Unless there's some kind of glitch in the translation, this bizarre article comes rather close to expressing approval of the murder of Theo van Gogh, and accuses him of "abusing his right to free speech."
Why it should appear on an anti-censorship site called "Index on Censorship - for Free Expression" is fairly puzzling. Unless it represents a magnanimous attempt to give the anti-free speech point of view equal time. Astonishing.
(via Harry's Place.)
UPDATE: the link now leads not to the original article that struck me and many others as so bizarre, but instead to the author's response to the criticism of it. The original article is now here. It's hard to disagree that provocative statements intended to inflame the passions of people who might be tempted to stab you through the heart in a public square are not wise. And you can see why he'd be interested in distancing himself, as stridently as possible, from the sort of statements that are liable to get you stabbed through the heart in the public square. The tepid concession that the author's "opinion of his style doesn't mean van Gogh should have been censored – much less that he should have been killed for his views" does, however, belatedly place his argument just barely inside the boundaries of the "defense of free speech" category. Free Speech has had more enthusiastic defenders, it's true, but even if this is indeed the best that the Index on Censorship can come up with, I certainly appreciate the effort.
UPDATE II: the comments thread at Harry's Place now includes contributions from the article's author, Rohan Jayasekera. I just have to echo the sentiments of several of Harry's posters: RJ appears to have either (a) a half-hearted attitude towards the idea of defending free speech; or (b) a poor understanding of exactly what free speech means. Whatever he may be referring to when he says he was "being ironic" (scare quotes sic) in his original article, it's still a bit mystifying that such a person should be in charge of a journal/website explicitly devoted to a cause with which he has so little familiarity or for which he has such slight enthusiasm.
I'm getting a "page doesn't exist" error. Apparently the article was censored? :-)
Posted by: lesliet at November 11, 2004 12:58 PMLeslie, they did close the comments (now you're supposed to comment by emailing the author - I'm sure he's not enjoying his inbox right now.) The article loads okay for me, though. Give it another try.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 11, 2004 03:16 PMFYI, the 11 minute film that it is believed he was killed over is available for viewing at iFilm.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656
Btw, may be NSFW (for the non-rock-stars in the audience). Also, it's in English, if you were wondering.
I'm still struggling to come up with a different interpretation of that article, as it doesn't make any sense to me in the initial way it comes off. Could it be a sarcastic response to another unseen article?
Posted by: dave bug at November 11, 2004 04:43 PMOk, I suppose his response to the responses vaguely clears it up, in some still unsettling manner:
"Yet my opinion of his style doesn't mean van Gogh should have been censored – much less that he should have been killed for his views. It just means that I shouldn't have to condone what he says. Nor that his death should change my view of his words – that would be hypocrisy."
So he's using his right of free speech to say that van Gogh got what was coming to him in his use of free speech, I suppose.
Posted by: dave bug at November 11, 2004 04:46 PMI didn't go back to the original piece that led to the furious responses, but I read his reply piece to mean that he found van Gogh's film gratuitously offensive at some level and that the greater offensiveness of his murder didn't change his original assessment of the film. In other words, his martyrdom doesn't make his ideas (or his way of expressing them) immune to (non-violent) criticism.
Posted by: Nick at November 11, 2004 07:58 PM