Cross-posted at www.angryyoungdem.vox.com
Two incidents with two different European newspapers have demonstrated confusion when it comes to freedom of the press. First, leading Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published an article claiming that the Israeli Defense Forces ("IDF") was harvesting the organs of Palestinian children. Now, Spanish Daily El Mundo is publishing an interview with Holocaust denier David Irving as an "expert" in World War II for its 70th anniversary edition. When both newspapers and the governments of their respective countries were met with an outcry, they answered the same thing. Freedom of the press.
This defense represents a severe misunderstanding of what freedom of the press really is. A free press is important to a democratic society. The press is the conduit of information to the people. The press must be free from government censorship and criminal sanctions based upon the content of what they publish. But freedom of the press is not an excuse to publish anti-semitism and call it fact. Freedom of the press is not an excuse to publish holocaust denial and call it expertise. When the press does these things, they should be condemned from all corners of the globe, including by people in government. In a society with a free press, we let ideas compete in the marketplace of ideas. In such a system, it is imperative to criticize hatred posing as fact. Our silence in the face of such publications amounts to endorsement when one looks at the marketplace of ideas.
First, there is the Swedish article. The article is poorly sourced (indeed denied by one of the sources). Many doctors have stated that the claims are medically impossible, and it invokes one of the oldest anti-semitic canards, that of the Blood Libel. Despite this, the Swedish government has refused to condemn the piece calling it "freedom of the press."
First of all, condemning the piece does not interfere with the freedom of the press. The government reviewing the piece before publication and refusing to allow it to be published interferes with the freedom of the press. Prosecuting the editors or the writer of the piece interferes with freedom of the press. Criticizing the piece is a statement to the public that not everything you read is true. That it is unacceptable to publish anti-semitism and call it legitimate criticism of Israel.
Second, the Swedish claim of freedom of the press rings hollow when you compare it to the 2006 Danish newspaper Mohammad cartoon scandal. In response to the uprising after the Danish newspaper printed the cartoon of the prophet Mohammad, the Swedish far-right newspaper SD-Kuriren, ran a contest asking readers to send in cartoon of the prophet Mohammad. Rather than protect the right of the newspaper because of "freedom of the press," the Swedish government pressured the online service provider to pull the plug on their website. Not exactly freedom of the press.
As offensive as the Aftonbladet piece is, it pales in comparison to El Mundo's decision to interview David Irving as an "expert" on WWII. Irving, for anyone who doesn't know was convicted in an Austrian Court (something I don't believe in and an example of lack of freedom of speech) for being a holocaust denier. Calling Irving an "expert" on WWII is like calling David Duke an expert on race relations. El Mundo defended the decision by citing "freedom of the press."
First, freedom of the press does not mean that the SPanish newspaper is required to give him a platform. Second, freedom of the press does not mean that they are required to call Irving an "expert" on WWII. These are editorial decisions that can, should and must be criticized the same way that there was a front page article on Daily Kos yesterday criticising MSNBC for continuing to give Pat Buchanan a platform despite his latest Nazi-sympathizing.
Because of freedom of the press, newspapers have a higher responsibility for accuracy. Again, they are a conduit for information. Publishing Irving as an "expert" on WWII on saturday followed by the President of Yad Vashem on sunday gives the impression that they are simply competing historical interpretations. The decision equates anti-semitism couched as history with historical fact. At the very least, a newspaper has a responsibility to distinguish between truth and lies, between legitimate debate and recognized hatred.
And when the newspaper fails to do its job. When a newspaper gives a platform to the most vile ideas, to the most vile people, we have a responsibility to speak out. We have a responsibility to be outraged. Because the public are the targets. We are the marketplace. It is us for which ideas are competing. So rather than the freedom of the press requiring people, including governments, to remain neutral when fiction is given equal footing to fact, it actually requires the opposite. It requires people everywhere to speak up. It requires people, all people on conscience, to stand up and say we will not tolerate this. We will not defend this.