An Italian minister takes it upon himself to affirm his right to free speech by wearing a t-shirt, and this is what happens:
At least 10 people have been reported dead in Libya following clashes over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The clashes in the city of Benghazi follow reports that Italy’s Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli had worn a t-shirt of one of the cartoons.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi publicly demanded that Calderoli step down, but acknowledged that he did not have the power under Italy’s constitution to force the far-right minister out of office.
A tragedy indeed, and one that probably could have been prevented if clerics in Libya had shown some restraint and decided not to whip up the protests into a fervour.
But the actions of the Italian minister were also reprehensible.
It’s one thing to to express one’s freedom of speech in an appropriate forum such as a newspaper, which is a recognised forum of debate.
It’s completely another thing to do it on a t-shirt. Calderoli’s decision to emblazon pictures of Muhammed across his chest added nothing of substance to any debate. It was purely calculated to insult.
What about those who don’t have access to “recognized forum[s] of debate”?
What if you can’t find a “recognized forum of debate” willing to print your editorial? Take for example Communists in the USA at one time.
New ideas often look ridiculous, and frequently annoy people. So we shouldn’t be hearing about any of those, then, is what you’re saying? Unless somebody in a position of authority approves them.
What if you want to burn an American flag in front of the US embassy? Is that sidewalk a “recognized forum of debate”? Would you have any purpose other than insult? Can anybody sanely suggest that burning the US flag (or the Danish one…) on the street should not be allowed?
No, I’ve got a much, much better idea: The government doesn’t get to make any laws limiting the freedom of speech, or of the press. While you’re at it, let the brutes assemble peaceably and petition the government too, for good measure.
Dammit. I accidentally pressed some weird combination of keys that posted that thing, just before I started editing for brevity, clarity, and manners. Sorry ’bout that.
Don’t worry – your point came across just fine (and your manners seemed ok to me, too).
Fair point. But are you seriously suggesting that an Italian government minister doesn’t have access to a “recognised forum of debate”?
More generally – I accept that not every point has to be made in a conventional way. (And perhaps I wasn’t as clear about this as I could have been in my original post). Burning the American flag in public would be distateful, but I would argue, an acceptable (if silly) way of expressing one’s point of view. It classifies, in my mind, as distateful only, because although it will upset people, it will not upset people to the extent that they will riot.
Wearing a t-shirt of these cartoons was unacceptable, in my view, because the Italian minister knew the likely impact of his actions, especially given the visibility of his position. He set out deliberately to provoke a reaction, and he got one, knowing that the reaction would very likely be violent. While you could argue that he had the right to do that, in reality, he was knowingly reckless, and knew that lives would likely be put at risk as a result of his actions.
However – and this is key to remember – this is not in any way to condone the stupid response of the Libyan protestors in any way. They were stupid to react in a violent manner.
An allegory I’ve been using is this:
You don’t go up to an unhinged madman who is wandering around a crowded stadium carrying a Kalashnikov and tell him his mother was a prostitute. Even if she was.