George,

In response to my observation that the caricatures of Mohammed cannot be defended as an acceptable use of free speech, Josh Wheeler and Lloyd Snook present very informative commentary regarding the precise rulings of the Supreme Court in cases arising in the American context. However, in the Mohammed caricature case, we are dealing with a circumstance that has a world-wide context. My main point is that "freedom of speech is not an absolute right" -- a point not disputed by Josh or Lloyd. In certain circumstances, speech can be so provocative that it is bound to set off violent reaction.

Anyone who had any idea of the sacred position that the Prophet Mohammed holds in the Muslim world should have known violent reaction would be provoked by the publication of the caricatures. (The first publication in a Danish magazine was almost unnoticed. It was later, more widely circulated publications that triggered the reaction.)

Lloyd says that:

"It is not even sufficient that [speech] might make someone mad enough to riot, as has been clear since at least the 1977 decision in National Socialist Party v. Skokie (allowing the Nazi Party to march through the City of Skokie, a place where many Holocaust survivors lived). The Supreme Court in that case held that if the actions of the Nazi Party were outrageous and would cause the citizens of Skokie to riot, the answer is to restrain the citizens of Skokie. This is entirely consistent with the basic philosophy of the First Amendment, best expressed by John Stuart Mill when he wrote that the cure for bad speech is not no speech -- it is more speech. You don't refuse to allow a particular viewpoint to be heard; you refute it."

The march through Skokie was not discourse as John Stuart Mill had in mind. It was action intended to cause pain to particular individuals living along the path of the march. I have long disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision in that case. The Court should have extended the "fighting words" principle to include not just individual speech but group (in this case, the Nazi Party) speech.

But let us leave the arcane rulings of the United States Supreme Court and get back to the world scene. There we have the Western world with its principle of free speech confronting the Muslim world and telling the Muslim world that: "You don't understand our democratic principles and you had better shape up and understand them right now. How dare you react when you are provoked by our wanting to exercise our right to free speech."

It takes centuries to build democratic traditions in any society. We have been trying to build a democracy in the United States for almost 400 years and we're not there yet. We started with theocracies in several of our early settlements; many colonial governments were autocratic; our Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Law soon after the Constitution was written; we had to go to war to end slavery; only white, male property owners could vote in the beginning of our republic; women did not get the right to vote until 1920 and Blacks until 1965.

And on and on -- you get the point. Yet we expect to spread democracy to the Muslim world almost overnight. We expect those with no experience with democracy to understand the very complex and nuanced right to free speech.

We sure have taught the Muslims a lesson about how wonderful democracy (free speech) is with the publication of caricatures of Mohammad. But then, our means of spreading democracy is NOT through example and persuasion, it is through military might. So why worry about winning hearts and minds?

- David RePass (electronic mail, February 13, 2006)