New Trends in a Networked World

"The Innocence of Muslims" and the Battle for Human Rights

  

When it comes to human rights, the “The Innocence of Muslims” has proved to be a divisive paradox. On one hand, the video is an act of expression protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; on the other, it has led to repeated violations of Article 3, which enshrines everyone’s “right to life, liberty and security of person.” The clash between these articles is a new one, and in our increasingly connected world (thank you, Internet), it would seem to signal the beginning of a wholly new pattern in which we defend freedom of speech, extremists take advantage of the resultant frustrations, and innocent people lose their lives.

Never before has a video, regardless of content, been able to reach such a broad audience. From 2000-2011, world Internet usage is estimated to have increased by a factor greater than five. In the Middle East and Africa alone—the two regions with the highest numbers of Muslims—there has been an estimated 2,244.8% and 2,988.4% increase in Internet usage, respectively, over the same period (see more stats here). As levels of Internet usage have ballooned, so have the amount of people able to see the insults leveled at Islam in “The Innocence of Muslims”.

Dangerously, those insults have unusual potential to stir up trouble. Much of the reason is that in Islam, an attack on one is not an attack on all. Rather, an attack on all (however nebulous or nonviolent it may be) is felt by whoever hears or sees it, and they tend to act as one in response. This explains why an effective method of assaulting Islam is not through murder—a strategy that is inherently too focused on particular individuals to elicit a large response—but through verbal attacks assailing the entire religion. This also explains why, given the recent growth in Internet access in Muslim regions of the world, we have witnessed such a widespread response to “The Innocence of Muslims”, a prime example of just such an attack. Adding flames to the fire is the fact that this inflammatory film is one protected by Article 19.

That conundrum left state leaders with a choice: Defend the filmmakers’ freedom of speech and risk the potential violence that would result from it, or prioritize peace and risk limiting freedom of speech. In other words, choose between Article 3 and Article 19. Quite simply, Article 19 won. Western officials, led by the Obama Administration, condemned the video in the strongest terms but stopped short of disciplining the film’s creators. Arab officials followed suit, knowing full well that they risked incurring the wrath of their civilians, with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even cancelling its planned protest to the film out of fear of the violence that would ensue. But try as these leaders might to stem the violence, they could not have it both ways.

By electing not to punish the creators of the film, they added the last straw to the proverbial camel’s back. Consider the litany of factors already feeding many Muslims’ frustration, particularly with the U.S.—anger at the invasion of Iraq, images of abuse from Abu Ghraib, the burning of the Koran by troops in Afghanistan, detentions without trial at Guantanamo Bay, the deaths of Muslim civilians in American drone strikes (see more in-depth analysis in a piece written by David D. Kirkpatrick of The New York Times)—and then consider what was added on to that: A slight against Islam and a non-aggressive official response to it. Arithmetically, that’s a lot of anger plus a lot more anger, the sum of which is exactly the type of fury that violent extremists (the type that prefer murder to online videos) thrive upon. Unsurprisingly, thrive they did, killing scores throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, including the American  Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. Their victory, and Article 3’s loss, was a direct byproduct of worldwide defense of Article 19.

Yet that is not to fault such a defense. There is a reason that freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and not the Nineteenth, why the West decided to preserve that right over the one to guaranteeing security and life: It is the cornerstone of democracy. But saving innocent people's lives isn't so bad either, and if we want to be able to defend those at the same time, leaders must take extremist attacks on the Internet far more seriously because, whether we like it or not, they're here to stay.

-Benjamin Tumin