Censorship appeases & empowers violent protesters of offensive media

On September 22 2012, the Daily Camera published my response to the Sept. 11 (2012) protests and the (unrelated) attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.  . It’s a little dated now, with the information that has since come out.

Governments should protect free speech, and not condemn or censor speech that some find offensive.

Yet in president Obama’s response to the killings, he mentions “America’s commitment to freedom,” but also that the “United States rejects efforts to denigrate … religious beliefs.” Acting on this policy, the White House also asked YouTube to consider taking the controversial video off-line.

Instead of this flimsy commitment to free speech, Obama should firmly and proudly defend it. For example,Obama should refute the juvenile view expressed by Palestinian journalist Khalid Amayreh: “My right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel’s right to malign [a religion].” There is no such right. Rights are freedoms to act, not an entitlement that authorities silence others and shelter you from handling criticism like an adult.

As a Reason.com blog notes, some U.S. journalists share Amayreh’s rejection of personal responsibility: by advocating censorship, rejecting free will, and blaming provocative speech for violence. Violent protesters could have chosen peaceful responses to offensive speech. Blaming or censoring videos or cartoons is like blaming a rape victim for her attire and enforcing a “less provocative” dress code.

Censorship also endangers people not connected with offensive speech. As Cato’s Julian Sanchez notes, when government censors allow offensive speech, it does so “in the name of all its citizens collectively.” Hence, violent protesters will more likely seek retaliation against all citizens.

Worse still, censorship appeases terrorists and advances their totalitarian goals.

* * *
See also: Our self-crippled policy encouraged the deadly embassy attacks, by Elan Journo.  Excerpts:

The murders of American diplomatic and military personnel in Libya underscore the consequences of America’s longstanding failure to uphold the rights of Americans to live and speak their minds in the face of the Islamist threat. …

The cycle persists, because without connecting the dots to see the big picture,without grasping the uniting religious goal of the Islamist movement, we cannot take the steps necessary to stop it. Until we end America’s policy of passivity, inaction and appeasement, we can only expect more Islamist aggression.



Filed under published

4 responses to “Censorship appeases & empowers violent protesters of offensive media

  1. Ben

    That Elan Journo piece has me confused. What is it he is advocating, exactly? More “action” and less “passivity” apparently, but what does that mean in concrete terms? If I gather correctly, he thinks that the proper response to an Ayatollah’s fatwa is to “end” the Iranian regime, or at least threaten to do so. Is that a libertarian policy response? How would that be achieved? How much would it cost? How many lives would be lost? How should we expect other countries’ governments to respond? Their citizens? What would it do to Muslim opinion around the world? How would this hypothetical “defense of freedom” military action impact Iranians’ actual freedoms? Are their freedoms and security less important than ours? Should we really be constructing our foreign policy in response to other nations’ most extreme voices? And finally, in regards to our “conciliatory” policy of letting Iraq and Afghanistan define their own constitutions, what, pray tell, is the alternative? And what kind of message would that alternative send in regards to the value of freedom and self-determination?

  2. Hi Ben. I’m not familiar enough with the Journo’s views on foreign policy to answer the above questions. Probably his essay “Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and book Winning the Unwinnable War have more details.

    Essay: http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/paul-ryan-ayn-rand-and-u-s-foreign-policy-essay/

    Book: http://winningtheunwinnablewar.com/

  3. Ben Knowles

    “We are at war with Iran, but only that country knows it; in the name of self defense, the U.S. government is morally obliged to eliminate this enemy.”

    Hmm, so yeah, this is a pretty far cry from the mainstream libertarian/Gary Johnson position – Johnson wants to open up trade, ferchrissakes! Suffice to say, I disagree with Journo’s assumptions, conclusions, and just about everything in between. I am also not at all convinced that Rand would be so quick on the trigger to start a possible WWIII.

  4. Ben

    Something about “rational self-interest” I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s