Freedom of speech in US
Rob L. Wagner has very nicely and effectively drawn the scenario of freedom of speech in the US when it revolves around religion and religious figures. Under the circumstances, it will be too preposterous to imagine that the US courts will admit the metaphor “shouting fire in a crowded theater” in declaring the talked about anti-Islam film an “imminent lawless action.” As could be expected, the debate rages in the West and elsewhere as to the justification or rather lack of it for the senseless killing of US officials over an insipid film by some bigots.
Yes, Rob is right that the extremists who made the film were not clueless and had much darker goals in their minds. This is much evident from the manner in which they tried to publicize the movie that would certainly have stayed buried in the cans. All of the critics who reviewed the film termed it to be very rudimentary having no single element that could be remotely considered as a work of art from any standard. Unfortunately, the gang which produced the film succeeded in their evil design to enrage and incite the Muslim sentiments to the extent of being ridiculed and derided. Most of the commentators in the Arab media have been very sensible in their analyses of the situation and condemned the unwarranted violence against the United States and its officials on this issue.
Similarly, the readers and all of the commentators who wrote in this very newspaper have also been very prudent and mindful of the predicament or the limitations faced by the US administration in curtailing or prosecuting such a band in view of the constitutional guarantees and provisions ensuring almost unconditional freedom of speech.
The US courts almost blindly follow the words of the First Amendment that stipulates: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” — Safi H. Jannaty, Dammam
Attacks on US missions
I agree with J. Fred Riley’s letter “Attacks on US mission” that Muslims should show patience and refrain from reactions which are not only against the teachings of Islam itself but are also counterproductive for their cause. I deeply regret the loss of life and apologize to the bereaved families. The same goes for loss of life and property as a result of ongoing protests and demonstrations.
Having said that I am indeed shocked at Riley’s defense of the film based on right to free speech. In this context I seek the answers to certain questions .To start with, why airing a different opinion on Holocaust is not defended based on the same right of free speech in the US? Why in a free country like the US or for that matter in Europe, no such film has ever been screened which is personally insulting other common prophets of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
I know there have been movies like The Da Vinci Code promoting alternative religious theories and some poking fun at the religious figures but I have never heard of any publication or movie out rightly insulting a religion or prophet to the extent this movie has. Perhaps Riley should watch the movie and tell us if he will defend to death such a film if it relates to his religion or its prophets or the one negating holocaust. Personally I think any sane person must condemn both actions; making and publicizing such movies and violent reactions against it. Defending such publicly insulting actions only exposes confused and/or hypocritical thinking of some Western minds. — Liaqat Ali, Jubail
Supercomputer
This is in reference to the column “Shakuntala Devi: Universal human supercomputer” by Farouk Luqman. The article was quite informative. I was surprised to read the caliber of this lady, she is a genius. I think she is better than Albert Einstein. I thank the author for writing about such a talented lady. — Ragheb Ahmed, Jeddah
