On Cartoons

Nigger.

Freedom of speech allows me to say it. But that doesn't mean I should. Freedom of speech doesn't mitigate the hurt. It doesn't heal the wounds. 40 years of civil rights, 150 years of freedom and a black president haven't, and likely nothing ever will. Most of our society has removed that word; ostracized it from our vocabularies. Its use is punishable by death of career and reputation.

We all recognize that our speech is not less free without that word. In fact, our speech is more free. The oppression empowered and symbolized by its use silenced more than any FCC regulation ever could. Removing it from discourse was liberating--even to those who previously said it. No longer can they live in the darkness of having to use expletives to engage in political expression. Now they can come out of the woods, take off their hoods and appear as guests on The O'Reilly Factor. The word is almost gone and we're all winners for it.

However, today much of the American left lives in some parallel kindergarten playground universe, where sticks and stones and car-bombs may break their bones but cartoons can never hurt them, or anyone else. Nowhere does wisdom or sensibility enter their analysis of the "Everyone Draw Mohammed" controversy (or the seemingly dozens of nauseatingly repetitious cartoon "controversies" that preceded it). Nowhere is there concern to empower Muslim voices across the world. Or at least to force bigotry against Muslims out into the open. Rather, the only concern is that bigots continue to feel safe in their bigotry.

Hogwash. The bigots face the threat of physical violence. That's terrible. They're jerks, but they don't deserve to die for it. Still, risking your life and limb to be a bigot is not courageous. It's about as courageous as being a terrorist. Sure, you could die, but why would you want to die for that? We need a word for people who take risks to do reprehensible things. I can't think of one. Courage certainly doesn't fit.

Two words fit: diabolical maniacs.

From OED:

Diabolical: adj. Of or pertaining to the devil.

Maniac: n. A person who has an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something.

That's what terrorists are. They are obsessive devils, who pervert legitimate points of opposition into irrational and unconscionable acts of violence.

The provocateurs behind the cartoons, and every permutation of making deliberately offensive statements about Islam under the guise of "free speech," are also diabolical maniacs. Under the vice-grip of their own xenophobia, and in many cases disdain for religion in the abstract, they go to great lengths to organize around the irritation and provocation of the other, in hope that their own myopic views of Muslims will be proven right by an (understandably) angry and (inexplicably) violent response.

Then the American left interjects itself, not in the way it should by accurately the describing the situation as two sets of diabolical maniacs bring each other to heightened mutual arousal, but rather by standing by one set of maniacs in opposition to the other. Yes, the left should stand for free speech. But it never should stand by needlessly offensive and intentionally provocative free speech without reservation or disclaimer.

I am a former student of free speech scholar Lee Bollinger. While I don't believe he's been an ardent supporter of student speech in his capacity as President of Columbia University, Bollinger taught what I believe to be the best argument for free speech. Freedom of speech allows us the opportunity to counter bad words with better words. In the Qur'an, God implies that humanity was made fallible so that we could exemplify His Glory by overcoming our fallacies. Bollinger's argument for free speech frames the marketplace of ideas in that inherently Muslim context.

When defending the free speech of right wing provocateurs, the left must condemn the content of the speech they seek to protect. Absent any condemnation, the American left will come to serve as part of the defense for continued bigotry.