Should burning the Quran be protected under ‘freedom of expression’?
Pastor Terry Jones has now decided to “suspend” his plan to burn copies of the Quran.
While the whole a distasteful scenario reeks of a highly successful attempt to garner cheap publicity for himself, it has also sparked a debate on the boundaries of freedom of expression.
The right to burn books is protected by the US First Amendment under “freedom of expression”.
Undoubtedly, freedom of expression does not include arson/property destruction – you cannot freely express yourself by committing a criminal offence. But, what if the books were your own property?
So would it not follow that – as long as you’re not breaking any law – protest all you want even one as extreme as burning the Quran?
While I do not endorse burning religious or any texts for that matter, should we not protect everyone’s right to freedom of expression even if we strongly disagree with the content and method of such expression? As Voltaire famously said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I am prepared to die defending your right to say it.”
Condoning a protest based on whether we ourselves agree with the manner and subject matter is to apply double standards and is therefore dictatorial.
Some have said that there is a difference between “freedom of expression” and “incitement/provocation”.
However, “incitement/provocation” is subjective – what may incite/provoke one group may not incite/provoke another – some groups are more self-righteous or sensitive while others take a more laid-back or forgiving attitude. Just because one group is more sensitive, does that mean we should apply a different, softer approach on one and a harder, uncompromising approach to the other?
So where do you draw a line on what would incite/provoke? Self censorship based on the lowest common denominator on what may be ‘appropriate’ is not the answer.
Furthermore, “incitement” only applies when one is clearly urging others to commit a crime. A violent and criminal reaction to a statement does not fall within the ambit of “incitement”, while “provocation” is no defence save in the most limited of circumstances.
Yet others were urging the authorities to clamp down on Pastor Terry’s plans on “moral grounds” as his proposed action is seen as “un-Christian”, unbecoming of a religious leader or simply abhorrent.
Again, curtailing another’s actions on “moral grounds” could lead down a slippery slope – today the authorities stop a pastor, tomorrow they may be allowed to police the actions of laypersons for “irreligious” behaviour.
The same arguments can apply to rebut those who call for the enactment of ‘hate crime’ laws. When does hating a person, group or institution become a crime? Should rousing a community’s feelings of anger be made a crime? If so, should we also outlaw hurting another’s feelings?
Perhaps the solution lies not with the perpetrator, but with the audience – we must come to accept that we are never able to control another’s actions, but we can control the way we react to it.
When confronted with expressions that revolt us, instead of baying for blood or crying for somebody to stop them, we can turn off the television, turn the page or turn the other cheek.
Better still, when faced with hate and hateful acts, should we not instead, ‘love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, pray for those who mistreat us’ ?
Recent Comments