Free Speech and Cultural Sensitivities

by Scott Sturman

In the days when a book was “banned in Boston” it was certain to become a best seller despite its quality or content.  The farcical Internet sensation, “The Innocence of the Muslims,” which was purported to send the Muslim world into a frenzy can be categorized in the same manner.  The presentation rivaled an elementary school effort at best, and left alone quickly would have lapsed into obscurity.  But politicians and the media resurrected it for political purposes and gave the illiterate Islamic world the impression the “movie” represented the official position of the United States government.

Reprehensible free speech is tolerated and protected by the First Amendment in this country, and Hollywood has made a fortune using this argument to defend the wholesale delivery of sex, violence, profanity, blasphemy, heresy, sedition, and perversion to the American public.  Yet when it comes to “Innocence of the Muslims,” they are the first to call for banning it and punishing those responsible for its production.

"Freedom of Speech" by Norman Rockwell

In 1943 Norman Rockwell painted a series called “The Four Freedoms,” one of which portrayed the freedom of speech.  In it a plainly attired man addresses a group of better dressed men, who are giving him their undivided attention.  What he has to say and how he says it determines either acceptance or rejection by his audience.  He is able to speak his mind with few restrictions and cannot be silenced by those who disagree.  Political correctness deprives us of this fundamental right and allows a select group of individuals and organizations to prescribe to us what is acceptable and what is not.

In 1987 photographer Andres Serrano photographed a crucifix in a glass of urine calling it “Piss Christ” and subsequently received an award from the Endowment of the Arts.  In the 1990s the controversial photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, again with the blessing of the National Endowment of the Arts, treated the American public to the “X Portfolio,” a graphic series portraying BDSM and coprophagia.  This, of course, was protected by free speech and while there were protestations from religious organizations and conservative pundits, the media and Hollywood characteristically rose to Mapplethorpe’s defense.  In their view this art was wholly acceptable and should be paid for by the American public.

"Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano

To get into the head of the politically correct thinker, “Piss Christ” is protected by free speech even though it deeply offends a large group of Americans with and without religious sensibilities.  “Innocence of the Muslims,” equally offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims, is treated differently and should not enjoy the same constitutional protection as "Piss Christ"  and "X Portfolio."  Elitists know best: who to praise, who to mute, what can be said, and what cannot be said.  Overcome with self hate, they view America as corrupt, morally bankrupt, and in need harsh criticism, while much of the rest of the world where free speech is not protected is somehow immune from critique.

Take a few minutes to view “Innocence of the Muslims,” and try to envision how the inept cinematography and inane dialogue could evoke such passion in the Muslim world.  By attempting to deflect attention from the Benghazi coverup and blaming the incident on a silly movie, the Administration not only damaged relations with Muslims, but also demonstrated a cynical view of our First Amendment rights.