The uproar over the Danish cartoons published in Jyllands Posten newspaper depicting Muhammad, aside from widespread violence, has raised the question as to where free speech ends. The distinctions among concepts such as “fighting words,” “sacred cows,” blasphemy, and “chilling effect” have taken on a huge significance.Where does freedom of expression begin and end? Should the prohibition of depicting the likeness of Muhammad apply to those who are not Muslim? What are the sacred cows? What is the difference between images that ridicule Jesus, Muhammad or other sacred figures and ones that ridicule human suffering, such as slavery or genocide?
Notions such as hate speech are being weighed against religious expression. Is calling for the death of homosexuals, for example, acceptable because certain religions condemn it? Where does one person’s freedom to express oneself end and another’s begin?
These are questions that have no easy answers. Editors and publishers in Europe, Africa and the United Sates grappled with whether the story could be told in the absence of the images themselves. Lost in that debate was the extent to which words alone can be as devastating. Ask Salman Rushdie. Why is a verbal description of Mohammad wearing a turban resembling a bomb or of Jesus submerged in urine any different from a visual depiction?
As Editor & Publisher of Annoy.com, a web site publication with a strong First Amendment history, I made a decision to reproduce the cartoons that caused the furor. Despite Annoy.com’s name, the purpose is not to provoke or annoy anyone in this context, but to explore all aspects of the reaction. Included with the cartoons is a series of related imagery that I have created over the last few years, that deals explicitly with these exact themes – freedom of expression, religion and violence. As the feature develops on Annoy.com, so to will I update this weblog to keep you updated. This is the opening statement:
The following 12 images were published in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper, which sparked the furor among Muslims globally. The reason they are being displayed here is not to provoke, despite this site's name, but to allow our users to make an informed evaluation themselves. For the same reasons, we published Nick Berg's beheading and James Kirkup's poem. After two federal court cases, one before the United States Supreme Court, Annoy.com’s hard fought commitment to free speech – not an automatic guarantee, even in the West -- cost a lot in terms of time, determination and resources.
In the name of Christianity, Clinton Fein’s image of The Last Supper was ripped off the wall of a San Francisco gallery. Just prior to the 2004 election, his image of President Bush, Who Would Jesus Torture?, depicting the President as Jesus on a crucifix (along with an image of the American flag using the text of the Pentagon’s official Abu Ghraib report ) was destroyed deliberately by Zazzle, the Palo Alto based printing company. Despite such visceral responses, not to mention the sentiments expressed by those over the Internet, Annoy.com published because we believe strongly in free speech.
We are not oblivious to the fact that religious and cultural differences are far more complex than anything we could articulate in this small space, but our fundamental belief is this. Freedom of expression is not reserved for those wishing to express their religious beliefs, but also those who question them.
