In today's Chicago Tribune, Frida Ghitis offers an opinion piece, "Free to Express, but not to Offend" (June 29, 2008). She describes the dramatic arrest of Gregorius Nekschot, a cartoonist:
An armed government team, including a half-dozen police officers and several prosecutors, raids the home of a mysterious artist who goes by a pseudonym, inspires zeal and tackles political themes. They arrest the man and confiscate his computer, telephone, various DVDs and other materials.
A terrorism suspect?
No, the man arrested May 13 in the Dutch city of Amsterdam was Gregorius Nekschot, a cartoonist. And his alleged crime was making drawings that some people found offensive.
Ghitis' piece explores how the Netherlands, Europe, and the UN Human Rights Commission have been reacting to public express that offends the sentiments of some or many Muslims.
It strikes me that Europe protects speech (to the extent that it does) not because it finds speech meaningful but because it finds it meaningless. Once speech is perceived as meaningful (for example, as offensive) it is no longer protected.
Or, to put it more broadly--and as a challenge--has the idea of Europe come to mean the denial of meaning? And can such an idea survive the challenge of those (including Muslims) who insist on the reality of meaning?
-- H. A. Massig
