Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Mr. Riazul Raquib's column in The Eagle. While I agree with Mr. Raquib that the several of the cartoons depicting Mohammad were childish and offensive, and that the riots in response to the cartoons have been "gross overreactions," I am particularly concerned with Mr. Raquib's suggestion for preventing such violence in the future.
Mr. Raquib writes that in refusing to prohibit cartoons of Mohammad from being drawn, the government of Denmark has "abandon[ed] the safety of its citizens." In essence, Mr. Raquib advocates the doctrine of what is known as the "heckler's veto": that government should infringe on people's rights in order to protect them from their antagonists. This doctrine, apart from being almost certainly unconstitutional in the United States, is extremely dangerous throughout the world. It puts the burden of the law on victims and offers protection to violent offenders.
Let us imagine that the Muslim Student Association announces that they will hold Friday prayers on the Quad. In response, an anti-Muslim bigot calls in a threat against the prayer session. Under Mr. Raquib's doctrine, the government would arrest the praying Muslims in order to "protect" them. If the bigot threatened to desecrate copies of the Koran, the government would confiscate and destroy the Koran in order to "protect" it. If he threatened to burn down a Mosque, the government would be obligated to shut down all Mosques. It is easy to see that this doctrine paradoxically legalizes total lawlessness.
Those who engage in speech - even speech that is repulsive - should be protected. Those who respond to such speech violently belong in jail.
Michael Barney SPA, '06
