Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore
You are aware of the pedigree of the "Fire in a crowded theory," aren't you? It was originated by US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify a ban on the distribution of pacifist materials during WWI. Hardly an example to quote. And saying out loud that you intend to commit a certain illegal action (such as an assassination) and speaking in a general manner that certain actions should be legal ("we should kill all lawyers!") are two entirely different types of verbal act and are treated as such in the law, at least in the US. I think banning books has the inevitable effect of supporting the status quo and strengthening those social groups which already hold power at the expense of those who are politically and socially disadvantaged. It is not a surprise that in your own country, it is illegal to publish a book denying the Holocaust while books which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people (such as "From Time Immemorial") are easily available. As a Muslim I belong to one of the most maligned groups in recent history. It does hurt me emotionally when I see people depict sacred personages and symbols of my religion in a derogatory manner (much as it must hurt Jews to see anti-semitic cartoons and depictions, which are, of course, outlawed in the UK). I realize, however, that the best chance for me to defend my religion is with the truth. Laws which ban books and restrict the free interchange of ideas are inevitably going to obscure the truth because, as history has shown repeatedly, governments and the officials which run them are poor arbiters of truth (look at festival of unadulterated mendacity that was the run up to the invasion of Iraq for an example).
Luqman
|