I was just reading an article entitled “Danes Weigh Cost of Free Speech” primarily about the shootings in Denmark this weekend. These were ostensibly sparked by caricatures of Mohammed being drawn, as we have seen before and also recently. It got me thinking.

Drawing Mohammed is but a solitary thread in the larger and otherwise significant garment of free speech. That garment covers a plethora of issues, time, and space. Should this thread define the garment? Or is it that in defense of the integrity of the entire garment, each and every thread must be defended? I would say an emphatic “No” to both. Some would disagree, but I will admit to not understanding why. Further, some might SAY “no”, but demonstrate otherwise with a disparity that came to mind as I reflected on the article. On the topic of religious caricatures, people generally avoid the issue itself and pivot to a defense of free speech. But where else do we see that?

In debates to which I’ve been privy on issues of gender, race, sexuality, nationality and immigration, not once have I ever heard someone ignore the specific issue at hand in favor of an overarching defense of free speech. For example, weeks ago when men in New York City “cat-called” a woman or told her that she was “beautiful”, there was nary a defender of free speech. When Kanye said that Beyoncé should have won album of the year, where were the defenders of free speech? Drop the N word, F word, C word, R word, or a defense of Palestine; and I bid you good luck in identifying any defenders of your free speech.