From the text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech

I am a firm supporter of the right to free speech and free expression. These rights are essential to other rights – political advocacy, religious freedom, artistic expression, academic freedom and the right to advocate for social change. I am so thankful to live in the United States where I have this right, and I hold it dear.

Not everyone who has these rights uses them for a good or useful purpose. The costs of free speech are high. When I was a clinic escort, I witnessed protesters who would harass patients and doctors. I find this morally abhorrent, and while I do support the FACE Act and other measures to prevent people from forming human chains around clinics, I also recognize that much of what these protesters do is and should be protected speech.

This weekend I attended the Women in Secularism conference sponsored by the Center for Inquiry. One of the speakers, Taslima Nasrin spoke about the harms of religion to women. Nasrin was exiled from her home country of Bangladesh for criticizing Islam. Others have been jailed or murdered by vigilantes for doing the same.

In her speech, Nasrin said,

“Without the right to offend, freedom of expression cannot exist.”

Mary Johnson tweeted this quote, and I retweeted it. Then this happened (conversation edited for clarity, see my twitter stream for unabridged conversation):

@_MaryJohnson @MissCherryPi @taslimanasreen Offense that challenges power =/= offense that furthers bigotry & oppression

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 @_MaryJohnson @taslimanasreen But who gets to decide which is which?

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 I think people should challenge the power religion has in society. But religious people may feel oppressed by that challenge.

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi Right Wing assholes–incl. religious ones–want power to control society's narratives & define themselves as victims.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi Feeling offended by having one's privilege challenged is not the same as being oppressed.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 Exactly, which is why I believe we cannot ban speech or expression that is "offensive."

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi Hating on Islam while West embarked on Neo Crusades is different than discussing pedophile priests.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi If your society killing/oppressing a group of people based on their religion end the k/o be criticizing their religion.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 So, until there are no religious hate crimes in the USA, no one should criticize religion? I don't agree.

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi There are religions that wield little power in USA. Focus criticism on religions that wield power.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi People who insist their right to offend includes attacking Muslims to be assholes. Packaging mainstream bigotry as edgy.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 Call bigots and assholes out when they do harm. But we should not declare anyone or anything above question/criticism.

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi Until Americans end killing & oppression of Muslims as gov't policy, they have forfeited the right to judge Muslims.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi And people who defend the prerogative of attacking Islam go in the box labeled "asshole".

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi US society has numerous ideologies, people & institutions above criticism. What have you done for Chelsea Manning?

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@MissCherryPi Chelsea Manning in prison b/c she criticized gov't by telling truth. You want shit on other religions & not be criticized.

— Carl Nyberg (@CarlNyberg312) May 17, 2014

@CarlNyberg312 Not at all. I totally support your right to call me an asshole.

— Elizabeth (@MissCherryPi) May 17, 2014

So, to sum up, according to Carl Nyberg, we can’t criticize Islam because of American imperialism, and we can’t be supporters of free speech unless we spend every waking moment trying to get Chelsea Manning out of prison.

I agree that there is racist and xenophobic sentiment underlying some critiques of Islam. But that doesn’t mean that it’s above question. Taken to its logical conclusion, Nyberg’s argument means that until we eliminate antisemitism in the United States, no one can speak up about the sexual abuse of children in Hasidic communities. I reject this entirely.

I don’t think that people should be bigoted or even unnecessarily mean to each other. I’m a huge supporter of social justice, civility, Wheaton’s Law, and plain old cheerfulness. But I believe these things must come from within and not be imposed by a government. The right to free speech includes the right to be an nasty and cruel abortion clinic protester, to voice islamaphobic opinions, and to tell me that I want to “shit on other religions without being criticized.” As Taslima Nasrin said,

“Without the right to offend, freedom of expression cannot exist.”

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 5:34 pm and is filed under Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.