Salman Rushdie Attacker Convicted in Terrorism Trial
Is Rushdie a victim of violence against free expression or did he push the limits of free speech?
Above: Salman Rushdie speaking at Liberatum's 25th anniversary celebration in London on July 8. Image credit: Jonathan Brady/PA Images/Getty Images
The Spin
Pro-establishment narrative
Justice has affirmed free speech. Rushdie wrote a book while Matar chose violence. If free speech means anything, it is protecting the right to offend. This conviction affirms that Rushdie and his works were never on trial, and this terror attack was motivated by Iran's fatwa.
Establishment-critical narrative
While violent attacks are never justified, Rushdie must still answer for his works. The right to free speech does not excuse scrutiny and accountability over deliberate provocation of religious communities. Rushdie made a deliberate insult of faith resulting in violence and fatalities abroad — he must face legal repercussions.