Media Law: Your God, My Speech

What is community? Merriam-Webster defines “community” as a unified body of individuals; the people with common interests living in a common area. Some may think they can choose their community others may disagree. And what are the ways to draw our lines in the sand establishing the boundaries of our community? Is it financial, religious, cultural, or maybe its dictated by the political color your state happens to fall under. The emerging point is that boundaries are difficult to define, especially in reference to the idea of community. One can not establish or identify that community even resides in a physical boundary, therefore laws governing communication should not be written so as to solely support a group identity or “community standard,” but instead protect a universal individual civil liberty.

From a societal and governing standpoint, governing communication based on a group standard can produce oppressed citizens, social unrest, and can be a hindrance to social progress. Singapore governs communication based on a “community standard” and has in place strict censorship and defamation laws. Singaporeans, in turn, have little freedom of expression, access to information, whether local or international, and therefore can not fully participate in government.

Structurally, in the United States, the country was founded on numerous principles, but among them were liberty and freedom of religion. If you are free to practice whatever religion you choose and there is an established separation of church and state in the United States then it is not just to govern communication based upon one “religious” standard or definition. The philosophy and the law conflict. Justice Clark, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the case Burstyn v. Wilson, said it best:

“Under such a standard the most careful and tolerant censor would find
it virtually impossible to avoid favoring one religion over another,
and he would be subject to an inevitable tendency to ban the
expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority.”

Philosophically, John Stuart Mill argued that the right to free speech is justified because “the censored opinion may be true and the accepted opinion may be in error.” Protecting a universal individual right to free speech allows citizens to voice their claims of injustice to possibly bring about change. The Civil Rights movement in the United States in an example of Mill's argument. It was acceptable to discriminate against African Americans, but it was obviously unjust. If Americans did not have a right to discuss their opinions and concerns in a social forum, who knows how long it would have taken to outlaw racial discrimination in the United States. Mill argued that this is how truth emerges: through conflict and dialogue.

Despite my philosophical convictions, I simply do not think that it is logical to base communication laws on the view of one group. I simply do not think that it would work. It would be a logistical, judicial, and civil nightmare. I can't imagine what China spends on censorship and how much man power it takes to enforce the level of censorship that they desire.

I do believe free speech is a foundational right, but there should be some limitations. There will always be subject matter that offends, including myself, but I too must consider the full extent of the possible consequences if that subject matter were left to exist or were not permitted to be there.

After looking at the images from both the “Ecce Homo” and Jyllands-Posten satirizing Muhammed I find them both offensive. I have mixed views on both cases. Taste aside, I think that the”Ecce Home” exhibition should be legally allowed. It is an exhibition that individuals could choose to see on their own free will, as well as choose not to see. Now if the image of the man portraying Jesus with his genitalia in full view was used for posters for promotion I have less confidence in the legality of that. It might violate obscenity laws. Jyllands-Posten images satirizing Muhammed were racist and in poor taste. Their publication incited some violence, but this may have been among radicals. Regardless, they should be protected. But to be frank, I think that these two cases should be left to the corporations or businesses that fund or display them. They can deal with the consequences of either praise or criticism or financial loss or gain.

I think that the filmmakers in Dubai should have the same rights as filmmakers in Hollywood, but unlike our government, their government does not permit that at this point. Their government would have to make foundational changes in their laws regarding communication rights. I would rather the people of Dubai have their individual communication rights granted before a filmmaker's rights.