7.2.8 Censorship in a Free Society


"No Speaking", Public Domain
In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed. Soon after their publication in Denmark, the cartoons were reprinted in more than 50 other countries. The publication of the cartoons led to protests across the Muslim world. Danish Embassy buildings were set on fire in the Middle East. Some attempted to murder of one of the cartoonists. Violence escalated, and more than 100 people were killed.

The cartoons incensed Muslims worldwide for several reasons. In some Muslim communities, any depiction of any prophet is forbidden; others consider an insult to the prophet is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed. One of the cartoons, featuring Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like the fuse to a bomb, was particularly offensive because it stereotyped all Muslims as terrorists.

Liberalism and Freedom of Expression

In western society, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are key individual and collective rights. Based on these fundamental human rights in a liberal democracy, publication of these cartoons should be allowed.

Example: Freedom of the Press in Denmark

Denmark ranks number one on the Reporters without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Freedom of the press was guaranteed in law by the Danish Constitution in 1849, and upheld by the Constitutional Act of Denmark June 5, 1953. It has has been defended vigorously in Denmark for generations. Religious issues in particular have been portrayed in ways that many, including Christians and Jews, have found offensive.

Is there a line between people's right to speak and the right of the press to publish on the one hand and the right to individual and collective freedom of religion and thought on the other? Is one more important than another?

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire


Should there ever be limits to freedom of speech?



Consider the following question:
  • Is it possible to have freedom of expression and freedom of the press without offending the collective rights of people with strong beliefs?