Today in Austria, British revisionist historian David Irving goes on trial for violating Austria’s law against Holocaust denial. In the wake of the Muhammad cartoon affair, some in the Muslim world have attempted to draw parallels between the caricatures of Muhammad and neo-Nazi propaganda. An Iranian newspaper editor thought that an appropriate response to Danish publication of the Muhammad drawings was a contest calling for Holocaust cartoons. Others have urged that laws banning neo-Nazi propaganda, Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial, enacted in several European countries, are precedents for new legislation prohibiting drawings insulting to Islam. However, the attempted analogies are false ones, even though few commentators have noted the asymmetry involved.
The fundamental difference between Neo-Nazi propaganda and the "cartoon affair" is the well-recognized difference in U.S. constitutional law between incitement cases and hostile audience cases. Incitement cases, to which U.S. courts apply the clear-and-present-danger test, involve situations in which we fear that listeners will so strongly agree with the speaker that language will quickly move to conduct. That is the concern with neo-Nazi propaganda and marches. Given the history of mid-20th century Europe, and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, a real fear exists that those who agree with neo-Nazis will quickly be recruited to persecute and resort to violence against Jews.
Hostile audience cases, on the other hand, are cases in which the listeners vociferously disagree with the speaker. The fear is not that listeners will follow the speaker’s urgings, but that listeners will attack the speaker or otherwise exert a hecklers’ veto. In these cases, American constitutional law protects the speaker, except in the most extreme of circumstances. The Muslim cartoons are problematic because of the reaction of a hostile audience, the reaction of Muslims who are offended by them. No one realistically fears that the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban will so convince the Danes that Muslims are terrorists that they will begin to violently attack Muslims. Non-Muslims in general recognize the cartoons as exaggerations or over-generalizations. The fear—justified in the reality—is that some Muslims, insulted by the cartoons, will react violently against those who have published them. American law generally protects speakers from this kind of hostile reaction.
Understanding this distinction does not solve the problem of the cartoons. But hopefully it does prevent us from using false analogies in seeking a solution. Balancing the interests of listeners and speakers is difficult. Western democracies have, by and large, come down heavily in favor of the rights of speakers and have told listeners who are offended by the ideas being expressed to walk away, turn the page, switch off the broadcast, stay away from the presentation, or reply with ideas that are more convincing to listeners. Muslim protesters around the world do not agree with that resolution of the conflicting values at stake. But they need to at least recognize that the problem is different from that posed by neo-Nazi attempts to find sympathizers who would like to revive Hitler’s "final solution".
--- HMF
