“Just because you have a constitutional right to do something doesn’t make it a good idea,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said in regard to a recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in his city this past month.
Stanton’s words pose a powerful question to Americans: while we have the right of freedom of speech as American citizens, should we really use that right to intentionally offend others? At some point, individuals should understand that the ability to do something does not warrant the need of it.
If one is unfamiliar, “Draw Muhammad” contests are displays of the American constitutional right to exercise free speech through drawing cartoon depictions of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad.
The First Amendment is the source of this liberty, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The irony of “Draw Muhammad” contests, then, is both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are protected constitutional rights. Yet, they are the very two liberties at odds in this national issue.
What makes these contests so controversial and provocative is any physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemous to Muslims.
These contests have incited recent terrorist attack attempts on American soil. According to NBC 5 Texas news, as of June 16 a third person, Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, has been indicted with helping Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson plan their attack of the Garland, Texas “Draw Muhammad” contest on May 3, where no one other than the two gunmen were killed at the event.
While many Americans would likely agree it is clearly wrong to kill or inflict violence on anyone on religious premises, “Draw Muhammad” contests are not exempt from their own errors.
Pamela Geller, a well-known anti-Muslim activist, has been a leading advocate for these contests. In spite of her strong anti-Muslim sentiment, she has received support from American Muslim leaders across the country, defending her right of freedom of speech. Linda Sarsour, a leader in the New York City Muslim community, explained Geller can “draw any damn cartoon she wants and I defend her right to do so. I have always fought for her right to be a bigot, and I have the right to counter her bigotry with my own speech.”
If there is an example to follow, it is Sarsour’s. Even in the face of blatant attack on her own faith, she defends freedom of speech because she knows it is an integral part of being an American citizen.
It is clear “Draw Muhammad” contests fit well within the bounds of the civil rights of the First Amendment, but Americans must ask, is it really worth it? Is there a better way to exercise free speech to create healthy dialogue between freedom of religion and freedom of speech? Is it productive to purposely offend others to simply show we can do something? When we are children, we are told not to hit one another because it hurts and because it can cause more violence. So why don’t we apply this understanding to our speech?
We should.
This is especially important at UW where this past spring international and minority students together comprised 17.4 percent of the student body population. With so much diversity, there is bound to be a variance in religious affiliation. In light of this, let us not abuse our freedom of speech with disregard for others, but rather create an environment of respect for other individuals.
