New in PJ Media:
Most of us outside of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its friends agree that the stabbing attack on Salman Rushdie for having a less than fulsomely positive view of Islam’s prophet was wholly unjustified and that violence is never an appropriate response to words one considers offensive. Some analysts, however, are insisting that Rushdie crossed an unacceptable line, and while he shouldn’t have been stabbed, people should be more circumspect in exercising their freedom of speech.
In Minnesota’s Star Tribune Tuesday, Omar Alansari-Kreger asserted that “we share a civic responsibility to use our First Amendment rights to build bridges rather than reinforce divisions.” And in The American Conservative (TAC) Thursday, Michael Warren Davis unequivocally denounced Rushdie and presented a full-throated case for the idea that “free speech has limits—legal, yes, but also moral.” So: did Rushdie have it coming?
Davis states his case in simple and direct terms: “If someone insults your mother, you clock him. As a man, at least, there’s really nothing else you can do. It may not be strictly legal, but it’s perfectly honorable. Conversely, if you don’t want to get clocked, don’t insult anyone’s mother. Legally, he may be in the wrong. Morally, though, he’s right.” While this is a viscerally compelling argument, before you haul off and punch somebody, allow me to point out that as a man there may be plenty of other things you can do if someone insults your mother. A man is or should be much more than just a lout who goes around slugging people in response to insults. Right now, Catholics aren’t running around punching people because someone insultingly compared the rosary to an assault rifle.
If someone insults your mother, you can respond with your own insult. You can make a joke. You can leave. You can ignore it. Davis might insist that none of these are masculine responses, but then he claims that free speech has “moral” limits, and he seems to be a follower of the one who said: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Was the one who said that not a man?
The assumption that there is only one possible response to insult, and that is violence, is an echo of the jihadist assertion that he is tacitly defending (so it’s no surprise that he is defending it because he agrees with it). Iran recently responded to the Rushdie stabbing by saying it was his own fault for insulting Islam. Many jihadis speak about their attacks as if they were forced to do them and bear no responsibility; the victim bears all the responsibility because he or she insulted Islam.
There is more. Read the rest here.
