Just checking.
Lemme see if I got this right:
- The editorial page of a newspaper—a community organ—is a perfectly appropriate place to print ill-conceived, unfunny cartoons for pretty much the sole purpose of mocking the faith of some members of that community, and it’s irresponsible to voice even quasi-official disapproval despite the shockingly murderous backlash because, hey, free speech, they should grow up and suck it up and learn to deal;
- However, a memorial service—for a woman whose life has been dedicated to the fight for peace and justice and damn well grabbing the arc of the universe and bending it with her own bare hands—is a staggeringly inappropriate place to say much of anything at all about the fight that was her life, and the very particular strife and injustice yet afflicting her world and her country, because, hey, the president might be embarrassed, and how dare they carry on like that.
Okay then.
—cross-posted to Sisyphus Shrugged.
Dear Long Story, what an excellent post. I just discovered you at Digby’s. Thanks for this. I’ll be back. Catherine in Cleveland
I loved Carter’s bit at the memorial service. As John Stewart said, “He’s right behind you!” Classic.
But, yes, part of living in civil society means that someone will exercise free speech in such a way that will offend you. By all means, object, make your objection heard, even demand an apology. The point of free speech (and all the attendent liberties of inquiry, press, etc.) is to protect the dialogue necessary for democracy to flourish. The appropriate response is certainly a demonstration, letters to the editor, to your government, and so on. Storming embassies, setting them on fire, killing people, and all the rest—mmm, not so much. That’s what I mean by “grow up.” Violence is not the appropriate or acceptible response. Reasoned argument is. Reza Aslan wrote an excellent example of what I mean over at Slate.