Reconsidering the Infamous Cartoons

In an op-ed piece in the NY Times today, Robert Wright argues that people (like myself) who saw the recent controversy over offensive cartoons as a challenge to a cherished western tradition of free speech ought instead to have focused on an equally important value - that of tolerance, and the practice of self-censorship that makes harmony possible in a diverse society like ours.

Wright points for example to the retaliation by some Muslims that has taken form in cartoons about the Holocaust.

"... it may seem clear that joking about the murder of millions of people is worse than mocking a God whose existence is disputed.

BUT one key to the American formula for peaceful coexistence is to avoid such arguments — to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo isn't too onerous. We ask only that the offended group in turn respect the verdicts of other groups about what they find most offensive."

Wright goes on to argue "Peace prevails in America, and one thing that keeps it is strict self-censorship."

"And not just by media outlets. Most Americans tread lightly in discussing ethnicity and religion, and we do it so habitually that it's nearly unconscious. Some might call this dishonest, and maybe it is, but it also holds moral truth: until you've walked in the shoes of other people, you can't really grasp their
frustrations and resentments, and you can't really know what would and wouldn't offend you if you were part of their crowd."

Wright concludes by arguing that "The Danish editor's confusion was to conflate censorship and self-censorship. Not only are they not the same thing — the latter is what allows us to live in a spectacularly diverse society without the former..."

I agree, and reluctantly admit my own mistake.