Free (Your Own) Speech
The pitfalls of 'voluntary' censorship
By Cecilia Wikstrom
Friday, August 17, 2007
UPPSALA, Sweden
Just a few weeks ago, on the opening day of a summer art exhibition in rural Sweden, a collection of provocative pencil sketches of Muhammed were suddenly lifted off the walls. The gallery director said she feared for the security of Swedes abroad.
Such acts of "voluntary" censorship have become routine at cultural institutions in Europe. A Berlin opera house last year cancelled a Mozart premiere because of the fear that the stage show, which featured decapitations of religious figures, could provoke violence. Even more ominous, major Western providers of international Internet services routinely tailor their Web sites so that citizens living in totalitarian states are not exposed to "dangerous" ideas.
Pressure to draw a dark curtain over controversial cultural expressions is far from a new phenomenon in Europe. As an ordained priest, for example, I remember an outcry of righteous anger in Uppsala in Sweden in 1998. The town's cathedral, which is one of the oldest in Northern Europe, hosted an exhibition that depicted a gay, Aids-afflicted Jesus. There were bomb threats and Christians from all over Europe chastised the exhibition.
Censorship has a long and bloody history in Europe, but so does the defense of free speech.
Intellectuals and artists spearheaded the Enlightenment movement that demanded that all citizens be given the right to express themselves. I am proud to observe that Sweden became the first state to introduce laws that guaranteed freedom for the press in 1766, and several European states followed suit. The fundamental document for the French Revolution in 1789 stipulates: "The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely."
More than 200 years later, these rights are once again threatened. Meanwhile, European leaders are haggling over a new constitutional treaty covering issues ranging from environmental protection to tax polices. But that does not exclude the need to give a high-priority to key underlying values which are the foundation of democratic society, namely the universal right to free speech and expression. Therefore, the new EU treaty should include the appointment of a free speech commissioner, who reports directly to the President of the European Council.
The need for a commissioner to protect free speech grew evident during the Muhammad cartoon controversy in Denmark. The Danish government stood alone when it refused to apologize on behalf of the tabloid that published caricatures of Muhammad that caused a furor in Muslim states.
Commenting on Europe's unwillingness to help Denmark during the scandal, the Economist paraphrased Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it."
An EU commissioner would act to robustly defend the right to free expression in member states, as well as candidate states such as Turkey, where the right to free speech of the Kurdish minority has been under threat. An important task would be to publicize an annual assessment of the state of press and cultural freedom in all of the European Union. The free speech commissioner should also be a strong voice in public opinion and establish safe havens in Europe for persecuted writers and bloggers in other parts of the world.
At the same time, free speech can never be an unbridled right. Besides the obvious laws against slandering or inciting violence, the commissioner needs to be a voice for religious tolerance. The concept of religious tolerance should always go hand in hand with free speech. This was understood by Voltaire, who declared: "Toleration has never yet excited civil wars, whereas its opposite has filled the earth with slaughter and desolation."
Free speech is by no means a guarantee for a fair and just society. On the other hand, the failure to safeguard the rights of writers and artists has proven fateful in history. Heinrich Heine keenly observed the dangers of cultural censorship when he witnessed the Nazis' book pyres in 1933: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
Original article
Though I strongly agree with the points made by Cecilia Wikstrom in the above editorial, I do want to correct one error she made. It is very unlikely that Heinrich Heine could have witnessed the Nazis' book pyres in 1933, since he died in 1856.
By Cecilia Wikstrom
Friday, August 17, 2007
UPPSALA, Sweden
Just a few weeks ago, on the opening day of a summer art exhibition in rural Sweden, a collection of provocative pencil sketches of Muhammed were suddenly lifted off the walls. The gallery director said she feared for the security of Swedes abroad.
Such acts of "voluntary" censorship have become routine at cultural institutions in Europe. A Berlin opera house last year cancelled a Mozart premiere because of the fear that the stage show, which featured decapitations of religious figures, could provoke violence. Even more ominous, major Western providers of international Internet services routinely tailor their Web sites so that citizens living in totalitarian states are not exposed to "dangerous" ideas.
Pressure to draw a dark curtain over controversial cultural expressions is far from a new phenomenon in Europe. As an ordained priest, for example, I remember an outcry of righteous anger in Uppsala in Sweden in 1998. The town's cathedral, which is one of the oldest in Northern Europe, hosted an exhibition that depicted a gay, Aids-afflicted Jesus. There were bomb threats and Christians from all over Europe chastised the exhibition.
Censorship has a long and bloody history in Europe, but so does the defense of free speech.
Intellectuals and artists spearheaded the Enlightenment movement that demanded that all citizens be given the right to express themselves. I am proud to observe that Sweden became the first state to introduce laws that guaranteed freedom for the press in 1766, and several European states followed suit. The fundamental document for the French Revolution in 1789 stipulates: "The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely."
More than 200 years later, these rights are once again threatened. Meanwhile, European leaders are haggling over a new constitutional treaty covering issues ranging from environmental protection to tax polices. But that does not exclude the need to give a high-priority to key underlying values which are the foundation of democratic society, namely the universal right to free speech and expression. Therefore, the new EU treaty should include the appointment of a free speech commissioner, who reports directly to the President of the European Council.
The need for a commissioner to protect free speech grew evident during the Muhammad cartoon controversy in Denmark. The Danish government stood alone when it refused to apologize on behalf of the tabloid that published caricatures of Muhammad that caused a furor in Muslim states.
Commenting on Europe's unwillingness to help Denmark during the scandal, the Economist paraphrased Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it."
An EU commissioner would act to robustly defend the right to free expression in member states, as well as candidate states such as Turkey, where the right to free speech of the Kurdish minority has been under threat. An important task would be to publicize an annual assessment of the state of press and cultural freedom in all of the European Union. The free speech commissioner should also be a strong voice in public opinion and establish safe havens in Europe for persecuted writers and bloggers in other parts of the world.
At the same time, free speech can never be an unbridled right. Besides the obvious laws against slandering or inciting violence, the commissioner needs to be a voice for religious tolerance. The concept of religious tolerance should always go hand in hand with free speech. This was understood by Voltaire, who declared: "Toleration has never yet excited civil wars, whereas its opposite has filled the earth with slaughter and desolation."
Free speech is by no means a guarantee for a fair and just society. On the other hand, the failure to safeguard the rights of writers and artists has proven fateful in history. Heinrich Heine keenly observed the dangers of cultural censorship when he witnessed the Nazis' book pyres in 1933: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
Original article
Though I strongly agree with the points made by Cecilia Wikstrom in the above editorial, I do want to correct one error she made. It is very unlikely that Heinrich Heine could have witnessed the Nazis' book pyres in 1933, since he died in 1856.
Labels: censorship, free speech, lars vilks
posted by Randall at 7:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home