The tangled road ahead: First blog postings

    The first blogs for the Fall Com Law class are in….and the results are fascinating. The question folks addressed was whether they subscribed to an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS approach to free speech (free speech is something each individual deserves and should be able to assert against whatever majority they find themselves within) or whether they upheld a system where group values tended to prevail against the individual (i.e. no individual “right” per se).
    In other words, do they really believe in the opening preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, laden with its rhetoric about “inherent dignity” and the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”?
    Not surprisingly for a group made up mostly of majors in Communication, just about everyone strongly supported an “individual rights” approach.  But things got squishy when it came to confronting a conflicting value that most of them also subscribe to: multicultural sensitivity and tolerance.  For example, those commenting upon cartoons and photos that satirized Islamic or Christian symbols quickly protected them…so long as the satire was published in a European country.
But when it came to finding any similar individual rights for filmmakers in Dubai, well…quite frankly…it was time to waffle and point out that Dubai had a more conservative Islamic heritage that did not have to tolerate some of what Hollywood filmmakers wanted to portray – a possible party and consumer side to the city, i.e. “Sex and the City” in Dubai instead of New York.  Of course, the fact that it was Hollywood producers – “aliens” – asking for those rights made it easier to say “no”.
But what if the case had been of a local Dubai filmmaker? Only a couple of folks explicitly argued that individuals in Dubai ought to have the same rights of free speech as others in the world.
    And, most interestingly, when it came to a case that specifically involved a local being persecuted for the exercise of free speech rights – that of journalism student Perez Kambakhsh in Afghanistan sentenced to death for downloading some critical remarks about Islam (and ultimately exiled)– no one chose that case to argue. There was an achingly dead silence in the blogs. Could it be that under the Dubai logic, Perez’s sentence would have had to have been upheld – uncomfortably?  Ah, I sense a mid-term test question coming on!
    That said, these first blogs were quite stimulating to read. It’s fun to see folks begin to wrestle with the key issues very early. Several immediately (intuitively?)  touched on questions that we’ll keep exploring. Should speech be banned if it OFFENDS? Or only if it HARMS? Or if it show LACK of  RESPECT for the diverse citizenry that makes up most nation-states today? Many nations take the first approach. Others (including the U.S.) adopt the second. Still others (like Singapore) emphasize the third.  Another good question that came up for several bloggers: Does the INTENT of the speaker matter? Several argued that so long as the speaker “intended” good or at least no harm, s/he should be protected – but does that mean every speaker has to be hauled into court to prove his/her intent?
    All in all…off to an enjoyable start.  Even if it is still sunny outside and we’d all rather be on a beach somewhere!