Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves. ~Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 1888
While I definitely cannot agree with all of this brilliant man's teachings, never have I heard such words that continue to ring so clearly throughout the vast, disorienting corridors of Liberty and the Labrynth of Freedom that we, as a people in pursuit of a more just existence, have built in both sensible and senseless direction. Responsibility is the willingness to reap whatever it is I have sowed; whether a crop of reward, or a crop of punishment, I must be willing to take up my harvest one way or another. Nowhere have I seen this unjust harvest more prevalent than in the subjective world of art and speech where anyone can point their finger at another's crop from afar in the dimly lit night and give orders to others to burn it. Freedom of expression in any medium is a great and noble liberty. That's why in response to Greg Lukianoff's video on campus censorship (YouTube - Lukianoff on Free Speech, and YouTube - New Threats to Freedom), because I have so much to say, I'd like to focus on one proposed question in dealing with the freedom of speech in the world of freeom of expression in art - the contention with Chris Lee's satrical play and the WSU authorities.
Would the alternative be worse than our present circumstances? First, what is the alternative to institutional censorship? Deregulation of the arts.
The problem I see with deregulation in art:
Art is powerful. If you let anyone say absolutely anything at all with their art, especially those who are trying to further an agenda of a sort, it will invoke fury and most likely violence on the other end of the perspective scale.
Need I bring up the classic example of D.W. Griffith's 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation? The film is renowned for its technological advances in cinema, yet has become the most infamous archetype of racial prejudice and heavy-handed propaganda against African Americans even now. It grossed over 10 million, and was voted one of the "Top 100 American films by the American Film Institute in 1998. But its release back in 1915 led to a string of violent race riots and incited lynching by white gangs. As a result it was banned in Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, Missouri; Minneapolis; Pittsburgh; and St. Louis, Missouri refused to allow the film to open (The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . The Birth of a Nation | PBS). Was it a violation of free speech to ban the movie? Should the courts have risen up to defend D. W. Griffith? What if someone on campus produced a play or sequel film of some sort that carried the same legacy?
What about something a bit more recent? Remember those Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in 2005? Those cartoons were meant to be a contribution to an ongoing debate between depictions of Prophet Muhammad and self-censorship. They were not even intended to be offensive, yet it sparked heated and violent Muslim protests throughout the world. About 70, 000 angry Muslim protesters marauded through the streets, torching three cinemas, many cars, and a KFC outlet resulting in over 100 deaths. Not only that but there was the arson of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. British, French, and Indian embassies were also attacked by about 1,000 students. In the town of Tank, protesters burnt down about 30 shops selling CDs and DVDs and opened fire on police. As a result, the cartoons were censored worldwide (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article731005.ece).
While that has little to do with the campus, the Clareification controversy only two years later does. For those who don’t' know, a guest editor reprinted some of the Danish Muhammad cartoons along with the guest edited edition devoted to religious satire called Crucification. After complaints reached college authorities, they were swift to discipline the student responsible. Following this, death threats ensued that forced the student into leaving Clare College of Cambridge University and go into hiding. Patricia Fara, the senior tutor declared that Clare College is an 'open and inclusive college' but that the college 'finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent'(A pick’n’mix attitude to free speech | Steve Bremner | spiked). Thus, they censored it with little regard for the student's right to free speech.
...Still not recent enough? On that same topic, let's not also forget those two South Park episodes 200 and 201. In them, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, continuing their plots from the previous episodes Super Best Friends, and Cartoon Wars 1 and 2, attempted to depict Muhammad in a bear mascot suit in the first episode finally to be revealed in the second. Comedy Central received an email from a leader Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee of the Revolution Muslim organization warning Matt and Trey that while this was not a threat, it was a call to beware that they may face violent retribution for airing the show. In response, Comedy Central heavily censored the preceding episode with audio bleeps whenever characters referred to Muhammad. Even though the mystery character in the bear costume turned out to be Santa, the previous episodes were pulled from the line-up both online and on the air (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/website-warns-south-park-creators-face-retribution-depicting-muhammad/). On February 24, 2011, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee was sentenced to 25 years for providing material support and petitioning firearms and training to Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations (http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/abu_talhah.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_1).
While it is just about every universities dream to find a safe and effective way to get every idea and expression out in the open on the campus for critical thought, these are just a handful of examples that demonstrate the reason that telling people the old adage, "If you don't like it, then look away," loses much of its impact. There are some angry, unreasonable people you can't get to 'look away', even though it is their responsibility. Ideally, what we hope is that someone who is offended sees the work and thinks to himself, "I don't think this is right at all! You know what? Next writing class, I'm going to write a compelling 33 page essay on why this kind of thing is wrong. I won't just stop there, I am going to publish that essay in the school editorial, and start an innovative campus art club program dedicated to creating an entirely new form of protest art and persuading others why this offensive expression cannot maintain immunity through freedom of speech!"
However, these idealistic hopes are often fantasies. The first thing people often think when something offends them at college is: "Who in their right mind funded this crap? Whose side are 'they' on? People shouldn't have to pay for this! I'm going to issue a complaint and bash them senseless on Facebook and YouTube!" Automatically, the school will be blamed for funding it, or having any kind of involvement however neutral they try to be. If it is considered a problem now, then if art was to be completely deregulated and the speech codes not clarified, then state college authorities would never find rest. Granted they could probably find a way to handle it, but it would be a nightmare. They would be stuck trying to defend the freedom of speech while trying to prove a contradiction true. They wouldn't be able to win for losing.
Furthermore, all of these examples show one important thing:
Censorship is a natural defense mechanism in society and politics that tries to prevent retaliation, however violent. It simply cannot be helped; at a critical point were violence is about to break out on a large enough scale, it becomes a common-sense move to censor something in order to avoid destruction and bloodshed. Wise and responsible people(s) practice self-censorship, but don't let it control their interactions with others, nor let it get in the way of discussion and challenge to grow and/or change. Therefore, we should amend the speech codes to limit free speech only when it can be well evidenced that the speech will directly lead to violence. To be specific, it must be directly spoken that the person or persons intend to harm the person or persons in question. It must constitute as a verbal, written, or gestured threat. If these conditions are met, then the responsibility is on the speaker, and he/she is subject to discipline. If on the other hand the speech simply provokes a harm response not directly expressed by the one expressing the speech, then the responsibility is on the one whom lashed out in violence and he is subject to discipline. The exceptions are the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded campus as a practical joke, as such could be shown with hard evidence that it needlessly endangers life. Sexual Harassment remains unaffected by this proposal. Studies have been shown that such conduct very negatively affects student health and academia (http://www.stopvaw.org/Effects_of_Sexual_Harassment.html), though it has been a prominent ground for abuse. Thus, I argue that Sexual Harassment laws need more clarification, however exhaustive, but that is its own topic beyond of the scope of this response.
As for Religious Harassment, it can only be restricted under two true conditions. First, the religious speech directly condones violence or is likewise directly encouraging it. Second, the offending speech impedes the student from learning, and should they report it, they have concrete evidence that this is true, such as a report from the teacher about being late to class and them getting in trouble for it because a proselytizer kept them even after stating that they didn't have time. Tracts and other literature are not subject to the second condition since accepting and reading them is a person's choice. They, along with religious/nonreligious speech, also encourage debate and discussion which is conducive to a learning environment.
Hate speech, discrimination harassment, and the like should fall under the first definition of harm presented above in order to be consistent, since it is too subjective to measure. As in the above example in the Clairification Controversy, the editor’s opinions are protected and those who issued the death threats should have been the ones subject to discipline. It doesn't matter that there were so many who issued these threats. The Law should not be bullied by an angry majority, nor should it be forced to change without proper assembly due to violent pressure.
I'm not really for more regulation, but responsibility: If you're intent is to offend anyone and provoke them to think seriously about some issue, then I strongly urge you to consider this question: Is the intentionally offending message you want to publish or exhibit worth your life? If you don't value your life much, is it worth the life of one you especially respect and/or care about? As demonstrated from the above examples, this is not just empty rhetoric, but real and present dangers. Seriously, think about it.
Liberty is complex thing, and the more walls we break down, the more vast our surroundings become. The more vast our surroundings, the easier it is to wander in all directions. While we are turning our heads every which way to discern the direction of those resonating words of Nietzsche, let these words of Jesus Christ in the bible light be a light for our steps: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -Luke 6:31
While I definitely cannot agree with all of this brilliant man's teachings, never have I heard such words that continue to ring so clearly throughout the vast, disorienting corridors of Liberty and the Labrynth of Freedom that we, as a people in pursuit of a more just existence, have built in both sensible and senseless direction. Responsibility is the willingness to reap whatever it is I have sowed; whether a crop of reward, or a crop of punishment, I must be willing to take up my harvest one way or another. Nowhere have I seen this unjust harvest more prevalent than in the subjective world of art and speech where anyone can point their finger at another's crop from afar in the dimly lit night and give orders to others to burn it. Freedom of expression in any medium is a great and noble liberty. That's why in response to Greg Lukianoff's video on campus censorship (YouTube - Lukianoff on Free Speech, and YouTube - New Threats to Freedom), because I have so much to say, I'd like to focus on one proposed question in dealing with the freedom of speech in the world of freeom of expression in art - the contention with Chris Lee's satrical play and the WSU authorities.
Would the alternative be worse than our present circumstances? First, what is the alternative to institutional censorship? Deregulation of the arts.
The problem I see with deregulation in art:
Art is powerful. If you let anyone say absolutely anything at all with their art, especially those who are trying to further an agenda of a sort, it will invoke fury and most likely violence on the other end of the perspective scale.
Need I bring up the classic example of D.W. Griffith's 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation? The film is renowned for its technological advances in cinema, yet has become the most infamous archetype of racial prejudice and heavy-handed propaganda against African Americans even now. It grossed over 10 million, and was voted one of the "Top 100 American films by the American Film Institute in 1998. But its release back in 1915 led to a string of violent race riots and incited lynching by white gangs. As a result it was banned in Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, Missouri; Minneapolis; Pittsburgh; and St. Louis, Missouri refused to allow the film to open (The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . The Birth of a Nation | PBS). Was it a violation of free speech to ban the movie? Should the courts have risen up to defend D. W. Griffith? What if someone on campus produced a play or sequel film of some sort that carried the same legacy?
What about something a bit more recent? Remember those Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in 2005? Those cartoons were meant to be a contribution to an ongoing debate between depictions of Prophet Muhammad and self-censorship. They were not even intended to be offensive, yet it sparked heated and violent Muslim protests throughout the world. About 70, 000 angry Muslim protesters marauded through the streets, torching three cinemas, many cars, and a KFC outlet resulting in over 100 deaths. Not only that but there was the arson of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. British, French, and Indian embassies were also attacked by about 1,000 students. In the town of Tank, protesters burnt down about 30 shops selling CDs and DVDs and opened fire on police. As a result, the cartoons were censored worldwide (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article731005.ece).
While that has little to do with the campus, the Clareification controversy only two years later does. For those who don’t' know, a guest editor reprinted some of the Danish Muhammad cartoons along with the guest edited edition devoted to religious satire called Crucification. After complaints reached college authorities, they were swift to discipline the student responsible. Following this, death threats ensued that forced the student into leaving Clare College of Cambridge University and go into hiding. Patricia Fara, the senior tutor declared that Clare College is an 'open and inclusive college' but that the college 'finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent'(A pick’n’mix attitude to free speech | Steve Bremner | spiked). Thus, they censored it with little regard for the student's right to free speech.
...Still not recent enough? On that same topic, let's not also forget those two South Park episodes 200 and 201. In them, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, continuing their plots from the previous episodes Super Best Friends, and Cartoon Wars 1 and 2, attempted to depict Muhammad in a bear mascot suit in the first episode finally to be revealed in the second. Comedy Central received an email from a leader Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee of the Revolution Muslim organization warning Matt and Trey that while this was not a threat, it was a call to beware that they may face violent retribution for airing the show. In response, Comedy Central heavily censored the preceding episode with audio bleeps whenever characters referred to Muhammad. Even though the mystery character in the bear costume turned out to be Santa, the previous episodes were pulled from the line-up both online and on the air (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/website-warns-south-park-creators-face-retribution-depicting-muhammad/). On February 24, 2011, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee was sentenced to 25 years for providing material support and petitioning firearms and training to Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations (http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/abu_talhah.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_1).
While it is just about every universities dream to find a safe and effective way to get every idea and expression out in the open on the campus for critical thought, these are just a handful of examples that demonstrate the reason that telling people the old adage, "If you don't like it, then look away," loses much of its impact. There are some angry, unreasonable people you can't get to 'look away', even though it is their responsibility. Ideally, what we hope is that someone who is offended sees the work and thinks to himself, "I don't think this is right at all! You know what? Next writing class, I'm going to write a compelling 33 page essay on why this kind of thing is wrong. I won't just stop there, I am going to publish that essay in the school editorial, and start an innovative campus art club program dedicated to creating an entirely new form of protest art and persuading others why this offensive expression cannot maintain immunity through freedom of speech!"
However, these idealistic hopes are often fantasies. The first thing people often think when something offends them at college is: "Who in their right mind funded this crap? Whose side are 'they' on? People shouldn't have to pay for this! I'm going to issue a complaint and bash them senseless on Facebook and YouTube!" Automatically, the school will be blamed for funding it, or having any kind of involvement however neutral they try to be. If it is considered a problem now, then if art was to be completely deregulated and the speech codes not clarified, then state college authorities would never find rest. Granted they could probably find a way to handle it, but it would be a nightmare. They would be stuck trying to defend the freedom of speech while trying to prove a contradiction true. They wouldn't be able to win for losing.
Furthermore, all of these examples show one important thing:
Censorship is a natural defense mechanism in society and politics that tries to prevent retaliation, however violent. It simply cannot be helped; at a critical point were violence is about to break out on a large enough scale, it becomes a common-sense move to censor something in order to avoid destruction and bloodshed. Wise and responsible people(s) practice self-censorship, but don't let it control their interactions with others, nor let it get in the way of discussion and challenge to grow and/or change. Therefore, we should amend the speech codes to limit free speech only when it can be well evidenced that the speech will directly lead to violence. To be specific, it must be directly spoken that the person or persons intend to harm the person or persons in question. It must constitute as a verbal, written, or gestured threat. If these conditions are met, then the responsibility is on the speaker, and he/she is subject to discipline. If on the other hand the speech simply provokes a harm response not directly expressed by the one expressing the speech, then the responsibility is on the one whom lashed out in violence and he is subject to discipline. The exceptions are the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded campus as a practical joke, as such could be shown with hard evidence that it needlessly endangers life. Sexual Harassment remains unaffected by this proposal. Studies have been shown that such conduct very negatively affects student health and academia (http://www.stopvaw.org/Effects_of_Sexual_Harassment.html), though it has been a prominent ground for abuse. Thus, I argue that Sexual Harassment laws need more clarification, however exhaustive, but that is its own topic beyond of the scope of this response.
As for Religious Harassment, it can only be restricted under two true conditions. First, the religious speech directly condones violence or is likewise directly encouraging it. Second, the offending speech impedes the student from learning, and should they report it, they have concrete evidence that this is true, such as a report from the teacher about being late to class and them getting in trouble for it because a proselytizer kept them even after stating that they didn't have time. Tracts and other literature are not subject to the second condition since accepting and reading them is a person's choice. They, along with religious/nonreligious speech, also encourage debate and discussion which is conducive to a learning environment.
Hate speech, discrimination harassment, and the like should fall under the first definition of harm presented above in order to be consistent, since it is too subjective to measure. As in the above example in the Clairification Controversy, the editor’s opinions are protected and those who issued the death threats should have been the ones subject to discipline. It doesn't matter that there were so many who issued these threats. The Law should not be bullied by an angry majority, nor should it be forced to change without proper assembly due to violent pressure.
I'm not really for more regulation, but responsibility: If you're intent is to offend anyone and provoke them to think seriously about some issue, then I strongly urge you to consider this question: Is the intentionally offending message you want to publish or exhibit worth your life? If you don't value your life much, is it worth the life of one you especially respect and/or care about? As demonstrated from the above examples, this is not just empty rhetoric, but real and present dangers. Seriously, think about it.
Liberty is complex thing, and the more walls we break down, the more vast our surroundings become. The more vast our surroundings, the easier it is to wander in all directions. While we are turning our heads every which way to discern the direction of those resonating words of Nietzsche, let these words of Jesus Christ in the bible light be a light for our steps: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -Luke 6:31
