"Ecce Homo" and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Controversies

Laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. To support this statement, I will employ three specific examples: Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideology of English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill and the ruling of Burstyn v. Wilson.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” Nowhere in this article does it claim a government’s responsibility to suppress blasphemous speech. No matter the nature of an individual’s opinion, they have the right to express it.

English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill argued in Chapter II of his article On Liberty that “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Not only is this quotation powerful on its own, but Mill supports it with three very rational assertions. Firstly, that the unpopular opinion may indeed hold truth and the popular opinion may be false. Secondly, even truth needs to be challenged so it does not become “dead dogma”. And thirdly, there is likely at least some truth in all opinions. Mill was a passionate advocate for free speech and believed that conflict surrounding it was an important contributor to the development of humankind. By suppressing individual expression of opinion, governments would thus hinder intellectual and social progress.

Finally, the case of Burstyn v. Wilson is yet another demonstration of the importance of unrestricted freedom of expression. The 1952 case entailed the overturning of a New York Law allowing state censorship to prohibit the public showing of any unlicensed film or to revoke the license of one deemed “sacrilegious.” The restriction of the film The Miracle was the topic of the debate. The film, directed by Roberto Rossellini and distributed in English by Joseph Burstyn was deemed sacrilegious in New York State because of the blasphemous representation of a young peasant woman who believed she was the Virgin Mary after being impregnated by the man she deemed to be St. Joseph. Concerning this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states did not have the right to restrict the freedom of expression on the basis of it being sacrilegious. This case made it clear that motion picture as a medium to express opinion is protected under the first Amendment. Most importantly, the US Supreme Court asserted that blasphemy is not a warranted basis for suppressing ideas in the United States of America.

With support from the previous examples, I argue that laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. Now, I will apply this principle to the cases involving the “Ecce Homo” satirizing of Jesus and the Jyllands-Posten satirizing of Muhammad.

From 1998 to 2004, an exhibition featuring 12 different photographic depictions of biblical situations gave rise to a heated social debate. The Ecce Homo Exhibition, which made its debut in Stockholm in 1998, included pictures of Jesus surrounded by homosexuals, trans people, leather people and people with AIDS. Later, the pictures were displayed in various locations around Europe, including in the cathedral of Uppsala in Sweden. Many strong responses emerged from the exhibition, both positive and negative. Although many were offended by this form of expression, I strongly believe that this kind of speech, albeit contrary to majority opinion, should be protected by government. The case of Burstyn v. Wilson is an example from which I draw this conclusion. In this court hearing, it was determined that individual speech shall not be suppressed on the basis of blasphemy. Although some Christians found this display of artistic expression offensive, it did not cause physical harm to any audience. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also supports this form of free speech because of its claim that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” Article 18 also provides a basis for protecting this kind of free speech: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” According to this article, the individual can “manifest” his beliefs. The Ecce Homo exhibition is the perfect example of an individual artist manifesting their beliefs in a setting open to the public. By disallowing this kind of free speech, a government would effectively be excluding an individual or group from participating in the religion of their choosing.

Another important situation to examine is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy that began in 2005, when a group of editorial cartoonists were asked by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark to submit a cartoon depicting their view of Muhammad. Twelve cartoons were printed on September 30, 2005, announced by the newspaper as an attempt to open the debate surrounding the discrimination of Islam and self-censorship in general. However, the response was not favorable as protests broke out around the world by discontented Muslims, some of which ended in violence. Some of the protests provoked police to fire on crowds, killing 100 people. Many people labeled the cartoons as blasphemous and extremely offensive to Islam. Others argued that the creation and publication of the cartoons was an exercise of free speech and not intended to discriminate against the Muslim World or to marginalize them from other religious sectors.

Although the resulting violence and deaths associated with the controversy were very disheartening, I still believe that this was a demonstration of free speech that should be protected by law. In this case, I find it very helpful to draw on the ideology of John Stuart Mill. Mill believed strongly that the suppression of free speech hindered intellectual and social progress. I agree with the Jyllands-Posten’s intention to open up a debate about current issues surrounding the world of Islam. I think that in order to foster a better understanding of marginalized groups, we must fully expose all existing bases for discrimination. Self-censorship is an escalating problem in our global society and will continue to hinder social development if it is not revealed by strong displays of free speech. That being said, I think it is also the individual’s responsibility to maintain moral standards when expressing opinions. Because of the personal and often diverse character of morality, I don’t believe it can nor should be regulated by law. Rather, moral communication is a responsibility we as members of humankind must be thoughtful of to foster a just global community. Under law, I believe that the Jyllands-Post Cartoon publications were just; but whether they could be considered moral communication, is an entirely different debate.