On January 7th, Muslim terrorists shot up the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people in retaliation for the depiction of Mohammed in cartoon form. Many Americans decried this violent act as an attack on free speech itself, and the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie reached historic popularity on Twitter. The magazine, for its part, printed its next cover with another depiction of Islam's founding Prophet. This cover is considered by many to be an act of defiance, and perhaps a dig at the sincerity of the publication's new-found supporters.
In the fallout from this horrific event, battle lines were drawn between those whose first instinct was to warn against retaliatory "Islamophobia"and those who insist this latest attack is further evidence that Islam is cancerous to humanity. Frankly, I fall more on the latter side. But while Islam is its own (enormous) issue, I want to discuss the supposed ultimate victim of the attack: free speech.
Free speech or freedom of expression is a huge priority in American and Western society. It's in the First Amendment, listed as an unalienable right that government may not infringe upon. So, what does it mean? Why is it so important? And why would someone want to attack it?
As to the first question, there's a substantial disagreement in this country about what freedom of speech should look like. While both the political Right and Left pay lip service to the idea that we the people should be able to hold and express any opinion, their respective reactions to what actually gets said paints a different picture. The Right wanted the offensive cartoons to be displayed without restriction, as evidenced by its mockery and derision of media outlets who censor the images, while the Left wants to use the massacre as a teaching moment in support of hate speech laws. One side wants speech to be unfettered and left to society to self-regulate, while the other wants concrete limitations in order to protect people from potential danger.
While complete freedom of speech leaves the door open for vile and offensive things to be strewn throughout the general public, I contend that speech that must meet legislative approval isn't free at all. Words can harm on an emotional and psychological level, but policing them is an impossible task, ethical questions aside. You can say whatever you want, it's when you start doing things that I become truly concerned.
All that said, just because someone can say whatever he wants doesn't mean he should say anything he wants. If one rejects governmental control over such matters, one must turn to self-control and personal responsibility. Some on the Left have implied that Charlie Hebdo brought this attack on themselves and, in a way, deserve their fate for their lack of restraint and foresight (note: I'm not saying they've actually said that the people deserved to die, nor that they really think that, but I believe that's a distasteful consequence of their argument), and that's wrong on the most basic level. The ones to blame for the attack are the ones who committed it. There is, however, something to be said for being able to communicate strongly without giving deliberate offense. Insulting for the mere sake of insult is irresponsible, immature, essentially meaningless, and ideally would be rare and disowned in society.
Of course, the world and its various societies are not ideal. The murderous attack is proof enough of that. That is why I have no wish to scold Charlie Hebdo for its offensiveness, whether it be toward Muslims, Catholics, Jews, or anyone else. This leads me to the question from earlier: why, out of the groups I just mentioned, are Muslims the ones who tend to react violently to offense? Muslims believe the mere depiction, much less the mockery, of their Prophet is blasphemy, and thus some choose to take, in their minds, justified revenge through violence. But this does not entirely explain it. The work of "art" known as "Piss Christ," for example, was created, displayed, and depicted throughout media, and no one died because of it. Playboy had a naked Virgin Mary cover, and no Catholics shot them. Something, then, is different about the Muslim faith, at least in some iteration of it.
These Muslims are not merely offended by certain forms of expression. That, I think, is where many Leftists make their fundamental mistake. They not only have their religious taboos, they have a vicious hatred of anyone who breaks them. They do not feel insult, they feel rage and zeal. Their faith, such as it may be, requires of them not forgiveness or even correction, but retribution.
This brings me to my conclusion. Freedom of speech can and often does result in offense. What happened on January 7th was not a result of mere offense. Therefore, the attack was not really on freedom of speech. It was on people. People who, through their printing of ridiculous cartoons, represented the other, the infidel, which cannot be tolerated. Those editors, artists, and writers became more than some Frenchmen with annoying gall; they became demonic in the eyes of their assailants, deserving no less than righteous fury and judgment.
The attack in Paris serves as a launching point for discussion of free speech and its consequences, but only secondarily. It was not expression that caused this fatal incident. It was something else entirely. I maintain that freedom of speech, however one defines it, is risky, scary, chaotic, perhaps even dangerous. But it is not deadly. To conclude that, I think, would be a huge mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment