‘Art not without ambition
Freedom of Expression?
Political entanglements of artificial conflicts surrounding the Freedom of Expression
Some people are dying fighting for it. Others are put behind bars. Some suffer its consequences, while others take their liberties for granted. Albert Camus wrote: “Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom”. Theoretically democracy allows an absolute freedom of expression but recently this fundamental democratic principle has become the battleground of cultures, where the positions of defensive and offensive, of right and wrong, moral and immoral are getting blurred when emotions run high.
Julian Assange based his defence on one of the basic pillars of any Western democracy, the freedom of expression, the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei and the Russian punk band Pussy Riot were sentence to prison because they publicly dared to form an opinion that did not go conform with government policy, Ulrich Seidl made a movie about a religious taboo and an ultraconservative Italian lawyer brought charges against him, based on blasphemy laws that curb that guarantee of freedom in the name of religious censor. Now, people in Egypt and Libya are up in arms (quite literally) because of an anti-Islam movie, killing US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three of his staffers in the process.
Theoretically Art falls under the freedom of expression doctrine as does poetry and the press. The Western world understands it as one of the most fundamental pillars of their respective democracies. Thus, censorship is in theory and by constitutional law undemocratic. Yet, in various instances governments and religious conservatives declare themselves in favour of stricter controls, limiting the peoples’ ability to express and voice their opinions. Quite frankly, we are used to governments gnawing on our fundamental rights in the name of national safety, remember the Plame affair drawing attention to the shield law of the reporter’s privilege. However, the church pleading with governments to strengthen blasphemy laws as a form of religious censorship in laicistic countries, is a relatively new development gaining ever more momentum as Muslim protesters in countries, where the Arab spring movement called, quite loudly, for democratic rights, grow ever more violent in their outrage against anti-Islam propaganda. Religious sensibilities were horribly offended by a film, US foreign secretary, Hilary Clinton, called “disgusting”. Obviously the film is not part of the official government policy. It is one filmmaker's opinion, which doesn’t make him spokesperson for the entire Western world, not even for all 50 United States, including Alaska. Yet, especially, among the disappointed, disenfranchised youth that had fought for a democratic revolution in countries like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt the movie brought on a storm of violent indignation, causing them to return into the streets to vent their anger. Still, the question remains as to how and why these protesters express their rage in violent outbursts. Is it a terror organisation that ignites the old anti-US-feelings despite the professed desire for a democratic overhaul of their respective constitutions? Or are these violent excesses only expression of their desperation and disappointment about a democratic promise not kept?
Marx once postulated, “Religion is the opium of the masses”. The highly addictive substance causes not only feelings of fear and panic, that lessen over time, but as the dependence grows, the substance abuser will fall into a drowsy, dreamy state from which there is no escape. Maybe cold turkey is the solution, trying to judge the situation dispassionately without assigning blame pointing fingers everywhere but the right direction. Granted we live mostly in a world, where the freedom of expression is focused on the speaker, but the recipient, the reader, the viewer, the spectator, too, has a choice. He can look away. Every TV can be switched off. He does not need to make himself available. Kant interpreted the Enlightenment motto Sapere Aude! as an imperative to be courageous and use your own reason. He who has reached the age of discretion is confronted with two options, either accept the criticism as such and enter into a productive dialogue with the artist and his art and maybe find a new freedom in the Kantian philosophy where Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Of course there is also option B, where man can refuse to acknowledge the existence of such criticism, giving the artist the silent treatment by ignoring his art altogether.
Ai Weiwei went to prison for his art, as does Pussy Riot. Judith Miller and Julian Assange stood up for the freedom of the press. In Palestine the film festival “Through Women’s Eyes” crumbles because of the censorship pressures. In Tunisia the “Printemps des Arts” is under attack by the censors. And there are many more instances world wide, it is not a question of West vs. East, neither is it a question of Christian vs. Muslim nor is is the issue philosophical, moral or ethical. No matter where you look you'll find the freedom of expression is threatened by an overwhelming undisclosed fear. What it comes down to, is a matter of definition, emotions and the question: What are you afraid of?
Kommentare