By Edward Nawotka
Now that Egypt is close to eliminating censorship and opening its citizenry to a plentitude of political and religious views, the question arises of whether or not it is appropriate to have books with the most extreme views on sale in bookshops. In today’s lead story, Ramy Habeeb argues against censorship, saying that all points-of-view should be available in bookshops and improving education will help people to make up their mind about the material.
Still, is it necessary to go so far? Back in August of 2009, the Iraqi Ministry of Culture took the unexpected step of launching a program of official censorship of books in contradiction of the country’s own constitution. Needless to say, Iraqi publishers and booksellers, called it “a great step backwards on the path of freedom of thought and expression.” The government argued it needed censorship to stem the tide of extremist views which were fueling sectarian violence. The opposition argued that censorship would itself likely result in favoring one side over the other — thus fostering further sectarianism.
So, do you agree that the most extreme views should be available to readers in Egypt, particularly at a moment when emotions are so highly charged?
Let us know what you think in the comments.
5 Comments
Freedom can be scary and yes, democracy means giving a voice to everybody, including the mad and the extreme.
That Iraq has fallen back into censorship is deplorable and whether Egyp will dare to move forward to remove the shackles of censorhip is a big unknown. Mubarak, in response to the protest movement, has given in on two main points: he will no longer push his son as his successor and he will not present himself for re-election this coming September. Protesters should be happy: they’ve obtained quite a lot from Mubarak. But not everything: he wants to guide an “orderly transition” and indeed, he has positioned himself as a palladin of law and order. The army that had been sitting on the side has now moved centre stage, calling for protesters to go home and saying their “message has been heard”. This call might be heeded as everyone is fed up with the chaos that has been generated by 8 days of protest…
But does that mean censorhip will be removed anytime soon? I’d love for that to happen, but I doubt it.There will always be people claiming that full freedom is dangerous, even after Mubarak has gone…
A dictator can shut the mouths of his people for sometime, however, he can’t do that forever. And the sooner he realizes that the better. Even the most extreme views must be heard and the public has the right to accept or rject. Had a dictator allowed those views to be said in public, those extremists might have not gained great influence and effect on the public. Any leader, who’s democratic and loved by his people, must not fear anything. He must rely on his people’s good judgement and intellegence. But if he fears his people, of course he’ll try every possible way, even the most brutal and savage ways to shut down every opposing mass medium. The result will be contarary to his desire. His people will support the views of those extremists who appear to be fighting corruption and tyranny.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Unconditional.
Here in the US we’ve learned that this is a difficult but essential condition of democracy. As publishers and writers we must support it.
As soon as you ask that question, it raises another: What views should be considered “extremist” and who gets to define them? With that in mind, the answer should obviously be “of course” they should be allowed.
I don’t believe in freedom of speech. I say that not because I think censorship should exist where there is none, but rather because I see censorship where others do not.
In America, there is the principle of freedom of religion. Now, if someone chooses to practice a wacky religion, an employer may not choose to then fire that person. So, if someone at work is a witch, and it’s found out, the employer does not have the power to fire that person.
In America, there is also the principle of freedom of speech. However, the same protections that exist for having a religious belief do not exist for those who practice their freedom of speech.
Case in point, there was a story years ago about a girl who was in the navy who decided to pose nude in Playboy. She was subsequently demoted and moved for exercising her freedom of expression, despite the fact that what she did was perfectly legal. There was the case of a teacher saying something not-so-nice about her students in a FB post. When parents found out about it, she was fired. So, no… freedom of speech does not really exist in America. It never really has.
Now, to the story about Egypt. In Canada, my country, we have laws against hate speech. If someone wants to come out and say we ought to start rounding up the Jews and sending them to concentration camps for extermination, that person will be tried and likely convicted of a serious offence. Quite frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Now, if the same logic was applied to Egyptian law, perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Where speech is used to promote hatred, perhaps it ought to be censored and made illegal.
There are always limits to speech. In reference to Amazon, there was a recent problem with a book that promoted or gave information on how to molest children. Ultimately, that book was pulled. Do we agree with that or not? If a picture is a thousand words and the book has those kinds of photos illustrating it, then will we raise our voices and declare that the writer was simply exercising freedom of speech? I don’t think that there are many absolutists who would think that was OK on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech has never really existed, and perhaps it shouldn’t. And, in fact, I am arguing that it shouldn’t. But where the line exists between what is acceptable and what is is what is at the centre of the important debate. For instance, I don’t think an employer ought to have the right to fire you for saying something in a semi-private space like Facebook, or even if you decided to write an article that was critical in some way. Or, I don’t think that the nipple slip from years ago really warranted a huge 550k fine. But there it is.
So, in the end, I do not believe freedom of speech exists. Nor do I believe it should exist. However, I do believe that there ought to be more protection for those who exercise it (ie., Manning on releasing documents showing war crimes being committed, or the girl who posed for Playboy), but I don’t believe in it when it comes to promoting violence and hatred, or depicting young children in illegally explicit photographs.