Censorship from East to West

In 1644 John Milton concluded Areopagitica, his polemical exploration of censorship and freedom of speech by noting that those who most seek to silence the voice of others often turn, without noticing the irony, to the license of texts that arguably most deserve censorship themselves.

And so, four centuries later, when Islamic fascists appeal to the teachings of their scriptures in order to justify scaling the walls of buildings, terrorizing diplomats and consular workers, burning flags, and killing innocent civilians, why is so little criticism leveled against the profoundly sinister belief system that they maintain?

Before the US ambassador to Libya was killed, the American embassy in Cairo was similarly attacked. Nauseatingly however, the staff there issued a statement in the subsequent hours, presumably while still dusting themselves down, that ran: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

I'll wait while you wipe the vomit from your mouth. Excuse me, but that's precisely what it's for. As Michael Totten writes, "free speech doesn't mean anything unless offensive speech is protected." Whoever wishes to make a video and upload it to YouTube, just as Sam Bacile has done (link here), should and must be shielded by the United States government.

By recoiling as though the attackers, not only in Libya and Egypt, but also in Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Gaza, have cause for their reaction and warrant our allowances is utterly inexcusable. "Let's not pretend", continues Totten, "that they're just overreacting to a reasonable grievance and that there's room for common ground."

Bacile has gone into hiding. Multiple US embassies around the world are heightening their security. Meanwhile, cosmopolitan nations like Britain and India are twisting and contorting, fearful of similar attacks. Channel 4 pulls the documentary, Islam: The Untold Story, from its schedule. Likewise, distributors in India are so spineless as to shun Salman Rushdie's movie adaptation of his most reputable novel, Midnight's Children for fear of an Islamic uprising and for reasons so invisible they defy description.

This will not do. Indeed, President Obama would do well to recognize the significance of every nuance of every word when giving speeches like the one today. His primary message ran as follows:

Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

If the foundations upon which the First Amendment was built are to resist the acid rain of apologists, contortionists, and the spineless commentators who direct their gaze away from the Islamic mobs in Libya and elsewhere, then statements like President Obama's require a simple but telling omission; we no longer reject the ridicule and denigration of religious belief, but rather we welcome it, and we protect it.