Why free speech is baffling to many
Palestinian men in Gaza City burn the U.S. flag Wednesday to protest an anti-Islam video.
September 14th, 2012
02:51 PM ET

Why free speech is baffling to many

Editor’s note: Zeynep Tufekci is assistant professor at the School of Information at the University of North Carolina, and she is a visiting scholar at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School. She blogs at technosociology.org and can be found on Twitter @techsoc. The views expressed are her own.

By Zeynep Tufekci, Special to CNN

The recent protests over a crude and offensive anti-Islam video serve as a lesson about cultural clash in the Internet era — not necessarily between extremists on both sides, but rather between cultural understandings of free speech and the public sphere.

It used to be that you needed to travel someplace new to experience culture clash. But by creating immediate connections between people, the Internet can create a culture clash without anyone leaving their couch.

The chasm I’m most worried about is not the one among the makers of the film and those who might have reacted to it with violence. In fact, one may argue that the hate-mongers who made this video and those who use the provocation as a pretext to kill are in a symbiotic, mutually reinforcing relationship.

The gap I’m most concerned about is the one between the vast majority of people in the Middle East and North Africa who watched the violence in Libya with horror and disgust and yet still find the existence of the video troubling and disturbing, and everyday Americans who see the story as just a few marginal, hateful people putting this video on YouTube.

To understand why this particular narrative of free speech is deeply unsatisfying to many people in the Middle East, you have to keep in mind significant historical differences between the rest of the world and the United States.

America’s free-speech culture and its legal framework are unique in the world — and genuinely baffling to many.

Remember the many people throughout the world who were convicted for expressing their free speech in 2006, right around the turbulent anniversary of a Danish newspaper publishing cartoons about the Muslim prophet Mohammad? No, they were not Egyptians who wanted to publish the cartoons to make a point about free speech. They were Europeans.

Germar Rudolf was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for denying that there was a systematic Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. Similarly, French holocaust denier Robert Faurisson was given a probationary sentence and a fine. Such laws are in place in most of Europe and in Canada, and many people have been prosecuted under them.

So it’s not surprising that in reaction to the latest video, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood called for similar laws for insulting Islam. After all, they ask, if laws can be passed to stifle hateful speech about past important events, why not religion?

However, they are looking at the wrong national set of laws. Genocide denial has never been a crime in the U.S., and it’s hard to imagine how it could be, given the First Amendment — a uniquely American institution.

To understand some of the strains, we also need to remember how new everything is. Egyptians overthrew their dictator just last year, and YouTube was created seven years ago. Most people in the Middle East grew up in strong states, and the notion that all speech should be legally protected has very little cultural or legal resonance.

Besides, many people around the world believe certain lines should not be crossed in public — and it’s not just insulting religion, the state or the national culture. Many countries also have strong individual defamation laws. Celebrities in Turkey, my home country, have been known to sue people making fun of them on Twitter (someone should alert them to the Streisand effect).

The free-wheeling, open environment that exploded with citizen media has greatly complicated this political legacy. Sedat Kapanoglu, founder of the popular Turkish “dictionary” site Eksi Sozluk, in which ordinary people can post their own “definitions” on any topic, was laughing as he told me how he is regularly summoned to the prosecutor’s office and questioned on why he wrote an inflammatory post about a topic. He said he must repeatedly explain that he just runs the website and anyone can post. The prosecutors are not completely up on about this Internet thing, he shrugs. The results, however, are far from amusing: Sedat’s Internet start-up employs more lawyers than programmers.

Of course, all cultures set limits on free speech — and government restrictions are not the only thing stifling public conversations. In the U.S., narrow ownership of broadcast media has often restricted the public sphere, as viewpoints without a lot of money have been ignored or stifled. American reaction to unwanted speech tends to be to sometimes ignore it, sometimes use it to score political points, and sometimes use it to whip up the base.

The murder of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and members of his staff in Benghazi is not the first time a YouTube video has been linked to a political act of violence. This is not going to be the last such incident, either. Our connected world means that it’s not just messages of hope and solidarity that flow through social media, but also messages of hate and malice.

To move forward, we must understand the differences between peoples and not assume that everyone else lives in the same cultural, legal and political framework.

Note: Emerging coverage indicates that the attack against Stevens in Benghazi may not fit the general pattern of blasphemy-related protests in the Muslim world. The protest against the film might simply have been used as cover for a pre-planned paramilitary assault.

Topics: Egypt • Internet • Libya

soundoff (192 Responses)
  1. Phil

    Actually, speech is far from totally free in the US. You can't claim a drink is Coca-cola unless it is; you can't claim to be a police officer unless you are; you can't claim your medicine cures diabetes unles it does, and so on.

    All free countries protect political speech more strongly than economic speech, but most put more limits on than the US does.

    September 21, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Reply
    • krehator

      Many do not understand the intent of freedom which includes the word FREE. If people must pay for freedom or deal with unreasonable consequences of exercising their rights, then it is not free, and therefore not freedom.

      September 24, 2012 at 5:39 am | Reply
  2. krehator

    People typically only care about one type of free speech. THEIR OWN.

    September 24, 2012 at 5:37 am | Reply
  3. Jason Telly

    Freedom of Speech. Perhaps another key development missed in this degate was Fareed's return to CNN despite being found guilty of Plagiarism. In this context, CNN should worry less about free speech than molested speech. CNN so called "Global Leader in News", is setting a low standard by restoring Fareed......

    September 24, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  4. mcfarlas47

    If there is consensus that freedom of speech should be considered a crime then why don't we start right here with the Iranian leader's own words. Heck, not just a crime, but a "hate crime" – punishable by death.

    "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor."
    "The Zionist regime's establishment was based on numerous deceptions and lies and one of the biggest lies was the Holocaust."
    No Zionists were killed in the World Trade Center, because "one day earlier they were told not to go to their workplace."
    "...with God's grace, this regime (Israel) will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen."
    "The Zionist regime wants to establish its base upon the ruins of the civilizations of the region...The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever 'Death to Israel.'..."
    "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken."

    September 25, 2012 at 1:52 am | Reply
  5. styroiciops

    mxnarez クロエ バッグ laxhinn acuehdl クロエ アウトレット orrdung xumdedl クロエ バッグ umfypew lggvsxr http://www.chloesutoa.com/ zhkhspw klnthgo Chloe アウトレット pxgffln geexmdf クロエ 財布 hlgxpko scjyyao Chloe アウトレット fajaztn abwpxtd http://www.chloesearch.com/ omczeqp nxekmkk クロエ 財布 pqjhycx axipmgz クロエ バッグ grghnxb fuyenum クロエ 財布 uxalmhq cxnhawp http://www.chloeonly.com/ cyzgexr ukzfwva ポールスミス 財布 ulbtqkv zytippn ポールスミス 財布 lxwhech ageblyh ポールスミス アウトレット rzamttw knijjjt http://www.paulsmithyasuyi.com/ mkmxrwx pqdaazx プラダ 財布 dlrrtxp qvkgenv プラダ バッグ khitxva fxlipfk プラダ バッグ dgnvwbp qpcusuh http://www.pradatome.com/ zvxhkjm psrxmqz クロエ バッグ wjbkudw udfecqf クロエ 財布 lgrhonm uovxhsy クロエ バッグ bgaglrh fbsshfo http://www.chloeye.com/ zgqdjwg

    April 10, 2013 at 12:09 am | Reply
1 2 3

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,580 other followers