When it comes to freedom of expression, only one country in the entire world stands up as its champion. The United States. The US has a lot of flaws. Lots of things I don’t like about it. But this is one aspect they have absolutely nailed. Anyone can say anything. Even a man who said he wanted to kill Obama was let off by the court because he was clearly not capable of doing so. Even a threat was not enough. It has to be a valid physical threat. In the US, religions are insulted with impunity. Shows like South Park are broadcast showing defecation on crosses and Jesus. And the US is a predominantly Christian country. All of this depiction is allowed and perfectly legal.
And yet…it works. Contrary to expectations, the US is a pretty civilized place. Just because freedom exists doesn’t mean that people are jerks. Social rules work quite well in keeping people respectful and decent. Coming from India where free speech is regularly restricted, I can tell you that people in the US are far more polite than back home. Morever, there are no riots. No horde shouting “we were offended”. No damage to property and no violence.
But how can this be? The foremost argument that Arab countries and places like India make for restricting free speech is that it preserves “harmony”. That it saves lives. And yet…and yet…where is the disharmony and violence and riots in the US? I’ve never heard of one. No Christian mob goes on a rampage burning cars even though most Americans are deeply religious. No Islamic mob goes on a rampage either. The latest “Innocence of Muslims” film can be watched by all American Muslims. Are they offended? Yes. But are they expressing their offence in violence? No.
A huge “anti Muslim” ad appeared in New York city in subway stations. Everyone could see it. And most Muslims were offended. But what were their reactions? Did they tear it down? Did they run off killing people? No. Here was the reaction of one Muslim:
“It’s not right, but it’s freedom of speech. To put it on a poster is just not right. But it caught my attention and I support freedom of speech, so you got to live with it.”
“You have to live with it”. Magic words. So what’s up with the rest of the world? Why can’t the rest of the world “Live with it?”.
There are some people who blame human nature. They say that the human mind can be deeply offended and that this kind of offence constitutes real harm. As serious as physical harm. That is bull. But let’s take them at their word. Say that emotional harm is every bit as important as physical harm (which it isn’t). So what about they people in the US? Are they unhappy? Are they depressed by going around everyday feeling hurt and outraged? No. What gives?
They can conclude that people in the US are not “real humans” after all [funny :)], or that their genetic makeup is different. But that doesn’t explain how immigrants coming to the US can adapt so easily to the US culture. So the only explanation is that they’re mature. It’s not genes. It’s not “human nature”. It’s maturity. The US population is proof that “offense” is in the eye of the beholder. No one gets offended and then automatically runs off to pick up a gun. Getting offended and letting it ruin your day and feeling deeply emotionally hurt over it is a choice.
Let me repeat that. It’s an important lessson that is tested by experiment. Suffering irreparable harm by something you see is a choice. Your choice.
Don’t blame other people for your choices. People in the US see offensive things every day. Even Muslims. They don’t let it affect them. No one can argue that every single person in the US is somehow superior. That’s preposterous. It’s just that they’re mature when it comes to this aspect of their life.
The US by its very existence demolishes what the Arab countries and places like India claim. There are laws against physical violence. That’s all you need. You don’t require policing of content. Most people in the US are polite and decent. Not because the law forces them to be that way, but because they feel like being that way. And when they see something that offends them, they just walk away or use their own free speech against it.
This proves that going wild when something offends you is not “human nature”. There is no “irreparable harm”. No “wound” that needs addressing. It’s not “inevitable”. It’s a choice. And when you excercise your choice to be deeply outraged, you have only yourself to blame.
You nailed it! Thanks
A very well written post. Can understand the sentiment from the writer’s point of view. But…
Suppose for example a man comes home in a foul aggressive mood. He starts to abuse his wife and little children in foul language; it’s frightening for them to watch this insane animalistic wild behavior that might at any moment turn violent. Can you not see that THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE not to be deeply outraged. This man who is supposed to be their trusted protector has turned into an offender . This is one example. We will discuss others in time…
In reply to tp
His wife can leave him. That’s what women do all over the world.
We are talking about the feeling of outrage WHEN it happens; not about the future course of action that takes time and is as traumatic as the initial outrage and which often leaves everyone concerned more outraged.THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE not to be deeply outraged WHEN IT HAPPENS.
In reply to tp
Being deeply outraged is for each individual person to deal with as adults. It’s a risk of life. We shouldn’t go crying to the government to protect us.
I for one, desire no such protection. I can take care of my mind. The government only has to protect the body.
In reply to tp
@tp: What is the point you’re trying to make? What does an example of domestic abuse/violence cited by you have ANYTHING to do with what BJP discussed here?
In reply to Anand
I think she’s saying that sometimes people have no choice but to feel deeply outraged when something happens. It’s a valid point and I can agree. I’m regularly outraged by a lot of shit that happens in the world.
But that’s something I have to live it. I can’t control what someone else says, paints, or writes.
In reply to bhagwad
Feeling deeply outraged and going on a rampage are in no way connected. I can be deeply outraged by a cartoon but that does not give me the license to go and hurt people or destroy property. People should learn to control their impulses.
The idea of freedom of speech in ingrained in Americans. They are taught this in school. I think more time should be spent on studying our constitution in school.
In reply to bhagwad
BTW, I like the way Anand referred to you as BJP :-)
In reply to Sraboney
Oh, it’s an old nickname :D. Ironic isn’t it? It sometimes drives Hindutva types crazy. They think it’s a fake name just to bait them!
@ bhagwad,
You need to read this http://www.freewarehof.org/speech.html to burst your bubble of myths regarding freedom of speech in the US.
In reply to Arun P
It will be helpful if you paraphrase the points along with the link. Not everyone will want to leave a page to confront a huge wall of text.
Are there limitations to free speech in the US? Yes. But are they far, far ahead of any other country in the world? Yes! Would the “Innocence of Muslims” movie be banned in any other country other than the US? Yes, yes!
I rest my case.
So what do you make of Kapil Sibal and the Congress’ moves to ban Facebook, and YouTube plus a whole bunch of sites critical of them? Sad, sad, sad people. Insecure AND incompentent make for a disastrous mix.
In reply to Momo
I oppose those moves of course. I’d written about them earlier: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2011/politics/ode-to-kapil-sibal.html/
Interesting. I think the ‘why’ part of it may be because in the U.S there is the understanding that it is almost impossible to not offend anyone’s sensibilities, but more importantly that reactions to hurt feelings are controllable. You can uncontrollably feel outraged by someone else’s behavior, but you make a conscious choice as to how you react . It is like how someone could call me and my entire family ugly. I would feel hurt, there is no choice about this, but I have control over how I react. Hopefully people are nice enough to not do things like this, but to say that this should be a punishable offence is just silly.
I think in India there is more of this idea of ‘losing control’, so violent reactions are not exactly condoned but seen as reasonable/more acceptable, even logical. He burnt the Indian flag, OF COURSE a mob beat him up.Which gives rise to trying to limit free speech, because this is seen as the thing that should be controlled, instead of people’s violent reactions to ‘hurt’ feelings.
In reply to BBD-Lite
Very true. This idea of “losing control” applies to other aspects of our system too. A rapist is very often depicted as “losing control”. The woman wore jeans. Of COURSE she was raped!
Some people say that it’s just two different cultures. I disagree. It’s not “just” two differnt cultures. It’s a good culture and a bad culture. Saying “the US is different” doesn’t cut it. We have to strive to become better – not blindly accept what is expected of us.
In reply to bhagwad
Basically, we Indians are not civilized enough. Not only do we have no control over our emotions, we also seem to have little control over our bodily functions.
Well I guess the US “get” Freedom of Speech because it’s the one of the basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It’s just simply viewed as a human right. I guess however many people assume that we agree with things that are offensive. I guess that’s where all the anger comes originates. Freedom of Speech≠Agreeing with what’s being said. But there’s danger in trying to limit speech, because if we start censoring things that offend people, then pretty much everything will be censored and there will be no room for discussion.
I also wish people would realize if you don’t like what’s being said then you have the Freedom of Speech to criticize it. If you’re offended by hateful language, this is one way to counter it.
http://www.theawl.com/2012/09/a-treasury-of-defacings-of-pamela-gellers-racist-subway-ads :P
In reply to RenKiss
Agree. Freedom of expression doesn’t mean you agree with everything being said. It means that you allow people to say something even if it’s offensive to you. You can always protest and convince people that the other guy is a jerk!
i am happy that it is agreed that sometimes there is no choice about getting hurt. But as human beings what may distinguish us from other forms of life is that we do have a choice about how we wish to respond.
This statistic may be interesting
The US stands at number 1 on the list of the most criminalized and unsafe countries in the world. According to the latest US Department of Justice Survey of Crime Victims more than 6.6 million violent crimes ( murder, rape, assault and robbery ) are committed in the US each year followed by China, Brazil, UK and Russia.
I have stated before that thought leads to word that finally manifests as action. So unless one is mentally deranged and cannot control ones actions, it is necessary to tackle the problem of violence at a deeper subtler level. This does not mean that freedom of speech should be restricted by law but that governments and educationists could pay more attention to sensitizing people on the consequences of irresponsible statements and behavior in case they are unable to understand this seemingly obvious consequence on their own
In reply to tp
The crime statistic is interesting because of this quote from a statistical source:
“Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence”
This makes sense. In no manner can it be said that India’s crime rate is lower than that of the US – specially for violent crimes like rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison
Discovered your site recently. This is an excellent post! What you have written here hit the nailed on the head by analyzing the whole illogical ‘taking-offense-at-hurt-feelings-using-physical-violence’ scenario that plays out over and over again in parts of the world. Wonder what major factors (diversity from literally all over the world? certain historical events? economic prowess?) play a role in making the US a tolerant nation…
On a slightly similar (or entirely different!) note, a colleague here in the US who is originally from torn-up former Yugoslavia and who suffered in the Bosnian war marveled at how India is still one single country even though it is similar to Europe in the sense that every Indian state may very well qualify as a separate country in terms of culture.
Felt nice that India remains united in spite of regional differences.
In support of the comment by tp above, how does better reporting of crime in a country lessens the total crime committed in that country ?
Just for example ——- for every 1000 people in a country,
for the US ———- total crimes (100) : reported crimes (90) unreported crimes (10)
for a country X —- total crimes (50) : reported crimes (10) unreported crimes (40)
for a country Y —- total crimes (95) : reported crimes (92) unreported crimes (3)
So even if X has two-ninth of the crime reporting rate, crime is still less prevalent than the US. Whereas Y has a better reporting rate than the US, but it is still high on the crime rate.
A better prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime does not necessarily mean a low crime rate in a country. You cannot assess the number of unreported crimes. If they could be assessed, they would be included under reported crimes. And as per the latest records, the US tops the international table of violence related crimes which is almost the double of UK which stands second in the list.
In reply to romero
US: total crimes (100), reported (90), unreported(10)
X: total crimes(200), reported(50), unreported(150)
So when you look at these numbers, US will show a higher number of crimes than country X. This is especially true when some countries do not even consider a particular type of transgression as a crime. So those numbers could be even higher as they are not even counted under unreported crimes.
Especially with a country like India, a lot of crimes against women are severely under reported where as US has much much better rates of reporting those crimes and considering them as crimes in the first place.