I read your thesis at Curiouswombat's LJ and it resonated with something, although it might be not quite what you're looking for.
Back when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses there was a huge outcry of Muslim anger (some of it violent, although most notably and visibly were the public book burnings). I read an argument somewhere, that British liberals (and conservatives, of course) intensified the Muslim outlash by consistently argueing for the right of free speech and against book cencorship (which are fundamental rights) and thus took away from Muslims the right to be offended.
In other words: when Muslim's reacted the way they did, they only proved that they're a irrational group opposed to Western values per se.
Freedom of speech, anti-cencorship = good Right to be offended denied = bad and no possibility of peaceful discourse.
This isn't as clear cut as it could be, but there're lots and lots of literatures about the Rushdie Affair and I haven't seen the theory of above very often. Five pages should come easy and could be supported by your own unique arguments.
Other than that, there's a controversy in the UK right now, involving a celebrity Big Brother and racial discrimination of a Bollywood actress in the house by the other players. It's very current and could provide lots of contemporary examples of media botching it up in their terminology. *g*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2007-01-29 04:48 pm (UTC)Back when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses there was a huge outcry of Muslim anger (some of it violent, although most notably and visibly were the public book burnings). I read an argument somewhere, that British liberals (and conservatives, of course) intensified the Muslim outlash by consistently argueing for the right of free speech and against book cencorship (which are fundamental rights) and thus took away from Muslims the right to be offended.
In other words: when Muslim's reacted the way they did, they only proved that they're a irrational group opposed to Western values per se.
Freedom of speech, anti-cencorship = good
Right to be offended denied = bad and no possibility of peaceful discourse.
This isn't as clear cut as it could be, but there're lots and lots of literatures about the Rushdie Affair and I haven't seen the theory of above very often. Five pages should come easy and could be supported by your own unique arguments.
Other than that, there's a controversy in the UK right now, involving a celebrity Big Brother and racial discrimination of a Bollywood actress in the house by the other players. It's very current and could provide lots of contemporary examples of media botching it up in their terminology. *g*