RALEIGH – I have never bought the argument that outrage, in and of itself, signifies a successful communication.
But, you might ask, whoever said that it did? Actually, the equation of outrageousness with rhetorical value is commonplace. Plenty of folks in my experience have sought to justify a tasteless turn of phrase, an obnoxious public protest, or a disgusting image because the action in question “made people think” or “stirred things up” or “got people talking.”
That’s simply not enough of a moral justification. Sometimes an insult is just an insult, profanity is just profanity, and vulgarity is just stupid. To justify rhetorically the use of words or images that outrage the audience, one must hope to make a serious point about a legitimate issue – and to inform, persuade, or motivate the audience, not just to garner attention from it.
Was the artist Andres Serrano morally justified in using the image he did in his infamous photo “Piss Christ”? I don’t think so. His subsequent explanations for what he was trying to say never passed the snicker test. Neither did the explanations of other controversial artists in the 1980s and 1990s who performed sex acts on stage or smeared themselves in real or pretend excrement.
On the other hand, I have seen many satirical essays, political cartoons, and even protests that may have used disturbing or outrageous images but did so to great effect – to shock the viewer into grappling with a difficult issue, or to bring into crystal clarity a truth that had been obfuscated by mountains of pedestrian prose.
Because one person’s moral justification may be another person’s amoral rationalization, there would be a utilitarian argument for freedom of expression even if it were not a natural right inherent in human nature. That is, it is impossible for a body of lawmakers, executives, or judges to form a consensus on what is and is not a proper use of shocking images in communicating ideas. We must leave those decisions for individuals to make for themselves, or else risk muzzling the expression of vital ideas.
The freedoms to speak, print, broadcast, assemble, or petition one’s government, however, do not confer on anyone else the obligation to listen. Just as an author or cartoonist has a right to submit an outrageous work for publication, and his publisher the right to decide whether to use it, so does the audience enjoy the right to ignore or to fulminate against it.
Which is, I suppose, an extremely long set-up for stating my opinion about the worldwide reaction to the publication by Danish and other newspapers of cartoons that many Muslims find offensive. Here in North Carolina, we had our own little hiccup of controversy when a student cartoonist for the Daily Tar Heel worked up his own cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad, a cartoon that provoked a strong reaction from some readers.
My opinion is this: we need to define our terms more carefully. It should simply be a given that no government has the authority to prohibit before the fact, or punish after the fact, the publication of such material. On the other hand, no individual or media organization has any legal immunity from being criticized, protested, or boycotted by offended citizens, domestic or foreign. What is shocking to me is not the outpouring of Muslim anger at the depiction but instead the violent, threatening actions of some angered Muslims.
The biggest outrage of all is theocratic tyrants with much innocent blood on their hands lecturing the Danes about anything.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.