Objecting to racist speech got reframed as cowardice lacking character.
Evidence
In fact, Hervik argues that in the decade since the cartoons were published, the hegemonic position grew stronger so that “resistance to, or criticism of, the publication, even when set in a democratic dialogue” became a “sign of the opponent’s lack of integration or of cowardice, and lack of character and courage to stand up for free speech.” At the time and since, liberal columnists endorsed J-P’s position, defending the cartoonists on the grounds of free speech. Many US newspapers carried the cartoon of Mohammad with the bomb on the same grounds, without recognizing or acknowledging that the cartoon endorsed the frame of an inherently violent Islam. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 347
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: Parallels the silencing dynamic noted elsewhere: resistance itself is repackaged as proof of the opponent’s unfitness to participate.
Related
- Free speech defenses of racist cartoons mask ‘entitlement racism’ (similarity 0.81)
- Free-speech defenses of the cartoons masked prior anti-immigrant editorializing. (similarity 0.81)
- Islam-as-violence framing migrated from the right into mainstream liberal media (similarity 0.79)
- Free speech framing converts anti-Muslim cartoon racism into a covert liberal form (similarity 0.78)