Due to the fact that I have been brought up in the United States, I've been taught a certain belief that becomes engrained inside of us saying each person has their own individual rights and of course, freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean much in itself; because it is repeated so often it seems to be an empty phrase. So from my strongly American-influenced education I would go with the position that laws governing communication should primarily (B.) protect an individual civil liberty even if asserted against the group. That doesn’t mean that I believe that is the right way to govern or implement laws, it means that I’ve learned from past precedents (that were explained in various circumstances) equality seems much more attainable when people are given rights individually instead of through group identities.
The first argument to support individual civil liberties is from the most obvious to me: the separation of church and state. Because not everyone is the same religion, it is easy to see that each person has their own beliefs, and within those different believes are individual interpretations. We believe that the government should not favor one religion over another, which leads to a separation between each person’s individual beliefs and their civil rights. Due to this split, it is only fair to give the same “protection” to every individual, regardless of his or her “situational group identity.”
This plays in to a second argument: individual rights are more protective than group rights. If laws governing communication primarily reinforced group identities, a wide scale of questions and problems arise: Which groups get which rights? How many groups get those rights? What if someone doesn’t believe in the “whole” group identity- does that person lose his or her rights? Who defines which rights each group gets? Etc… The most basic form of freedom is not through associating with a group identity, but by attaining protection from mass identities. Group identities lead to mass movements and eventually force, which relates to the third reason I believe individuals should be protected.
Historically, when people have been privileged by group identification, force and violence results; the Inquisition in Spain is an example (religious) and Nazi Germany is another example. When this forced conversion, either religious, political, or cultural, takes place, an individual’s fundamental rights are completely abolished.
Therefore, I think the surest means of protecting any single person’s rights is by allowing for individual expression even if that expression goes against group identities and mentalities.
Even though I would favor individual liberties over group rights, it is not easy to say that those who speak out to intentionally desecrate or shock others are in the right. I believe that people should practice respect and restraint when voicing opposing opinions, however, at the root of the issue, they do have the right to say what they believe. This means I would not punish the speakers that produced satirical religious art, even though I find what they did slightly offensive. They have the right to speak their mind but I don’t have to agree with what they say or the way they go about it.
As for the filmmaker rights, this all goes back to my opening statement. Just because I believe that communication laws should operate in certain ways it doesn’t mean that I am correct in my assessment. Other cultures have different ways of life and completely different beliefs. Part of national sovereignty is to respect other countries’ rules and decisions. Because of this, I do not believe that Dubai should have to allow the same types of tactics that Hollywood allows.
Do you feel that the government in Dubai should dictate the dicisions that the filmmakers make? I agree that although you have been taught a certain belief it does not mean that it applies in a universal standard or be pushed on others to believe the same way.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how we all fold when it comes to filmmaking in Dubai. I think it's because the article about U.S. filmmakers travelling there. But what about dissenters who live in Dubai who can't produce films because they're government won't allow free speech? I think based on the rest of your answer, you would argue that those individuals should have the right to make their film.
ReplyDelete