Apparently, without him, everyone would go to hell, so I rather like Pontius Pilate. My reference was back to Meno – who asks whether virtue can be taught. Socrates asks: before answering that question, we first need to discover what it is.

David: We don’t treat ideas with civility. We treat people with civility. I have had friends who believed in astrology. I was able to treat them with respect and civility without taking astrology at all seriously.

Good. In that case, there is also nothing wrong with the movie Innocence of Muslims. It merely treats Islam without civility and respect, not Muslims – the same as you vis-a-vis believers in astrology.

David: In those cases when I don’t, perhaps I should.

Well, then you are exceptional, as far as progressives go. All too often, the mildest expressions of what they regard as ‘bigotry’ are treated as a license to treat the ‘bigot’ worse than the ‘bigot’ ever treated anyone.

David: There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all Islamic extremists, we’d be in a lot more serious trouble than we really are.

I did not say that they are “all” extremists, nor did I suggest that extremism is the same as terrorism. A lot of Muslims are fundamentalists, without being terrorists. For example, 80%+ of Muslims in Egypt believe that stoning, chopping off hands and killing for apostasy is good. They are fundamentalists, but not necessarily terrorists, hence, no trouble for anyone but the people living in their own country.

David: And do you think that a lot of the opinion in the Muslim world about Americans has any more rational foundation than your sweeping generalizations about the “Muslim world”?

I think you mean the question the other way around. Yes, my ‘generalization’ (which is not really a generalization, I did not say that respect and civility is non-existent in the Muslim world, but lacking) is based on empirical data, not on religious propaganda.

David: Are you seriously denying that Innocence of Muslims was not meant to be deliberately provocative??? It was so offensive that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had to fool the actors into thinking they were making a film about something else, and then dub in the anti-Muslim lines.

I doubt very much that the concern of the actors was the ‘offensiveness’ of the lines, but the fact that people are willing to chop their heads off for it. In any case, if one adopts your view, then basically anything is meant to be provocative.

David: Catholics are still steaming about Serrano and Ofili, who did not set out to offend anyone,

But did they intend to be provocative? What if they had done the same thing to Muhammad, with the very same intent?

David: This is just more fatwa envy. If Christians really want to be feared in the same way Muslim extremists are, then they should start taking out contracts on the people they find offensive. But is that really what Christians want?

I wouldn’t know. But it does seem that one’s beliefs are more respected, if one threatens to kill in response to anything that is the slightest bit “offensive”. This movie has garnered worldwide condemnation from craven politicians, including Obama and Romney. Would a similar, poorly made attacking Christianity win such esteem? Not unless the Lutherans in Denmark started going on a rampage.

David: So you can raise a thousand questions about what tolerance means, who should be tolerated, when an individual or a group becomes so out of line that tolerance does not apply, and so on.

That was not my intent, but I did want to know the basic meaning of ‘tolerance’, so I could state my agreement or disagreement beforehand.

An additional thought. Obama was articulating principles, kind of like this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, had you been there when that was drafted, you could have asked an endless series of questions. We are, after all, still struggling to determine exactly how these principles should be applied in practical situations even today, and no doubt we will continue to as long as the United States is a country. So you can raise a thousand questions about what tolerance means, who should be tolerated, when an individual or a group becomes so out of line that tolerance does not apply, and so on. But that doesn’t invalidate the principles Obama articulated, any more than thousands of court cases over First Amendment right invalidate the First Amendment itself.

david c.,

From what I have read, it looks as if the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an outright terrorist attack, or perhaps a terrorist attack that piggybacked on a demonstration. The attack on the Cairo embassy, however, was a protest against the film, and demonstrations since then in at least twenty cities, resulting in perhaps fifty deaths (according to one report I heard) have been reactions to the film.

Obama does not even imply that the attack in Benghazi was in response to the film. He says, “There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.” It was an embassy in Cairo that was attacked. The attack in Benghazi was on the consulate.

Maximilian,

I was referring to Pontius Pilate, and I don’t think calling him a Platonist would get him off the hook.

This glances over the fact that some ideas simply are not worthy of respect and civility.

We don’t treat ideas with civility. We treat people with civility. I have had friends who believed in astrology. I was able to treat them with respect and civility without taking astrology at all seriously.

You do not show respect for and civility toward people you regard as bigots. Does that violate your rule, which makes no exception for bigots?

In those cases when I don’t, perhaps I should. I lived in close quarters in my college dorm with some people who were racists, or at least expressed racist opinions. I certainly let them know that I disagreed with them when that was the appropriate thing to do. I didn’t start a campaign to have them ousted from the dorm. I was able to get along with them as long as the subject under discussion was not race. Jesus (and Paul) spend a fair amount of time talking about loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, doing good to those who hate you, and so on. Even in my professional life one lesson I have learned is that it is almost never the best course to respond in kind when someone is disrespectful and uncivil.

I will also point out that respect and civility is rather lacking in the Islamic world.

How much time have you spent in the Islamic world? How many Muslims do you know? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all Islamic extremists, we’d be in a lot more serious trouble than we really are. And do you think that a lot of the opinion in the Muslim world about Americans has any more rational foundation than your sweeping generalizations about the “Muslim world”?

It appears that speech becomes “deliberately provocative” whenever the speech concerns people who choose to respond violently.

Are you seriously denying that Innocence of Muslims was not meant to be deliberately provocative??? It was so offensive that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had to fool the actors into thinking they were making a film about something else, and then dub in the anti-Muslim lines.

For example, Piss Christ was not “scurrilous” or “bigoted”, but this movie about Muhammad somehow is. This is odd.

It is not worth discussing it here, but that is actually correct. Serrano’s intent was misunderstood, and it was the people who misunderstood the art who guaranteed it a huge audience of others who would not understand it. The same was true of Chris Ofili and his painting of the Virgin Mary. But it is pointless to discuss that here. Catholics are still steaming about Serrano and Ofili, who did not set out to offend anyone, but the name of PZ Myers, who was deliberately provocative in publicly threatening to desecrate the (Catholic) Eucharist somehow has remained a much more obscure figure.

It really does appear that some people are more equal than others. Specifically, people who respond violently to a supposed “offense” should be privileged over people who respond peacefully.

This is just more fatwa envy. If Christians really want to be feared in the same way Muslim extremists are, then they should start taking out contracts on the people they find offensive. But is that really what Christians want?

The attack on 9/11 (note the date) was a coordinated terrorist assault. There is really no question about that, as even the administration now admits. So why go to the UN and give a major speech based around a plea for mutual toleration? Why continue to promote what is, essentially, a red herring? The “offensive” items in question were not a provocation, much less a motivating factor. They were a ruse. A convenient peg on which to hang preplanned terrorist action.

It should be obvious to all but the most obtuse that no amount of “tolerance” or speechifying would have changed the intent of the terrorists to commit murder and mayhem on 9/11/12. I agree with Mr. Knippenberg that this was a fairly good speech in terms of the content. But given the context and the timing, it also appears to be a continuation of the administration’s initial efforts to change the narrative from terrorism (which raises issues of preparedness, intelligence failures, etc.) to a broader (and less politically hazardous) discussion of “tolerance”.

Let’s be honest: even persons who want to say things like this also ultimately find themselves saying that we can have enough real knowledge about the cosmos we live in to believe that some ways of living are preferable and more responsible than other ways of living. If they refuse to even admit this, it seems to me they are simply not being honest with themselves.

So what is the practical endgame here? This I think: even if we insist that others should be able to live the way they want to, what happens when push comes to shove, and reality seems to insist that different viewpoints actually can’t coexist? Or what happens if the consequences of allowing a view to exist seem too great – how “tolerant” and “accepting” will we really be at that point?

Here is where the word “tolerance” is defined by the character of the person.

I am a Platonist, so yes, it is.

David: And if you want to be treated with respect and civility, you should treat others with respect and civility.

This glances over the fact that some ideas simply are not worthy of respect and civility. You yourself mention bigotry. You do not show respect for and civility toward people you regard as bigots. Does that violate your rule, which makes no exception for bigots?

I will also point out that respect and civility is rather lacking in the Islamic world. Following your reasoning, they cannot be expected to be treated with respect and civility.

David: It’s not necessary, or even possible, to draw a bright line between saying what you believe, or what you believe to be true, and deliberately provoking those who disagree with you.

It appears that speech becomes “deliberately provocative” whenever the speech concerns people who choose to respond violently. For example, Piss Christ was not “scurrilous” or “bigoted”, but this movie about Muhammad somehow is. This is odd. It really does appear that some people are more equal than others. Specifically, people who respond violently to a supposed “offense” should be privileged over people who respond peacefully.

Fred: That depends on what is being tolerated and why.

Isn’t this a bit like asking, “What is truth?”

Implicit in what Obama said about free speech and tolerance is a form of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would wish them to treat you. (Or, love your neighbor as yourself.) If you claim a right to freedom of expression, you should allow others that same right. And if you want to be treated with respect and civility, you should treat others with respect and civility. And you should object not just when you are not treated with respect and civility, but when others are not treated with respect and civility, too.

But importantly, Obama then said the following:

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond. [Italics added.]

We all have a very good idea of what this means. It’s not necessary for Obama to give an extended list of scenarios and classify some as examples of tolerance and others as examples of intolerance. Of course there will be gray areas between professing one’s own beliefs and denigrating another’s. It’s not necessary, or even possible, to draw a bright line between saying what you believe, or what you believe to be true, and deliberately provoking those who disagree with you. But it is perfectly clear that announcing you are going to burn the Koran, or making a scurrilous film about Mohammed and distributing it in the Middle East, are not in the gray area. They are acts of bigotry and willful provocation intended to offend and inflame.

Adam Baum,

I said nothing about speech restrictions. I was giving my opinion about what constituted “slander” in the sense Obama was talking about it. Remember that Obama was defending free speech, including “slander.” He wasn’t saying what speech should be restricted and what speech shouldn’t be restricted. He said:

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views — even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I think there is an obvious difference between the legal and the moral. Are you implying that because hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment, it is moral? There’s an old cliche that with every right comes a responsibility. Americans may have a right to make a film that deliberately and intentionally offends and provokes Muslims, or Christians, or Buddhists, but to defend their First Amendment right to do so is not to defend their actions as responsible or moral.