Since a fatwa was issued in 1989 by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s leader, calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, Rushdie has spoken out against restricting the free exchange of ideas, noting in 2021 that increasingly “being offended is a valid critique….” Kohmeini and other Muslims objected to Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses” for its portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad. Rushdie’ stabbing last week at a literary event in western New York has reopened the controversy over free speech and religious loyalties. (The New York Times, August 15, 2022, by Jennifer Schuessler)
Professor Jonathan Zimmerman, Chicago Tribune, August 15, 2022, argues that given the diversity of beliefs and understandings, “Almost any statement can be perceived as bigoted or offensive, depending on the context. So once we prohibit ‘hate speech,’ we won’t be able to speak at all.” Zimmerman cites the censoring books about sex and gender and ban on teaching the history of racism in the U.S. as attempts to shut down threatening ideas. He also cited his progressive students’ support of censorship against hate speech to protect minorities. Rushdie said in 2016, “It’s a very dangerous path for people to take to use censorship as a way of defending minorities because it will backfire. It always has.”
Matt Bai in The Washington Post, August 16, 2022, warns that attack on Rushdie could herald the coming of political fatwa in the U.S. by way of attacks on opposing politicians and journalists. Bai writes, “…the only winning response to lawlessness and censorship is a rededication to bedrock democratic ideals — and not only when it reaffirms your worldview.”