Collegiate Times

You may be getting tired of the Danish political cartoon controversy already ? I?m sure our readers know that twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad were published by a newspaper in Denmark, and that has incited riots throughout the Muslim world. But before the next big issue captures our attention and the media forgets that this one ever happened, I think people should have the right impression of the affair.

There are two popular opinions on the controversy ? one emphasizes the inappropriateness of the cartoons, while paying lip service to free speech, and the other emphasizes the right to free speech of the cartoonists while paying lip service to their inappropriateness. Both aren?t quite right.

The truth is that yes, even the least offensive of the cartoons were inappropriate. And yes, we should stand up for free speech as well.

The most offensive thing about the cartoons (at least to me) is not their content, but the reason they were published. Sure, the Danish newspaper that printed them ? Jyllands-Posten ? claims that it was only making a statement about freedom of speech. But that claim is belied by the fact that the same newspaper refused to run cartoons in 2003 satirizing Jesus because its editors thought it would provoke an outcry. Clearly, there must have been another reason why Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons.

I don?t claim to know for certain, but I?m pretty sure that reason is simple bigotry. Consider the fact that Jyllands-Posten has a long history of supporting right-wing causes, and the number one right wing cause in Europe right now is opposition to Muslim immigrants. Many Europeans feel that their culture ? especially their well-established secularism ? is being threatened by an influx of those immigrants. Strangely enough for a region that we usually think of as highly tolerant, that has led to increasing anti-Muslim sentiment and support for right wing anti-immigrant groups.

Denmark is no exception to this trend. The anti-immigrant Danish People?s Party received 13.3 percent of the vote in Denmark?s 2005 parliamentary elections, making it the third-largest political party in the country. According to that party, "Muslims who come here reject our culture. Muslim immigration is a way for Muslims to conquer us, just as they have done for the past 1,400 years."

Jyllands-Posten appears to fall right in line with that sentiment. A 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that a lot of the newspaper?s material on ethnic issues was negative. In addition, the Danish magazine Faklen has collected editorials in Jyllands-Posten, and it concluded that a large number of them were slanted against immigrants. Considering this context, it is hard not to conclude that the reason behind the publishing of the cartoons is bigotry. Because of that, the cartoons cannot be excused. Concerns about European culture being threatened deserve attention, but they don?t justify intolerance towards an entire ethnic group.

That said, the insensitivity of the cartoons is not a good reason to say that they should be censored. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of a free society, and if we chipped away at it every time someone said something insensitive it would eventually crumble. If we establish some sort of right to not be offended or insulted, there would be no limit to what can be censored.

Sure, we can criticize things that are offensive and insulting, but we should never go so far as to bring out the force of the law to stop them.

Freedom of speech is vital, even when the speech it defends is insulting or disgusting. The free exchange of all ideas promotes an atmosphere that is friendly towards any new idea that may advance our thinking. It also preserves other areas of our freedom by encouraging dissent and criticism of bad government policies. Of course, it does have limits ? you can?t shout "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire. But those limits are well defined by property rights ? the owner of the theater has the right to set the rules about what people can say in his theater. You can?t start limiting freedom of speech beyond that without compromising it, which is a road that can only end in totalitarianism.

So yes, Jyllands-Posten did have the right to publish the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. But the simple possession of a right does not always mean that it is wise or appropriate to exercise it. In this case, it was clearly inappropriate for Jyllands-Posten to exercise their right. Bigotry is not a good reason to do anything. If the cartoons served some sort of legitimate purpose, like intellectual criticism of religion, then the cartoons might be okay. But it is obvious from both their content and the reasons behind them that they served no such purpose.