Threats to Freedom of Speech

Threats to Freedom of Speech Through Artistic Expression

A naked supermodel parades in public to protest wearing fur. An artist opens an exhibit showing traditional Christian symbols, like the cross or Bibles, desecrated with human waste, and calls it "avant garde." Websites openly criticize and mock the government, calling it "satire." All of these things occur in Western society because we have freedom of expression guaranteed by the first amendment. Any viewpoint, in almost any manner, may be expressed in the United States. So long as "speech," which includes artistic expression, does not physically harm another individual, it is very difficult for it to be regulated or removed.

But this is not the case in many countries. In Cuba or the former Soviet Union, as well as many communist governments, it is illegal to criticize the government in any way -- even in artistic expression. In many nations, women, or pictures of them, cannot show uncovered faces. "Subversive" ideas, like capitalism or democracy, have been supressed by dictators and monarchs alike for hundreds of years -- even if these ideas were only one interpretation of an artistic piece.

Iran, which has been run by clerics who are highly conservative and religious for years, has in place a governmental system that represses artistic expression. The government may arrest individuals who speak openly against it; it may regulate what is taught in universities; it may require prior approval before an artistic work is released to the general public in order to ensure that it is not objectionable. (HRW) Prior to the presidential elections a few years ago, "at least ten scholars" were arrested for their political actions. (ibid) In a society where simple political affiliation and speech are so regulated, is there any chance for artistic expression and work to be encouraged?

Independent press in Iran has been subjected to severe government sanctions, even innocuous speech regarding world news or current events; in early 2000 over thirty independent newspapers were shut down by order of the judiciary. (HRW) The offending publications were charged with "consistently ignor[ing] warnings to stop publishing material that 'denigrated Islam and the religious elements of the Islamic revolution.' The statement from the judicial department said that the titles had '...hurt the feelings of devout Muslims.'" (ibid) In a nation where simply the possibility of information that might offend one religious group can be banned, what free expression in art could possibly flourish?

Music in Iran is severely regulated; pop music has almost been eliminated and almost all "Iranian" pop is created in Los Angeles. (Yadegari) In 1996, a religious ruling was issued stating that music was corrupting children, and to this day women musicians are only allowed to perform for other women. (ibid) All music must be preapproved by the government, which screens it for both lyrical content and the style of music. (ibid)

Iranian cinema is drastically affected by these repressive policies as well; most Iranian films do not have scenes filmed indoors, because of the law against showing women without their chadors (face coverings), even on film. (Rosenbaum) This law automatically alters any artistic cinema, due to the fact that any film cannot show a woman's face; expressions and minute details of female characters are severely limited in this aspect -- female actresses must convey their entire character through speech alone, since the audience will never see their face.

Films, even if they make it past the government, are boycotted by cinemas that refuse to show them. (Pirouz) The Lizard, a recent Iranian film that is a tongue-in-cheek take on the religious leaders, was widely condemned and many theaters refused to show it, despite the film being widely hailed internationally. (Ibid) How ironic that a film's home citizens cannot see it!

The effects of this artistic censorship in Iran is that the people are not informed of not only international events and trends, but they are not aware of things going on in their own nation. The ban on showing women's faces forces even non-Muslims to conform, in a way, to fundamentalist Islamic ideas of what women can and cannot do. The government regulation of all artistic expression-from cinema to women performing to the press-keeps citizens unaware of developments in their world, deprives them of beautiful things that could be interpreted as "offensive to Islam," and in general, decreases the potential for beauty and pleasure in society.

In the U.S., for example, any government limitation of artistic expression is not only illegal, but shunned by the citizens. The vast majority of Americans want to know what is out there, even if some of it might offend their personal taste. Films that openly criticize the government, like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, as well as films that simply might not appeal to all genres of individuals, are not only allowed to be disseminated but are widely discussed and even encouraged in our society.

Art has traditionally been not only a reflection of society but can serve as an impetus for change and modernization. Prior to and during the French Revolution, many artists were jailed or exiled for their work protesting the conditions of peasant workers in that society. One notable example of this was the work of Gustave Courbet, who painted massive (12 feet by 20 feet and more) murals depicting what life was like in the countryside, where many citizens had never ventured and were unaware of the conditions. His work The Stonebreakers, destroyed in World War II, showed in stark detail the condition of peasant workers in the countryside. It was "emblematic expression of the ideals of the 1848 Revolution," which served to change these conditions. (Kemp 307) During that same era, Picasso's Guernica grew to have a significant ant-war meaning (Kemp 415)