Why is the right allowed to dominate free speech debate? (Molly Norris cont.)

[Bragi]

I have been watching for media and political reaction and commentary to the case of Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist who, it was announced last week, has had to go into hiding because of death threats from radical Muslims.

The threats to her came in response to a viral campaign around a satirical cartoon she published calling for a "Draw Mohammed Day."

The long and short of it is that there has been some reaction from at least one mainstream U.S Muslim community organization condemning the fatwa against Norris, which is most welcome.

See http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/molly_norris/0018237

However, the President has not said a word about this violation of America's free speech rights, his administration has apparently refused to pay for her protection in hiding, and not a single politicians from either main party has voiced support for her plight.

Yet right wing blogs and newspapers have embraced her cause.

So why is the liberal left (which I would consider myself to be) so universally silent when an American journalist is forced into hiding in response to death threats from Muslim extremists?

Most important, President Obama's administration expended lots of effort last week preaching tolerance to convince an idiot pastor not to offend Muslims by desecrating the Koran, but it has not said a single word yet about the plight of Molly Norris, and the importance of free speech?

Is free speech just not our issue? If it is an issue for the left, why are we so silent on this outrageous case of a journalist being bullied not just into silence, but into hiding, for exercising her right to free speech?

[notesdev]

1. I encountered this problem right here

apparently extreme anti-bigotry positions, to the point where one must ignore death threats, slavery, misogyny etc., in order not to be a "bigot", "racist", etc., take precedence over these silly rights you speak of.

Peversely, even my comments supporting free speech were censored!

That's why the right is dominating this particular game, the left doesn't even want to take the field anymore. Back in the day when we walked uphill five miles through the snow and barefoot to get to school, we were pretty big on free speech on this side of the fence.

[johnroshan]

2. +1

People so want to be seen as anti-bigots, that they sometimes miss the bigger picture.

[Bragi]

3. I agree our arguments have to be more nuanced

Because we support tolerance and pluralism, the left doesn't have the rhetorical ability of the right in going "over-the-top, simplistic racist" when defending free speech against attacks on it by extremists of any persuasion.

Nor do we want to do that. However, we have an obligation to defend free speech rigorously, which I believe we have -- and the President has -- failed spectacularly in doing in the case of Molly Norris.

[notesdev]

5. Credibility matters

If the only times people support free speech is when they like what is being said, they aren't supporters of free speech at all, merely supporters of certain points of view. At that point it's a power game, and the moment power is lost so is the ability of people you like to speak freely.

If only during the twelve years of education provided to our children, we were able to find a few minutes for a couple of lines from Voltaire...

[Bragi]

6. Agreed

The upshot is that a placard saying "Save Molly" will likely become commonplace at future teaparty rallies, but will be nowhere to be seen at our rallies.

This is so wrong on so many levels, but in the absence of true leadership from the President and other democratic party politicians, that is what will happen.

[woo me with science]

11. +1000 nt

[el_bryanto]

4. It is an interesting question

The true test of your support of freedom of speech isn't supporting speech you like; it's supporting speech you hate and despise.

Bryant

[Odin2005]

7. The Danish guy behind the Muhammad cartoons is still in hiding, IIRC.

[Bragi]

12. Last week they had another attempted bombing

COPENHAGEN - A Danish court extended by two weeks on Monday the detention of a Chechnyan man suspected of preparing a letter bomb for a newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed...

Investigators said the target of his planned attack was apparently the daily Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which in September 2005 published controversial drawings of Prophet Mohammed that ignited protests across the Islamic world.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1082322/1/.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Neither side actually supports free speech

so their "support" becomes selective based on content.

An outfit like the ACLU gets fire from one side or the other on almost every issue.

(More fire comes from the right than the left, of course.)

[lynne]

9. Excellent question -

- but I'm not understanding some of the replies referencing what constitutes support of Free Speech. I don't think it matters if we like or dislike her statements in this regard. She has been threatened with her life because she enjoyed one of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. That is enough right there for us to need to stand up on her behalf.

I think the answer is racism and bias. We are so afraid of appearing racist or biased that we won't stand up for our own system and people.

Scary, if you ask me.

[woo me with science]

10. +10000

I have been continually depressed and disgusted by the sheer number of posts on DU supporting the silencing of speech, just because it is politically unpopular or insensitive.

I think it's an education problem. People no longer understand the 1st Amendment and its importance, and they are incapable of thinking past their knee-jerk responses to an upsetting situation.

[Bragi]

13. I noted this as well on the Pastor Jones Koran-burning story

Not only was there silence from most of the left on Jones' right to free expression, there was even vocal support here on DU for the subsequent announcement by the state government that they would try to collect law enforcement costs from Jones after the situation calmed down.

There were many here expressing their support for this. Imagine, charging someone who legally exercised their free speech rights the cost of protecting them from those who were (apparently) illegally threatening harm to them because they exercised their right to free speech.

That shows such a profound lack of understanding of what free speech entails, and its vital importance to a free society, that it is truly scary.

[Bragi]

14. Can't even keep a free speech thread going here /nt