With most Americans focused on the upcoming presidential election, a small audience concerned themselves with free speech and human rights Thursday.
Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published controversial cartoons depicting Muhammad in 2005, spoke in Page Auditorium to approximately 75 people about freedom of speech in the globalizing world.
Rose, who was awarded "The Free Speech Award" from the Danish Free Press Society, discussed the conflict between free speech and what he called "the right not to be offended."
Although Islamic activists have argued that their religious beliefs should be legally protected against offensive images or speech, Rose defended his decision to print the cartoons. He added that granting religious beliefs special protection against speech would erode freedom of expression.
Rose said censoring offensive commentary about Islam would result in the elevation of the rights of groups over individuals.
"I don't think that anyone has a special right not to be offended," he said.
Rose added that the call from Islamic groups to limit freedom of expression constitutes such a special right just for Muslims.
"The Islamists are presenting themselves as victims of xenophobia," he said. "On the other hand they are trying to impose their views on others.... There cannot be one standard for Muslims and another for non-Muslims."
Rose also discussed the rioting and violence that followed the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. Although approximately 100 people died during protests in Middle Eastern and European nations following the cartoons' publication, Rose said he did not feel responsible for the violent reaction.
"No matter how hard I try, it's really difficult for me to feel responsibility about what happened in the Muslim world," Rose said. "You judge the publication of cartoons exclusively by irrational reactions of other people. I think you have to look at the cartoons... and make a judgement."
Following his remarks, several audience members expressed displeasure at the publication of the cartoons. The bulk of their criticism focused on the cartoon scandal and not on his beliefs about free speech.
But Greg Salmieri, visiting assistant professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina, said he appreciated Rose's message.
"I broadly agree with him and it's important that what he has to say gets said," he said. "It's unfortunate he's been met with voices shrill with anger and intolerance."
Rose noted that the cartoons were manipulated by authorities in Islamic nations to fit in with a political agenda that existed well before the publication of the cartoons. He added that very few rioters had actually seen the cartoons.
"The cartoons were used in order to stir up things that in fact have their roots [elsewhere]," he added.
He said recent discussion about the "right not to be offended" had led to the equation of criminal acts of violence with offensive free speech.
"The distinction between saying something offensive and committing a criminal offense is becoming less and less clear," Rose noted.
He emphasized that if nations begin to censor speech to protect the religious beliefs of Muslims, over time forums for discussion and debate would disappear. Rose also warned that granting any religion or ideology legal censorship over artists, novelists and the press would lead to a state reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
Rose added that freedom of speech should have a few limitations. He said he supports libel laws and laws barring speech that call people to violence. He also said the right to privacy should be upheld even if it limits free speech.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.