We know a lot more now than we did yesterday when I wrote my first response to the horrific events in Cairo and Benghazi. We know, for example, that Cairo embassy’s twitter post was issued before the violence unfolded in front of and on the embassy grounds. To be sure, we have to suspect that the author of the post meant to defuse or preempt a situation like the one that did in fact occur.
His pandering clearly failed.
We also know that the Cairo statement wasn’t cleared by the State Department in Washington, D.C., and that the author seems to have been freelancing against the wishes of his Foggy Bottom superiors. But as the infamous (in some circles, at least) Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler notes, there are significant structural and thematic similarities between the Cairo post and other statements issued by our diplomats on similar occasions. Still, there’s enough of a difference to justify Kessler’s conclusion that the Cairo statement is “perhaps the weakest” (by far, I’d add) of the three statements he finds, especially because, unlike the others, it fails to offer a fulsome articulation of our commitment to freedom of speech, association, and religion. The audience at which the post was directed certainly feels a grievance and might welcome our respect for that grievance (and take it as an affirmation of the grievance), but, from my point of view, what it especially has to hear, much more clearly, is why we cannot and they ought not, to draw the conclusions from that grievance that the post’s author knows they’re sorely tempted to draw. We may condemn the offensive speech, but we will not suppress it. In the name of freedom of speech and religion, we will tolerate utterances that some may find offensive.
In this connection, Bush Administration State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (quoted by Kessler) makes a statement (responding to the Danish Mohammed cartoons) that comes closer to getting matters right (by my lights):
Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.
We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.
I would add that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton got it right today too:
Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue….
Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.
There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. We all – whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders – must draw the line at violence. And any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line.
Good for her. It is important, I think, that she said this in the presence of the Moroccan Foreign Minister. She certainly clarifies the difference between our principles and those of people–perfectly capable of alluding to “red lines”–who willfully refuse to have a thick skin.
“We want to expel the American ambassador,” said Abdelwadood al-Mutawa, a protester who was walking out of the [U.S.]embassy compound [in Yemen]. He said he was motivated by reports of the movie mocking the prophet Muhammad. “We cannot accept any insult to our prophet,” Mutawa said. “It’s a red line.”
Another protester said that some of the security forces protecting the building appeared sympathetic to the demonstrators’ cause. “Some soldiers were telling me, ‘These are dogs, and we cannot accept insulting our prophet,’ ” said Yusef Mohammad.
President Obama began his outreach to the Muslim world with a speech in Cairo, widely hailed as a new opening and change in tone from that of the Bush Administration. While I won’t take the acts of anti-American mobs in Egypt and Yemen, and of murderers in Libya, as an indication of the failure of his now not so new approach, there is some data that, along with these incidents, gives me pause. To say the least, President Obama hasn’t worn well in the Arab world. If that’s because he has vigorously targeted terrorists, I can live with it, and so too should he. If his concessions to the sensibilities of others have been taken as a sign of weakness, a sign that embassies and consulates can be attacked, and diplomats murdered, without facing serious consequences, then he has an extraordinary opportunity to set our adversaries straight.
Do the right thing, Mr. Obama.
September 13th, 2012 | 7:39 pm
What business is it of governments to comment on what is or is not offensive? And that in a context when that speech has led to people murdering others. It’s completely irrelevant, and a completely uncalled for attack on people peacefully exercising their rights, while partially excusing people who have been committing murder – after all, while committing murder is going too far, they are right to be angry, apparently.
I rarely agree with Jon Kyl, but he got it exactly right. The obsessive focus on condemning free speech, while denying that you are doing that, is very much like saying: “I am not blaming the victim, but she should not have been out by herself.”
September 13th, 2012 | 8:26 pm
Prof Knippenberg writes:
“…it fails to offer a fulsome articulation of our commitment to freedom of speech …”
The word FULSOME is not a synonym for COMPREHENSIVE.
September 13th, 2012 | 11:23 pm
GeneOssining:
Well, dictionary.com disagrees with you.
September 14th, 2012 | 7:01 am
When you take away some of the elaborate verbiage both in your piece, Mr. Knippenberg, and in the prior statements you quote, the core similarities are inescapable. Both the Sean McCormack statement (under Bush) and the Hillary Clinton statement begin – clearly and forthrightly – by condemning the offensive speech: “while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world” (McCormack); and “the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.”
The difference is that these two top-level statements had been crafted with the luxury of some time and were cleared up and down the State Department building with a view towards a world-wide audience — and, in the case of McCormack’s more abstract statement, issued in response to events to which the U.S. was a bystander rather than an engaged party.
I say, quit parsing what amounts to stylistic differences in such statements, and focus on the fact that the U.S. position has always been clear that we condemn hate speech (which is intended, don’t forget, to infringe on that other 1st Amendment right, freedom of worship), and that we have consistently stated as much before going on to defend vigorously the right to free speech and freedom of expression.
September 14th, 2012 | 8:35 am
My point is that emphasizing our disdain for the offensive speech (which, by the way, however you label it can’t violate a First Amendment right unless it become the policy of a government) is the easy part of the statement, one that simply affirms the sense of grievance. The harder move for our audience is the second one–to feel the grievance and yet support both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If we don’t emphasize that, all our audience is likely to hear is that we agree that the speech in question is, er, inappropriate. Absent anything else, what they’d have us do is suppress it.
September 14th, 2012 | 8:58 am
Mary: I say, quit parsing what amounts to stylistic differences in such statements, and focus on the fact that the U.S. position has always been clear that we condemn hate speech (which is intended, don’t forget, to infringe on that other 1st Amendment right, freedom of worship),
How does, quote, hate speech, infringe on freedom of worship? Since when is there a right not to be offended?
September 14th, 2012 | 10:22 am
Mary is exactly right.
September 14th, 2012 | 12:01 pm
“we condemn hate speech (which is intended, don’t forget, to infringe on that other 1st Amendment right, freedom of worship)”
First of all, there right protected by the U.S. Constitution and embraced by America is not “freedom of worship,” it is “free exercise of religion.”
Second, only the government can infringe on that freedom, no matter how hard anyone else tries. The only way in which a private person can begin to infringe on that freedom is if they engage in an otherwise illegal act, and the government deliberately refuses to prosecute it because it does not wish to protect the freedom of the victim. But that still requires government behavior, and is applicable to this situation.
September 14th, 2012 | 12:39 pm
It seems to me there is a time for a staunch defense of freedom of speech, but it may very well not be when you are in an embassy in Cairo about to be the object of a protest by enraged people who unfortunately and mistakenly believe you and your country trash Islam. I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, but even many of our closest allies view free speech very differently from the way we do. For example, the UK has freedom of speech, but here (from Wikipedia) are the exceptions:
I wonder if there is any country in the world, besides the United States, that would be unable or unwilling to find a legal way to suppress the anti-Muslim film that is causing all these problems. As I said, I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, but if even other countries with a tradition of free speech do not adhere to the American tradition, it is not difficult to understand why those from countries with no tradition of free speech simply don’t even comprehend how something so grossly offensive to their religion can be permitted in the United States.
Bonus content. Here’s a clip of Antonin Scalia mocking the idea that exercising free speech right validates what a person actually says. (This is my transcription, and it is not perfect.) “I am always amazed that people go around and say, ‘Well, it’s okay. He was exercising his first amendment rights.’ You know, as though rights are like muscles: the more you use them, the better it is. He may be executing his first amendment rights, but he’s an idiot.”
It is not entirely clear to me what were the exact objections of the State Department and the White House to the Cairo embassy statement, but in my opinion, given the circumstances, I think it did not slight the American ideal of free speech.
September 14th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
David: it is not difficult to understand why those from countries with no tradition of free speech simply don’t even comprehend how something so grossly offensive to their religion can be permitted in the United States.
In the words of Horatius: they who, having no freedom of their own, come to take away the freedom of others.
September 14th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
David,
You do realize that when asked if Terry Jones burning a Koran justified the suppression of free speech rights Scalia says clearly “no.” That he defends free speech rights of the manner almost exactly like that exercised by the filmmaker in question. How do you understand this as a vindication of the Cairo Embassy statement?
You seem to be making an odd leap here. You seem to equate what Scalia says — that there is nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot with what the embassy spokesman in Cairo did. They are not in any way analogous. One is free speech by a private citizen. The other is the diplomatic speech of a representative of the US Government. The Cairo embassy should have simply abstained from comment on the film, period. It is bad precedent at the very least.
Scalia is quite clear. The free speech rights of any citizen may not be abridged by the government in all but the case of incitement. And lest you think that this is what we have in this current case the test (from Brandenburg v. Ohio) is “incitement to imminent lawless action” — in other words, there needs to be direct causative relationship, with the speech in question directly linked to – and intending to cause – the ensuing lawless activity (in this country), for the standard to apply.
September 14th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
david c.,
Please note the following:
Also this:
And this:
It is simply not true that government officials must remain mum about the content of protected speech that is reprehensible or disgusting.
I included the Scalia video, first, because it was amusing, but second, because some people seem to imply that because the anti-Muslim video is (as far as we know) constitutionally protected speech, that somehow legitimizes it and exempts it from criticism. And you yourself claim that makes it exempt from criticism by government officials. I simply think you are wrong there.
The right to free speech can be abused and in fact is abused all the time. We in America feel strongly that it is better to live with the abuses than to allow government to suppress speech. However, that does not muzzle anyone, including government officials, who want to criticize the content of any given instance of protected speech.
As I said, I am close to being a free speech absolutist. I think the United States should always make it clear that the right to freedom of speech is an American value. However, I certainly don’t think we should give the impression that it is the highest, or the only, American value, or that people exercising the right to free speech are necessarily doing something good. As Scalia says, sometimes they are idiots.
September 15th, 2012 | 12:18 am
Several citizens of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with some external financial backing, went to court not long ago as part of a protracted effort to prevent the Muslim congregation in Murfreesboro from building themselves a new and bigger mosque on some land they had purchased. The citizens who sought to block the mosque testified in a court hearing that Islam is not a real religion, but instead is a dangerous cult that exists only to promote violence and the abuse of women. Many of the assertions in the court testimony track closely with the “satirical” hot-button points in the now-notorious video, as well as in the reams and reams of virulent anti-Muslim rhetoric that is increasingly being pumped out over the web. This is why I say that the filmmaker’s freedom of speech is being used (or abused) in an effort to restrict freedom of worship. Challenges to mosque construction are becoming more frequent in the U.S., and a mosque elsewhere in Tennessee was burned to the ground a couple of years ago through arson. To the extent that a coordinated campaign to deny the legitimacy of Islam as a religion is successful in shaping community opinion, such obstacles to American Muslims’ free exercise of religion are likely to become more frequent.
September 16th, 2012 | 9:19 am
Mary: The citizens who sought to block the mosque testified in a court hearing that Islam is not a real religion, but instead is a dangerous cult that exists only to promote violence and the abuse of women.
And is it true or false that Islam promotes violence and the abuse of women? Kindly provide arguments for either position.
Mary: Challenges to mosque construction are becoming more frequent in the U.S.,
And it is good, too, that American citizens have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances. There is no particular reason that any other building could be challenged, but not a mosque.
Your priorities appear to be a bit off, as you condemn people who lawfully voice their opinions, but refrain from criticizing people who murder random people as a result of speech they don’t like. Your outrage is a bit misplaced.
Mary: This is why I say that the filmmaker’s freedom of speech is being used (or abused) in an effort to restrict freedom of worship.
Not true, you did not say used, you said that it was intended to infringe on “free worship”. Either would be untrue. Free speech means that people have the right to voice their opinions, and that critics have the right to criticize those ideas. When the Koran gives men the right to beat their wives, it is perfectly legitimate to point this out, regardless of whether people find it convenient to hear.
September 16th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Maximilian: How often do you see people going into court pointing out oddities in the Bible (e.g. the death penalty for sons who disrespect their parents, the death penalty for adultery) as a reason why Judaism should not be given the 1st amendment protection of a religion but rather stamped out as a dangerous cult?
September 16th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
Mary: Your third post, still lacking a condemnation of the mindless violence in response to a movie, while still condemning people’s free speech rights to petition their government for redress of grievances. Worse still, petitioning the government for redress of grievances is now an excuse to end truthful free speech when it is unfavorable to Islam.
Aside from completely avoiding my questions, you have not yet established how this is even remotely relevant to favor stamping out the First Amendment’s guarantee for free speech – simply because you don’t like the conclusions that people draw about Islam.
I also see no answer to my question whether Islam is hostile to women’s rights and prone to violence – you raise the issue and then leave it hanging in the air. Can you answer that?
September 21st, 2012 | 1:20 pm
This video was clearly intended to incite the vioent behavior it produced, and incitement is not protected speech under Supreme Court doctrine. To give statements defending the film is to say we support such incitement, which is contrary to our own principles. So I disagree with the author, McCormick, and Clinton on this.
September 22nd, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Steve: This video was clearly intended to incite the vioent behavior it produced,
By no stretch of the definition is this video ‘incitement’. Then again, we often hear that people are ‘asking for it’, when they become victims of violent and disgusting crimes.
September 25th, 2012 | 9:20 am
Maximillian, the Brandenberg test is: “advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Was it directed to produce immanent lawless action? It takes a stretch of imagination to think it was directed to produce anything else. Was it likely to do so? Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past 12 years would have to say yes.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact