Cartoons, commentary, and restraint.

THIS PAST FEBRUARY we were witness to a collection of stark ironies. First, inflammatory Danish cartoons that stereotype Islam, published four months earlier, aroused a small but influential Muslim minority to react so violently that the overgeneralizations expressed by those cartoons received an unwarranted validation. Second, those protesting the cartoons said nothing against common practices in the Muslim world of openly publishing anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews or referring to the West as the "great Satan." Third, European publications that showed solidarity with the principle of a free press by reprinting the offending cartoons continue to be part of a hypocritical environment where other press freedoms and civil liberties are compromised. (For example, some European countries have laws banning "cults" prohibiting mere ownership of Nazi artifacts, and jailing proponents of certain views.) Fourth, because we live in a digital age, the protests had a reverse effect, causing millions to view the controversial cartoons on the Internet, all out of proportion to either the offense caused or their (extremely limited) artistic merit. And fifth, the greatest harm caused by the protests was to the protesters themselves, with a number of deaths and injuries resulting from clashes with the police forces of their very own Muslim governments.

All of this demonstrates that we still live in a world lacking unity on a number of core humanistic principles. A conflict exists between free expression and cultural sensitivity, confounded in this case by the manipulations of various factions, political parties, and nations seeking personal advantage--and stirred by the existence of ongoing armed conflicts in the Middle East and acts of terror elsewhere. Therefore the advocacy of a free press needs to be coupled with a necessary sensitivity and prudence so we anticipate the impact of our words and actions. In particular, we must recognize that such publishing incidents can no longer be local. Interactions between peoples from different cultural and religious worlds have broken the bounds of geography. This means that constant awareness of the interrelatedness of our world is a survival skill for our time.

We in the United States benefit from freedom of speech and recognize that no true freedom can exist without it. But unfortunately such freedom is a limited commodity for many citizens of the Earth. The larger part of humanity faces sharp rebuke, incarceration, and even death for saying or printing that which offends some in their society. We Humanists, who seek to lead ethical lives without supernaturalism, are even more enamored of uninhibited free speech rights. Without such liberty our minority views might be quashed in the public square. Thus freethinkers the world over are pleased to see that the right to be critical of religion, including the right to blaspheme, has been upheld in the Western world.

Without the right to be critical of religion we are in a hopeless situation where we must kowtow to the demands of any religious extremist and any perception of offense. It's widely recognized that criticism of politics, philosophies, ideologies, and other ideas is part of the process of reaching better conclusions. Such criticism is accepted and rarely incites anger or violence. Religion mustn't be forbidden territory for criticism, for it is an important part of today's marketplace of ideas.

But just as with other forms of criticism, self-restraint is sometimes called for. Real progress toward our ideals should be seen in the context of the insulting caricatures and violent acts that have occurred in reaction. We must look at the issue from a variety of angles. For example, the fact that these drawings have inspired a more violent and powerful reaction than the photos that came out of Abu Ghraib broadcasts a strong message about the power of religion in some circles. Modern people need to look closely at religion and find a way to define morality apart from it if we are to develop universal norms that prevent free expression from becoming a cause for violence.

The right to publish offensive materials must be protected--but the decision to do so is another matter entirely. The question isn't merely whether a newspaper may print particular material but whether such material is a moral choice in today's world. Humanist values have developed over the years through trial and error, discarding that which caused harm and keeping that which leads to a better society for all. If one acts with a decent respect for the opinions of diverse peoples, much harm can be avoided. When artists choose their content, when editors choose what to publish, when nations decide for themselves if, when, or how they will issue an apology, the full ramifications of their actions should be considered.

Even if the initial publishing of these cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was committed with a lack of foresight, the republishing by papers in France, Germany, and Spain was at least imprudent. The editors of those reprinting papers shared a responsibility and should have considered the very foreseeable effects. The choice to defend the cartoons, without debate, as freedom of expression is perhaps part of the cultural insensitivity that dominates Western lands.

Since religions are based on faith that transcends worldly evidence, adherents are particularly sensitive to criticism that challenges their beliefs on natural grounds. Common Western reactions might include protests or boycotts but the response to these cartoons, by a tiny minority of Muslims, was the burning of embassies. Such an extreme, violent reaction is out of place in a modern world and can't be justified by references to exploitation or incitation. But the newspapers shouldn't have ignited it, either. Self-censorship isn't a deprivation of the right to free expression.

Every person on this planet shares ethical obligations that aren't enforced by law but must occasionally be high-lighted in order to remind us that we don't operate in a vacuum. Freedom of expression and multiculturalism can live together in a world where we make an effort to honor both. It requires sophistication, but this is something modern living requires us to cultivate.

Mel Lipman is a Nevada civil liberties attorney and president of the American Humanist Association.