Comments expresses the opinions of the writer.
The first thing I expect when I open a book on freedom of expression is an ardent principled defense of this freedom.
Preferably with quotes from basic texts on the subject by John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine and the other old voices that laid the foundation for the concept here in the West. And maybe a long list of everything that will go wrong if not maintained.
It is useful to examine these “first principles”, as they are called in Nynorsk.
But I’ll venture to guess that 95 percent of those who buy this book have already read it. Repeatedly.
The basic principles have already been examined in several dozen books, the latest by Anine Kierulf and Frank Rossavik in their books.
Click here to subscribe to the Norsk debatt newsletter
So it’s almost a bit liberating that the authors of this book don’t give much space to this topic. There is a little mention of it in the text, but the authors reveal little about their personal attitudes.
But in the beginning it provides a clear truth that should be remembered at all times:
“… the freedom that Norwegians have today is not guaranteed forever: it is not the norm in humanity’s different past and present, but the exception. There are more people in the world who live without true freedom of expression than with”.
Otherwise, the book jumps straight to what it should be: a neutral historical review of 100 years of free speech turmoil.
It remains so historic in its form that it’s actually a little hard to write a review of it. A review of a purely historical work quickly becomes a shorter summary of the book’s content.
But it fulfills the historical function well, where it describes the undulations of the expressive surface. One thing you learn from reading “Rabalder” is that it is difficult to find the golden age of freedom of expression.
There is always someone who wants to control what others can hear and say. But the executor of attempts to control the surface of speech depends on who has the opportunity to try to do so.
As it is written here: “Who is subject to the denial of the scene depends on who is in power”. Then he goes on to describe the challenges in different periods.
Before the war, the labor movement was vulnerable. Several members of the Labor Party leadership were jailed for their statements and activities. Einar Gerhardsen was fined for threatening Aftenposten with bombs. Justified, most would probably say even today. It was a time of struggle to expand the surface of expression. Often against the clergy, who then had much more power than today.
Christianity has no more teeth in the debate on free speech. Those teeth have – as they also say here – transferred to Islam.
Then comes the war, and it’s a completely different threat level. Here we find inspiring stories of great courage and raw brutality. Of people who, despite the daily directives of the occupying power, risked their lives to maintain an illegal press.
Some of the more than 300 illegal printed matter in operation are listed: Alt for Norge, Amatør-referenten, Avantgarden, Bonden, Dag over Norge, Demokraten, Den frie avis, Det frie ord, Eidsvoll, Enig og tro, Fantomet, Fast front, Popular will , For the King and the Fatherland, Fram, Free Trade Union Movement and more.
Espen Goffeng
Community discussion, author, podcaster and qualified lecturer. In the podcast “Goffeng på letting”, which he creates together with Tankesmien Agenda, he talks about everything that moves between heaven and earth in society.
But we also meet newspapers that have allowed themselves to be submitted and checked. This was not exactly in the opinion of Jens Garbo, who writes in the book that “freedom of expression was as much a duty as a right”. Nowadays, we often hear the opposite. So it is always useful to remember how the context governs the principles.
After the war, there will be an agreement with the post-Dilters. More moral than anything else, perhaps. Bergen director Arbeiderblad was among the disappointed:
“Unfortunately, we must recognize that the Norwegian press, the first representatives of free speech, did not put up the resistance it should have put up”.
Over the years, the Communists return to the spotlight. The already convicted Gerhardsen begins to monitor them and the Cold War raises the temperature. In this period there was also much more correctness in the claim that the Labor Party controlled NRK than in the days of Carl I. Hagen with his abbreviation “ARK”.
It is mentioned that the Norwegian state has had a monopoly on our airwaves for several decades. For most of us starting to approach 100, this seems natural. We grew up with it. But it is a rather radical policy in which Norway was almost alone.
There will be some battles over moral purity on the sexual front, exemplified by, among other things, Kjell Askildsen’s “Hereter objellen jeg deg helt home” – and Agnar Mykle’s somewhat legendary “Song on the Red Ruby”. And no book on freedom of expression unleashed by mobs can be written without Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” being mentioned and described.
This story is fully and well reproduced in “Rabalder”. But it’s incontrovertible and historic, so there’s very little to say in a review other than praise. It is when we come to our time that things become more combustible. It is always like this. When we take a little leap forward, something jumps off the pages, and this is the radical situation we are in right now.
Since the war there was no talk in Norway of a risk of death. This changed with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”. In some other Western countries, people have been killed.
We weren’t far from here even with the Aschehoug William Nygaard bombing. Two libraries were destroyed with fire bombs. And after Shabana Rehman’s “ass stunt”, 15 shots are fired at the family restaurant.
From “Satanic Verses”, there are no conferences or debates on freedom of expression and Islam without armed police. I’ve lost count of how many submachine guns I’ve seen in this regard. The picture of the threat is unprecedented for all 100 years covered by the book, with the exception of the few years of war.
When you have read the story in “Rabalder”, it comes into sharp relief. What seems a bit strange is the relatively small space these events and this reality have in the book. After a few pages, we move on to the controversial discussions about women on boards and the Tore Tønne case.
The caricature controversies have added further momentum to the image of the threat. Outside the borders there is talk of destroyed embassies in connection with the caricature dispute, as well as the slaughter of Charlie Hebdo employees. This gives more space. Here you can see some indignation in the pages about the behavior of the Norwegian authorities during the period in question. But even here pure historical narrative dominates. Get neutral and good delivery of the sequence of events.
As a reader, it strikes me to what extent we have normalized the threat of violence and murder of radical Islam when it is given as much space as any other issue that causes a stir in newsrooms.
Even today’s bachelorette parties are described soberly and well. Hilde Henriksen’s children’s book “Lemon Lemonade”, Simon Malkene’s short story from the classroom and Laila Bertheussen’s helpless “racism” are all featured.
What the authors stress repeatedly is that principles are often loose in the discussion of the limits of freedom of expression.
But it can allow anything about Christianity, but beware of Islam. You can support the Jews, but be against Taters.
You can deplore attacks on your own freedom and at the same time want to limit that of others. Defending the problematic opinions of others is tiring.
Read more from the Norwegian debate
“Helping one’s opponents in this way is not something that comes naturally to people. Most people want to silence those they disagree with,” it is so correctly written.
The famous Groucho Mark “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”, is indicative of that thought. This is perhaps the most useful lesson to be learned from such a serious book: You put limits on other people’s freedom of expression and potentially create a powerful laugh for your own shoulders.
It is by no means certain that you and yours will have the power to control the sphere of expression for decades to come. And if you set a precedent for the restrictions, then you are next.
