In 2004, an Israeli ambassador to Sweden destroyed an artwork that depicted a Palestinian terrorist as a hero. Was that appropriate? The question posed then still troubles us.
The art installation consisted of a rectangular basin filled with red water on which floated a boat carrying a portrait of bomber Hanadi Jaradat.
The Palestinian woman killed herself and 19 others in an attack in the Israeli port city of Haifa in October.
The Swedish considered this attack on an artwork unacceptable. It was a violation of free speech, but then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon praised the act:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Sunday praised the Israeli ambassador to Sweden for vandalizing a Stockholm art exhibit that allegedly glorifies Palestinian suicide bombers, saying the ‘entire government stands behind him.’
For those who might understand the Israeli position, what would you do if you knew that it was an Israeli-born artist, Dror Feiler, who created the art?
Does art constitute free speech, though? That is the first question:
In 1915, under Mutual Film v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915), the Supreme Court ruled that movies were not protected by the First Amendment. It would not be until 1952 that the Supreme Court would overturn that.
Even after that, the First Amendment was understood not to apply to pornography. And while a 1973 decision (Miller v. California) loosened things up a bit, it technically did not legalize obscenity.
Well, American law would not have helped in the 2004 controversy in Sweden, but it does frame the problem. Are there limits to free speech — apart from immediate incitement?
For those who are free speech purists, the vandalism in Sweden would seem inexcusable. There should be no limits. However, even after our Republic was born, the First Amendment, with its guarantee of a free press, was not taken as supremely central.
The Federalist John Adams signed the controversial Sedition Act.
The sweeping language of the Sedition Act made it illegal, among other actions, to ‘write, print, utter or publish…any false, scandalous and malicious writing…with intent to defame the…government’ or ‘to stir up sedition within the United States.’
Jefferson and Madison authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to protest what they felt was an unconstitutional law approaching tyranny. But they had to do so in secrecy.
At the time of their passage, authorship of both documents was known to only a few close associates. Secrecy was necessary because Jefferson, himself the nation’s vice president, might be charged with sedition if he or Madison, his closest political ally, openly announced that congressional acts were unconstitutional.
The Sedition Act, mercifully, was timed to expire in 1801 — though they did try to renew it — when the Democratic-Republicans would take over. The Federalists were protected from retaliation. The reason given for the Act was that America was in a quasi-war with France, and the president could not tolerate perceived seditious behavior.
What is clear is that some of the Founding Fathers did not consider the First Amendment, though important, to be as central a right as it is today, when many Americans treat it as equal in authority to the Gospel. More so to those Americans who are not Christian.
During the American Civil War, Lincoln arrested editors and seized newspapers that he deemed seditious for spreading fake news.
So what we have to admit is, that though we esteem freedom of speech and the press to be paramount, it was not always thought so, especially in periods of national crisis.
And that brings us back to the 2004 controversy in Sweden.
The Jewish people have never really had a moment’s peace since their state was set up in 1948. They are in an almost permanent state of national crisis. They have a more limited view of free speech rights than present-day Americans or Swedes do.
John Adams might have understood the actions of that Israeli diplomat.
Until 2016, Facebook operated under the American view and let all manner of Palestinian incitement against Jews be posted on Facebook (see here). Israelis sued, and lost, but Facebook saw the handwriting on the wall, and backed off its purist principles. Facebook then started working with Israel, instead of ignoring Israel concerns. Within a short time, pro-Palestinians activists accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring their content.
During the 2020 election, Facebook was accused of censoring conservative views. Now, with Trump ready to assume office, Facebook’s CEO Zuckerberg admitted that it swung too far to the left, and that it will return to less censorship.
During the recent Israel-Hamas war, the cries of censorship are louder that social media is shutting the Palestinian view down. Of course, the Israeli view would be that Hamas is using social media as a communication tool for their operatives. Meta (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and Twitter (X) do not want to be sued over facilitating that.
And then there is the problem of anti-Jewish incitement.
Only five years ago did Facebook ban Holocaust denial, something which was rampant on the internet. Jewish groups had been complaining about that since the internet took off.
So what is the answer?
Words do have consequences. The Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment at a time when our culture was more conservative and could police itself. However, even then, violence occasionally erupted. Abolitionist presses could be destroyed.
Social media has given anonymous posters the ability to spread malicious invectives that could start wars against millions of people with just one click. Islamic radicalism spreads rampantly via the internet. This is more power than any press had in the early days of our Republic.
The Israeli and Jewish concerns cannot be discounted. The internet allowed pro-Palestinian takeovers on American universities to be facilitated more easily. Digital flash mobs can be organized quickly, and they are prone to violence. And the antisemitism on the internet is getting ugly.
The pamphleteering of the patriots required the ability to read, think, and reflect before one could act upon the ideas expressed. An incendiary post on Twitter only requires the ability to watch a video and find the location by Google Map. Minimal literacy, thinking, and reflection are required.
Something has to be done.
In the days of the printing press, power was in the hands of those who could read and think. Today, social media has put power in the hands of dolts, who cannot be filtered. The Founding Fathers never anticipated this.
We may have to consider that the First Amendment, while primary, is not unlimited in its scope. The Founding Fathers never thought so.
Mike Konrad, who still struggles with Spanish, is a frustrated web designer and is presently trying to get a humorous short story of his published: “The Pirate of Gaza.”
Public domain.
Jesus Christ is King
