perpetuate the message in which the cartoon was conveying. While the Muslim population had full right to engage in their own free speech and protest the escalation of violence was uncalled for. This group—fully protected by free speech laws—has the powerful opportunity to start a dialogue. We all do.

In the often raunchy depictions of Jesus in “Ecce Homo” I would also align myself in protecting the artists free speech rights. As the Supreme Court consistently has stated, even though free speech may be deemed sacrilegious by many, prohibiting the exercise of it would be unconstitutional. Justice Clark made a famous statement in Burstyn v Wilson which stated that the government, citing a separation of church and state, has no obligation to protect religious institutions from real or imagined attacks. In the opinion of the court Clark states “It is not the business of the government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.”

Furthermore, and I do not know how strong of an argument this is, individuals need to evaluate the seriousness of their religion and what it is they fight for in the name of God. If I could say in short—take a chill pill. Not everything is meant to be taken so seriously. If we remain with the status-quo and do not push the boundaries we are stuck in the mundane. Social progress, social understanding requires that we as citizens of this world continually hold people accountable for things. Silence is not golden.