Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder

“Free speech” is both a narrow legal idea and a broader popular idea. Its strict legal meaning is that people should be able to share ideas without retaliation or punishment from their government and that they should not be compelled by the government to express themselves in ways that contradict their beliefs. Most countries around the world recognize free speech as a legal right; however, to some extent, most countries also routinely place limits on citizens’ free speech—sometimes for reasons of public safety and sometimes to protect those in power from criticism. The broader, more popular meaning of “free speech” is the idea that people should be able to express themselves freely to one another without fear of social consequences. Often, people believe in this kind of free speech only to the extent that it protects their own freedom of expression—but some believe that even people they strongly disagree with should not face social sanctions for their ideas, regardless of how repugnant those ideas might be.

Whether free speech should be limited, and, if so, what those limits should be has been the subject of great controversy. Artists and activists of all kinds routinely engage in speech that others find offensive, but most people would not support extreme reactions against this offensive speech. Reactions to provocative speech are often more polarized, however, when politics or religion is involved. In the case of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, both religion and politics were in play. Rushdie's portrayal of the Islamic prophet Muhammad as open to polytheistic ideas, and his creation of a character that seemed to parody Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, offended some Muslims—particularly Khomeini himself. The book was published at a volatile moment in history when Muslim fundamentalists were gaining power in places like Iran and Afghanistan as part of a decades-long struggle against the structures left in place by Western colonialism. Many of these newly powerful sects of Islam held strong ideas about literal interpretations of the Quran and the justness of violent action against “blasphemers” and any secular influences on their societies. Within this context, the proclamation of a death sentence against Rushdie bolstered Khomeini’s reputation and power. The rise to power of men like Khomeini represented a threat to Western interests in this region at a time when many Western nations were heavily dependent on the region’s oil. This political situation factored (as much as people’s preexisting beliefs about free speech) into the widely varying reactions to Rushdie’s book.

Many artists, governments, and public figures immediately went on record in support of Rushdie’s right to express himself freely. Some people that Rushdie expected to defend him, however, seemed ready to instead blame him. People like President Jimmy Carter criticized him for being disrespectful to Islamic religious beliefs. This same divide surfaced again many years later, in 2015, when Islamic fundamentalists attacked the staff of the Parisian magazine Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons that some saw as disrespectful to Muhammad. Rushdie strongly defended Charlie Hebdo’s right to freedom of expression and fell out with several old friends over their refusal to do the same. Rushdie’s beliefs about free speech have led him to be outspoken in his criticism of both governments and popular leaders when he views their actions as immoral. He has devoted considerable time to advancing the cause of free speech through advocacy and educational initiatives, and he frequently speaks in public about the dangers of censorship of all kinds.