Nowadays, words are often seen as a source of instability. The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in the name of political satire. Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying Turkey’s official history by saying that the Armenian genocide actually occurred. Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict between Islam and the West. The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate critical pictures of Muhammad, and the Pope will no longer make critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran’s president, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks prosecution of Ahmedinejad for incitement to commit genocide – a violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. President George W. Bush has made similarly ominous, if more vague, statements about Iran. In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The world’s different legal systems have never been in much agreement about the boundaries of free speech. Even between good neighbors like Canada and the United States, there is little agreement about punishing hate speech. Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial minorities.
As the US presidential election nears, stay informed with Project Syndicate - your go-to source of expert insight and in-depth analysis of the issues, forces, and trends shaping the vote. Subscribe now and save 30% on a new Digital subscription.
Subscribe Now
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmedinejad does meet the criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the damage has been done. All the international precedents – from Nuremberg to the present – concern international intervention after mass atrocities. Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that can do that.
It follows, therefore, that the crime of incitement should apply only to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed to the occurrence of genocide. In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to “bury” another country (remember Khrushchev?) or to wipe it off the map, the courts should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and dangerous speech. In September 2005, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1624 – paradoxically, with American approval – calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against those who incite terrorism. The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British Prime Minister Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in court. But when it comes to terrorism in today’s world, most countries, including the world’s democracies, are not as tolerant as they used to be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground everywhere. When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The World Trade Organization's precipitous decline into irrelevance should serve as a warning to the International Monetary Fund's shareholder governments, its management, and everyone who values multilateral economic cooperation. In a rapidly changing world, global institutions must reform or die.
propose incremental changes to keep developing and emerging economies on board and engaged.
The old Europe of the Cold War sought comfort in the past and confidence in the solitary US leadership that defined the era. Unfortunately, when it comes to its own security, Europe seemingly remains in a time warp, stuck somewhere before 1989.
laments that nostalgia for US leadership unites a continent that must define the decisive action needed now.
Nowadays, words are often seen as a source of instability. The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in the name of political satire. Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying Turkey’s official history by saying that the Armenian genocide actually occurred. Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict between Islam and the West. The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate critical pictures of Muhammad, and the Pope will no longer make critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran’s president, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks prosecution of Ahmedinejad for incitement to commit genocide – a violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. President George W. Bush has made similarly ominous, if more vague, statements about Iran. In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The world’s different legal systems have never been in much agreement about the boundaries of free speech. Even between good neighbors like Canada and the United States, there is little agreement about punishing hate speech. Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial minorities.
Go beyond the headlines with PS - and save 30%
As the US presidential election nears, stay informed with Project Syndicate - your go-to source of expert insight and in-depth analysis of the issues, forces, and trends shaping the vote. Subscribe now and save 30% on a new Digital subscription.
Subscribe Now
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmedinejad does meet the criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the damage has been done. All the international precedents – from Nuremberg to the present – concern international intervention after mass atrocities. Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that can do that.
It follows, therefore, that the crime of incitement should apply only to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed to the occurrence of genocide. In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to “bury” another country (remember Khrushchev?) or to wipe it off the map, the courts should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and dangerous speech. In September 2005, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1624 – paradoxically, with American approval – calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against those who incite terrorism. The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British Prime Minister Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in court. But when it comes to terrorism in today’s world, most countries, including the world’s democracies, are not as tolerant as they used to be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground everywhere. When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.