Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 5:07am

Blaming the Victims

Fan of Free Speech

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is fuzzy on this whole free speech thing:

Bill Donohue comments on the killing of 12 people at the Paris office of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

Go here to read the rest.  So, on the day on which 12 people have been massacred by members of the religion of peace over their hurt feelings, Bill Donohue climbs his soap box to lecture us on what a scurrilous magazine Charlie Hebdo was.  I agree.   It was a hateful rag that despised all religions.  However, that is the essence of freedom of speech:  to protect the proclamation of ideas that we despise.  Speech that the majority likes, or that is so anodyne as to offend no one, needs no protection.  In this case freedom of speech was negated by mass murder.  That Donohue chose this day to get a bit of cheap publicity by blasting the victims of the mass murder is truly beneath contempt.  Quite a few people in our society view the preaching of Catholic doctrine as being hateful.  They would gladly shut us up to spare the hurt feelings, for example, that the proclamation of the teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil causes some.  When we allow hurt feelings to determine who can speak and who should be forced into silence, we are well on way to bidding farewell to a free society.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angie
Angie
Wednesday, January 7, AD 2015 9:06pm

I have believed for a long time that Bill Donahue is another person who needs a box of Duck Tape (TM) sent to him.

Steve
Steve
Wednesday, January 7, AD 2015 10:24pm

Angie,

Archie Bunker?

Philip
Philip
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 4:49am

Great posting Mr. McClarey.
Do the feelings of the mourners count?
The families that have lost their loved ones. Does Mr. Donohue share compassion with them?

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 5:58am

According to Bill Donaghue, “What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years…”

And those of us who are not Muslims may consider ribald derision and scathing contempt the appropriate response to superstition and ignorance.

bill bannon
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 7:13am

. Donohue pays himself $400,000 a year from donations …almost twice what a proctologist makes…and I think it is appropriate because he certainly gives me a double pain in the ass.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 9:29am

Thank you Donald McClarey for this insight into the way forward. Dr. Donohue of the Catholic League explains why the terrorists were inflamed but he does not countenance how the terrorists behaved. Assuming on all fronts that terrorism is condemned, Dr. Donohue did need to produce the law by which to go forth: the right to free speech and the consequences for our speech which would be what Donald McClarey has posted here.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 9:33am

Equal Justice requires that the penalty be commensurate with the crime. The terrorists need to produce a nation so lily white that Charlie Hebdo is seen for what it is: beneath contempt.

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 9:44am

I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.

It’s like there was a group at a gathering, walking around being threatening, obscene and occasionally violent. Some members are being fine, and one or two try to tell the violent ones to cut it out, but they’re not stopped.
Other folks at the gathering start to be rude to the nasty guys; a couple of guys rattle off an obscene suggestion of where they can go and what the rude guy can do to the horse he rode in on.
The guys who have been rude, disruptive and violent since they got there pull out a gun and shoot the one that responded a fraction as rudely.
And now people are standing up to denounce… the guys who flipped off the violent, rude guys, for doing it in a way that might offend the members of the group that weren’t stopping the violent, rude guys?

D Will
D Will
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 10:55am

I’ve not been a huge fan of Donahue in recent years … but let’s admit he has a mission and plays out that mission, and it is a fair critique that a voice reminds folks on the less than uber innocence of that organization. I do not pretend that TAC has always been more noble than he.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:02am

Foxfier: “I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.”

.
In Man for all Seasons, St. Thomas More tells Will Roper, his so-in-law “If he offends God, then, let God arrest him.” Separation of church and state. That is why we, the people have a constitution. Unless a theocracy is based of the ultimate love of God and neighbor as oneself, all the law of God and the prophets, it is a tyranny of the lame minded.
.
The assailants ought to have been evangelizing the culprits, rather than eliminating them. Islam does not evangelize the neighbor. Islam eliminates the neighbor. Therefore, Islam does not love God as God has commanded.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:07am

It’s correct to question the timing of Donohue’s post, but poor timing does not invalidate his arguments.
.
I don’t seem him blaming the victims. He tries to bring into focus the lack of respect for things people hold personal and sacred and how this creates friction, friction that can boil over into unjustified terrorism. His point is to say both sides in this situation show intolerance, and showing more tolerance and respect on each side would simmer the acrimony down. He expresses this personally when he says “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”
.
I’m sure he understands freedom of speech, and nowhere did I see him suggesting any abridging of it.

Suz
Suz
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:25am

“But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”
Is there a list of all the various intolerances I can refer back to? Like, where does pure jackassery fall, versus fauxhomophobia, versus beheading? Which intolerances rate which punishment and from whom? Will there be a vote?
Just pray for the souls of the departed, Mr. Donahue; they were dear to somebody. Don’t try to lead us down a road that can only end in a scaffold for Christians.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:28am

No he does not understand freedom of speech. This sentence says it all:”
.
His call for not tolerating what this magazine was doing is not necessarily a call for legal action. It could be as simple as public shaming. I think your post it trying to do something very similar with regards to Donohue’s post. No? Yet, I don’t think you are calling for limiting free speech.

D Will
D Will
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:36am

Every one of us believe in some level of limiting free speech … usually our conscience and common sense acts as the appropriate guide, but we know this falls pretty flat in the regulatory realm. I agree, a little shame can be a useful effort.

Kennybhoy
Kennybhoy
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:42am

I came across a link to this at the Speccie Coffee House blog…

“I am DONE!!! Whenever I try to say, it’s okay, terrorism is not Islam, ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK DONE BY MUSLIMS COMES UP ON THE NEWS!!! I am having panic attacks, and want to kill myself. WHAT MAKES ME FEEL HORRIBLE IS THAT I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!! I am useless, I can’t stop these terrorists, and how come only Muslims do these kind of attacks. I’m SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE CRAP! I am tired of uselessness, muslims keep killing, so it makes me wonder, are we really a religion of peace? I will never be accepted, just because i’m muslim. I used to blame them….but now I am started to hate us…… I am starting to hate muslim, I BEING ONE! Maybe I won’t be for long. IN PARIS JUST NOW!!! 12 PEOPLE KILLED, STUPID TERRORISTS SAYING ALLAHHUAKBAR AND OH MY GOD I’M DONE!!!!!! I AM DONE!!! Why do they keep doing this, what can we do. Why doesn’t Allah help the muslim UMMAH!!! Why are we not being helped. I pray and pray for this to stop but it never does. It makes me feel like duas do not work. WHY WON’T ALLAH HELP US! WHY CAN”T WE BE SAVED!!! WHY WAS I BORN MUSLIM!!! I am also moving to the US and I will be bullied to death so might as well kill myself now. WHY CAN’T WE MUSLIMS TAKE CRITISM OF SOME STUPID CARTOONS!!! They are just cartoons, WTF!!! I want to DIE. What do I do, I can’t just put my fingers in my ears and scream LALALALALA I see and hear nothing, I see and hear nothing…IT IS HAPPENING!!! I don’t understand, WHY AM I USELESS, WHY DOESNT THE WORLD JUST END………”

Utterly heartbreaking to read.

Please pray for this poor tortured soul and what years of experience teaches me are many many like her…

Tom
Tom
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:43am

It’s hard amidst emotional turmoil to maintain important distinctions, but here’s a try: there is no “right to free expression.” A rightly ordered society does not allow any and every opinion to be voiced with no ramification. In our country, we’ve gone from a clear understanding of the limits of “free speech” to a wide open, no holds barred allowance of the much broader “free expression.”

In the US, the First Amendment forbids the government(and really, only the federal government) from abridging free speech. There is no general right to free speech that prevents one from being ostracized, criticized, boycotted, and even sued for offensive speech. Rightly understood, the First Amendment doesn’t even prevent a state from restricting “speech.”

Absolutism about “free expression” has brought us unhindered pornography, grotesquely violent movies and games, and yes, utterly socially worthless offensive “art” such as “Piss Christ” and these offensive-to-Islam cartoons.

It is entirely possible to hold the intellectual position that the incendiary “speech” (not really speech at all, but “expression”) practiced by Charlie Hebdo should never have been allowed in the first place; and at the same time to recognize that summary execution of the editors and two police officers merits only the deaths of the perpetrators.

I would say that “Piss Christ” for example, was not any form of protected speech under the constitution; but that having been disseminated, it would have been utterly evil for, say, a Knight of Columbus to shoot up the museum and kill the “artist.” Just so with this case in France.

Kennybhoy
Kennybhoy
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:44am

Apologies. I neglected to provide a link to the original.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?428786-Im-done!

bill bannon
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 11:57am

Kyle,
Donohue had absolutely no tolerance for the freedom of speech of the non Catholic owner of the Empire State Building which had feted a Pope in the past but would not fete Mother Teresa perhaps in a change of policy to insure they never had to fete really odd religious characters in the future eg Jihadists in their use of private resources. He then went beyond words to intolerance in action and tried to hurt them in the pocketbook. I believe Donohue makes money in part from quite poor old city Catholics who have no idea of the salary he is drawing partly from their poverty while they cannot pay for teeth crowns after property taxes …on their small pensions. He saw at some point that rage pays big time in many small donations…maybe not Fr. Corapi bigtime…but bigtime nonetheless.

exNOAAman
exNOAAman
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:08pm

Looks like Mr. Bill is walking back his earlier statement:
.
http://www.catholicleague.org/charlie-hebdo-perverts-freedom/
.
(they emailed it about 12:30 today)

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:10pm

tolerate
[ ˈtäləˌrāt ]
VERB
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:
“a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent”
synonyms: allow · permit · condone · accept · swallow · countenance · More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

and
interfere
[ ˌintərˈfi(ə)r ]
VERB
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly:
“a job would interfere with his studies”
synonyms: impede · obstruct · stand in the way of · hinder · inhibit · More

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

Oxford definitions via Bing’s search.
****
To object is not to interfere; to answer is not to interfere; to decry is not to interfere.
As Donald says, per his words, he says we should not allow the activity to continue or be carried out.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:16pm

Bill,
We can discuss Donohue’s previous statements and theories on his compensation, but I’m discussing his latest post in regards to this act of terrorism. If it is Al Sharpton race baiting or Charlie Hebdo religion baiting, they deserve condemnation without violence.
.
Don,
The public can show disapproval of certain behaviors beyond criticism without resorting to state action or vigilantism.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:20pm

exNOAAman,
Looks like quite the opposite. Looks like standing ground and clarification. I don’t read anything really disagreeable.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:33pm

There’s a difference between Al Sharpton inciting violence against others and Charlie Hebdo inciting violence against themselves.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:41pm

Ernst Schreiber,
The result of their actions are the same, i.e. stirring of acrimony. The victims differ.

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 12:47pm

Of course they can Kyle and if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless. I think he had something else in mind a la a hate speech code which is anathema to freedom of speech.
.
Hate speech code? Really? Even in his very latest post made today he makes clear that’s not what he is calling for. Are you calling for hate speech code because of your post condemning Donohue’s post? I don’t think so. It would be wrong for me to interpret beyond what you wrote.
.
if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless.”
.
So, anything less than state action or vigilantism is meaningless??

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:26pm

Yep. Not tolerating something implies more than criticism which is what people are free to do in any case
I can think of a lot of sins I can’t tolerate, personally and otherwise. Being an intolerable sin is not enough to qualify for legal action, but intolerant it is to me.
.
In Donahue’s bloviating cya today he makes crystal clear his position that what Charlie Hebdo was doing does not deserve freedom of speech protection
He’s no legal scholar. I can only assume he is taking a Justice Thomas approach, viewing the Constitution “through the lens” of what precedes it, preamble for Donohue and Declaration of Independence for Thomas.
.
Being as this was in France, the U.S. Constitution would have no bearing anyway.
.
He also made this clear…
As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:34pm

I think I agree with Kyle. The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated does not presuppose legal or violent remedies. We should not tolerate people who abuse their freedom of expression in the manner of this rag by removing them from our society. And by this I do not mean physically kicking them out of a certain place. Civilized people should consider those who routinely bully behave in wicked and mean ways, especially toward the weak, to be beneath contempt and unworthy of social intercourse. In other words they should be shunned. Those jerks at that rag should have been shunned, not killed or imprisoned.

Kennybhoy
Kennybhoy
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:44pm

Mike Petrik wrote:

“Those jerks…”

Jesus wept…

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:49pm

Yes, Kennybhoy. He wept when those jerks published cartoons of nuns masturbating.

c matt
c matt
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:55pm

The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated

Brings up interesting issues – at what point does “speech” become a “behavior” and to what extent do they overlap or are interchangeable? If the freedom of speech is intended to protect the free exchange of ideas, can behavior be a form of “exchange of ideas” and therefore protected? Was CH speech, behavior, a combination of both? Regardless, none of it could justify or excuse the terrorists’ response.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:55pm

Yes, and Kennybhoy, He wept when those terrorists murdered those jerks too. I don’t think He wept just because I called the late jerks, jerks.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 1:59pm

I’m anxious to know Mike and Kyle’s opinion on women’s fashion trends of the last 50-60 years and how they pertain to the current “rape crisis” on college campi.
.

No I’m not.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 2:00pm

In the US the written publication of words or pictures that are designed to communicate or express something is almost always within the protective ambit of the First Amendment, and this is a good thing. But just because something is legally permissible does not mean that it cannot be criticized, and that criticism can and often should include social sanction. Calls should not be returned and vendors and customers should disassociate.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 2:04pm

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Ernst?
Perhaps you think that the wicked murder of a jerk renders the jerk not a jerk? Wow, does the same trick work for serial rapists?

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 2:20pm

Then why was he at pains to argue that freedom of speech would not cover what Charlie Hebdo was doing?
I think he’s arguing the necessity to use prudence when exercising liberties. Expressions like what Charlie Hebdo did failed to meet the moral spirit or imperative of the preamble while be legally permitted. It’s the classic “you could do it, but should you?” argument. He answers no. Others say it’s licit because… freedom of speech, which is why he says freedom of speech is not the end.
.
The simple truth of course is that Donohue is taking a lot of heat…
You could have ended the sentence there and have the same meaning. He’s takes heat for nearly everything he writes. (He has a few enemies.) But obviously the heat and criticism, e.g. this blog entry, is meaningless without state action or vigilantism. 😉
.
People feel inclined to hold Charlie Hebdo up as some martyr or saint of free speech. I disagree. It’s not like they were killed for speaking out for civil rights, the vulnerable or some other noble cause. (Elevate the people who do!) Charlie Hebdo is a victim of an unjust crime, an act of terrorism. Find the perps and prosecute.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 2:41pm

Yes, not all victims are martyrs, but they are victims nonetheless. I took Donohue’s statements to be entirely consistent with that.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 3:42pm

I’m more concerned about not creating a precedent for a jerk needed killing exception than I am in attempting to qualify the jerkiness of the murdered jerk or quantify the liability of the jerk for his murder.
.
Sticking up little Nigerian girls kidnapped by boko haram is easy. The real test is in sticking up for jerks like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo.
.
And we’re doing a p*ss poor job of sticking up for little Nigerian girls.
.
One more thing. They actually were killed for speaking out for civil rights: The right to say things others find offensive.
.
And it’s the right to criticize and disagree, and even offend that’s vulnerable.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 3:53pm

No one here is remotely advocating for such an exception, Ernst. Instead, everyone has made it clear that such an exception would be a wicked horror.

But I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offense. Again, one does not need murder victim to be a saint or hero in order to nonetheless be a victim of a murderer.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 4:12pm

I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offens[ive].

You do realize that’s a distinction without a difference, don’t you?

And if we’re not admitting of the possibility of a jerks needed killing exception in all of this that was wrong, killing, those jerks like that, but they were really jerky jerks weren’t they?* talk, then why all this complaining about the spittle on the sidewalk when the blood next to it hasn’t even dried yet?

*That’s my admittedly crude gloss of the conversation, but I don’t believe it’s an unfair one.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 5:30pm

Ernst, are you being deliberately obtuse?
Seriously, you don’t see the difference? Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
If you are going to insult the moral understandings of others (“Jesus wept”), you should first demonstrate your ability to reason about morality.
And the reason for the complaining is because folks like you are suggesting that Donohue’s acknowledgement of the “jerky” nature of the victims somehow meant that he endorsed their murder, which is a scurrilous lie. Donohue is right. These victims were jerks, and their their murder was a mortal sin. At most Donohue is guilty of suggesting a false equivalence in suggesting that because neither jerky behavior nor murder should be tolerated they are equally morally problematic. I’m sure he did not mean that, but would could infer it if one were inclined to take conveniently self-righteous inferential liberties.

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 5:42pm

Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
They will.
We are Catholic.
I am an uncovered woman.
We are not paying the tax.
They always have a reason.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 6:00pm

I have read it all and I am underwater with this thing.
.
Only TRUTH, WHO is Jesus Christ, has freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly. (and peaceable assembly means to imitate Jesus Christ.) Everything else is perjury in a court of law and a lie in the public square. All men are created equal and can be required to give a good account of themselves in public. On the American Catholic I have often failed to give sources, and hope I am not going to be excised. In this matter, “put up or shut up” needs to be implemented. Does the masturbating nun have a name? Who is she and where is she? Every nun has a right to demand a good accounting. So, she could sue them in a court of law for bearing false witness, again, the Eighth Commandment. Does the cartoon look like the Pope or Mohammed, sue them in a court of law or shun them until they go bankrupt, as Mike Petric suggested.
.
The state has the power, the country has the authority from the people who constitute the government to declare this outrageous rag as “person non grata” and exile the dirty minded b–tards. Criminals of all strips can also be deterred by keeping them moving on, in the same way that the government causes protesters at abortion clinics to keep moving in a circle without stopping.
.
This magazine sucked the life out of freedom of speech and freedom in general. How does one take his children into the public square and not be offended by garbage. Don Wildmon shut down K-Mart pornography. God gives us free will and the will to live decently. It really would have been better if France had exiled that rag to Iraq.
.
As far as rape goes on public university campuses: First, the university is not legally equipped nor is it authorized to prosecute the crime of rape. Rape is the business of the state. The university suspending the rapist, leaving him no criminal record or other punishment, is a crime against the victim and society by starting a precedent that denies Justice to all people.
.
There was a case and I am ashamed to tell the name of the university, where the rapist was suspended for two months. The father of the girl demanded state prosecution. The court said that this would be double jeopardy as the rapist had already been suspended for two months. I am not above sandwich boards in front of the rapist’s house. The prosecutor failed to prosecute. Let the crime be on him/her.
.
And let the terrorist attack be on the government of France for not acting in ridding itself of this evil. So, yes, the murdered victims were victims of their own making and that of France for not acting in their behalf by getting rid of them as “persona non-grata”.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 6:36pm

I’ve never cared for Bill Donohue’s approach to combating anti-Catholicism (real or imagined) because it basically boils down to “we can play the PC protected victim class game too”. Whenever the Church is ridiculed, insulted, or criticized, his response 99 percent of the time is “They would never get away with doing this to Muslims, Jews, Blacks, gays, etc.”. Yes, he may be right about that, but is the solution to become just as insufferable and thin-skinned as they are?

Also, let’s not get censorship confused with discretion. Censorship seeks to prevent offensive material from ever being created in the first place, or to eliminate it wherever it exists, and to punish those who create it. Exercising discretion in how or where one chooses to display or present offensive material (e.g., schools choosing what books to stock in their libraries, stores choosing not to sell Playboy, Cosmo, etc.) is NOT censorship, since the material remains available elsewhere.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, January 8, AD 2015 7:27pm

Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
They will.
We are Catholic.
I am an uncovered woman.
We are not paying the tax.
They always have a reason.

What foxfier said.

But go ahead and hope the crocodile will eat you last, if that’s what you want. Try not to splash around to much. You might call attention to yourself.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top