Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust

Peter Singer

The timing of Austria’s conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries during protests against cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, the Irving verdict makes a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries, freedom of expression is a basic right.

We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed.

Before you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims of the Holocaust, or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should say that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped Austria in time, but my grandparents did not.

All four of my grandparents were deported to ghettos in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Two of them were sent to Lodz, in Poland, and then probably murdered with carbon monoxide at the extermination camp at Chelmno. One fell ill and died in the overcrowded and underfed ghetto at Theresienstadt. My maternal grandmother was the only survivor.

So I have no sympathy for David Irving’s absurd denial of the Holocaust – which he now claims was a mistake. I support efforts to prevent any return to Nazism in Austria or anywhere else. But how is the cause of truth served by prohibiting Holocaust denial? If there are still people crazy enough to deny that the Holocaust occurred, will they be persuaded by imprisoning people who express that view? On the contrary, they will be more likely to think that people are being imprisoned for expressing views cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

In his classic defense of freedom of speech in, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote that if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth.” The existence of the Holocaust should remain a living truth, and those who are skeptical about the enormity of the Nazi atrocities should be confronted with the evidence for it.

In the aftermath of World War II, when the Austrian republic was struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a democracy and a member of the European Union. Despite the occasional resurgence of anti-immigrant and even racist views – an occurrence that is, lamentably, not limited to countries with a fascist past − there is no longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria.

By contrast, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

To be consistent with that clear statement – and without the vague qualifications of Article 11, which threaten to render it meaningless – Austria should repeal its law against Holocaust denial. Other European nations with similar laws – for example, Germany, France, Italy, and Poland – should do the same, while maintaining or strengthening their efforts to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected.

Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to – or can reasonably be foreseen to – lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all.

Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: “We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslems, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.”

Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, is the author of, among other books, Pushing Time Away: My Grandfather and the Tragedy of Jewish Vienna.

Publishing those cartoons was a mistake

Zsofia Szilagyi International Herald Tribune

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006

BUDAPEST The Western news media is unlikely to heed the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, and the European politicians who have condemned the provocative nature of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, which have provoked rage in the Muslim world. But it does need to engage in serious debate about its preferred role in mediating between cultures. This should start with the admission that publishing and republishing the cartoons was a grave mistake.

Of course, the Danish and Norwegian newspapers that originally published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. They simply wanted to make a statement about the extensive self-censorship that has developed within news media and artistic circles since the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2004.

But when making a point about self-censorship and press freedom, newspapers should have considered the cartoons' potential effects on Europe's growing anti-Islam sentiments. Why make a negative point about Islam in an environment where Islam is already getting extensive negative press through the coverage of hostage-takings, bombings and terrorist groups?

On Monday, the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten issued a statement regretting the offense the cartoons had caused to Muslims around the world, but continued to insist that their publication was justified under freedom of speech principles. To show solidarity, several European newspapers republished the cartoons, some of them urging tough action in defense of press freedom.

Newspaper editors should have been aware, however, that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam.

In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.

Whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. This raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.

The central question in this debate is as simple as it is difficult. What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?

Both these goals cannot be fully accomplished at the same time, and the two dominant philosophies of the press - the libertarian and the social responsibility theories - have come up with very different definitions of the media's main mandate.

The former hails individual freedoms, even to the detriment of the quality of media output, while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.

Backers of the social responsibility theory now have a new powerful argument against the libertarians - that once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas.

There is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. But when newspapers insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not - alone - create the context and lifespan of their messages.

Freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world - requiring the limits of media output to be subjected to constant review.

The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.

(Zsofia Szilagyi is a Budapest-based political analyst and director of the Human Rights Film Foundation.)

Blogging task

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.