Redefining the boundaries of free speech

The publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in the European media that provoked reactions across the world has threatened the world press.

The event not only raises the questions of fundamental rights but also that of civic obligation.

Not only is the Islamic world asking journalists to define where the boundaries of free speech lie but the entire world.

The cartoons published in the Danish Paper were meant to illustrate the difficulty encountered by the writer Kare Bluitgen, in finding an illustrator for his children’s book on the life of Mohammed.

The newspapers had the right to publish them and I agree with my colleagues in the profession who urge that our’s is an era marked by growth of religious belief, politicisation and all religion must be open to a full range of opinion and analysis

But I do not believe it is not the duty of a journalist to criticize any religion as such or to make fun of other people’s deeply held beliefs. It is one thing to lambaste exaggerated radical fringes of a belief system, and quite another to attack that belief system as a whole

Satire is a form of analysis, but freedom of speech is not absolute and does not give a journalist the right to cry ‘fire’ in a crowed theater

And this takes us back to one of the most debated topics at journalism school- “Social Responsibility”- where should the lines be drawn. There are three issues here that the journalist world needs to put in mind.

First it is against Islamic principle to represent in imagery not only Muhammed but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition in Islam.

Secondly in the Muslim world, no jokes or laughter is made at religion and there are hardly any jokes both in the Quran and the Bible. For that reason, these cartoons are seen by average Muslim as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.

My colleagues need to understand that; this is not a legal issue or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right and protected. No one should contest that. But at the same time we are working in a complex dynamic society with diverse cultures and there should be sensitivity to this.

There are no legal limits to speeches but there are civic limits. In any society there is a civic understanding that free speech should be exercised responsibly so as not to provoke sensitivities.

It was unwise to publish these cartoons as a way to raise or start a debate, such a move inflames emotions, and it does not court reasons. It is useless provocation.

Indeed, cartoonist Lars Refin has not understood how to use his undeniable freedom of expression wisely.