Free Speech vs Adab
By Shahzad Ahmed, Esq.
Board Certified Immigration and Human Rights Lawyer
January 2015
The human civilization continues to grapple with balancing free speech and respect. The killings
at Charlie Hebdo in Paris for publishing the Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons triggered both,
condemnation of the killings and criticism of free expression. Many in the Muslim world
condemned Charlie Hebdo’s killing and also stood up for the freedom of the press to express
itself, despite of the offensive nature of the cartoons. Others, however, demanded that freedom
of expression be limited by respect (or ‘adab,’ in Arabic) for religion; that the right to speak
freely should not be permitted to disparage a religion or offend its followers.
Adding to this debate, the modern world brings new challenges to a person’s expression of
thought. The media, including the social media, is now spreading communications faster than
ever before. As a result, with the click of a button an idea is instantly released into the world of
thought, and the tolerance of millions for an offensive expression is instantly tested.
Political Cartoons- pros and cons
Communication by cartoons is a double-edged sword. As a benefit, cartoons provide a quick
channel for conveying an idea. Cartoons are easier to view than having to read a long article.
And satires have even played a historical role in criticizing the establishment or tradition. On the
other hand, cartoons may be overly simplistic, and do not cover the full nuances of the subject
that an analytical or descriptive article does. As a result, a cartoon may carry a much more blunt
message, and may even convey the wrong message, than was intended. Hence, a cartoon is not
akin to a scalpel which works with precision, but more similar to sledge-hammer, that bears the
inherent risk of offending the viewer.
Defining Free Speech
So should offensive speech be curbed? First, it is important to define “freedom of speech.” In
public discourse, freedom of speech is a concept that can mean different things to different
people. Thus when you chant this slogan, do you mean the right to express yourself against
another individual’s beliefs even though it may be offensive to that person? Or do you mean
your right to express yourself without government restraint or censorship? Generally, in the
United States, the legal definition means the latter. In the United States, although the law does
not prohibit a private entity from excluding or chastising someone for his or her expression of
opinion (with some exceptions), generally the law prohibits a governmental entity from
restraining the exercise of expression. In the east, the definition varies, as will be discussed later.
The Limits of Free Speech- some governmental intervention
1
Whether by cartoons or otherwise, does one have an unfettered right to express oneself without
governmental restraint? The United States Supreme Court has ruled that in order to prohibit
speech, the government must have an important governmental interest in doing so. One classical
example that elucidates this is when a person falsely yells “fire” in a crowded theater. To do this
intentionally while knowing that there is actually no fire, is punishable as a crime in most states.
The rationale behind such a law is that such an act unnecessarily places the safety of the public in
danger.
By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), ruled as
unconstitutional the Texas statute prohibiting the burning of an American flag. In a divided
court, Justice Brennan held that, “The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal
expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even
where our flag is involved.”
Contrary to the U.S. law, France prohibits the desecration of its national flag. French law
imposes stiff fines for such a violation.
Thus, governments vary in the limitations they place upon the expression of their citizens. But
one thing is clear, that the exercise of this expression is not absolute, and must be balanced with
important public interests as a whole.
The Blasphemy laws – more governmental intervention
But should the government curb speech that is offensive to certain groups? Some Muslims argue
the hypocrisy of that French law, i.e. it prohibits the denial of holocaust, and prohibits the
burning of its flag as an expression of political dissatisfaction, while it does not prohibit the
depiction of Prophet Mohammad, an act that offends many Muslims. Hence, they contend that
the freedom of expression is not an equal value in France.
To take a step further, certain countries impose severe penalties for disparaging religion, raising
human rights concerns. Pakistan for one, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy. One case
which gained particular notoriety, and the condemnation of the western world, is the case of Asia
Bibi. Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, was given the death penalty after her Muslim coworkers on
the farm refused to drink water with her simply because of her religion. Her charge: she
defended her Christian faith and claimed that Mohammad is not the prophet of God. Under
Pakistan’s blasphemy law, the defendant can be convicted of the crime of blasphemy without
any evidence or witness. As a result, the law has been misused in order to settle scores with
opponents.
Most in the western world would condemn such a law, or at least the vagueness and the breadth
of it. But what if the penalty for blaspheming was lighter than the death penalty, i.e. jail or even
a fine? Could such a middle approach properly balance the right to freely express oneself while
preserving the sanctity of the other’s faith?
2
The Resolution- Adab for Free Speech
Interestingly, while many Muslims are outraged over the depiction of Prophet Mohammad’s
images, and support strict blasphemy laws, the Qur’an does not call for blasphemy laws or any
such treatment.
Chapter 20, verse 130 of the Qur’an reads: Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate
(constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun, and before its setting; yea,
celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that thou mayest
have (spiritual) joy.
And even though Prophet Mohammad, and the prophets before him, faced severe rebuke and
rejection, they did not call for punishment of their opponents. Rather, they practiced tolerance
and forgiveness. In essence, faith is glorified, not by curbing its critics, but rather by practicing
tolerance of its critics.
Ideally, the media ought to be responsible and observe respect in its exercise of free expression.
Cartoons have gone beyond mere depiction and resorted to insulting the followers of certain
religions. Free media should not be devoid of courtesy. However, even when the media
abandons ‘adab’, in the final analysis there is no place for the government to restrict the media’s
criticism of religion. There is no place for blasphemy laws or laws prohibiting free speech
without an important governmental interest. Rather it is for individuals and communities to
intellectually and spiritually evolve, and practice ‘adab’ for the freedom of expression, even if
they ultimately detest what is being expressed.
Partner at NeJame Law
189 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1800
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: (407) 245-1232
E-mail: ahmeds@nejamelaw.com
3