The terrorist attack on the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo has produced an outpouring of support for freedom of the press. A meme of the pen is mightier than the sword has gone viral, both at rallies all over France and in the press. Sadly and disappointingly, however, the support for the twelve murdered people has already been tempered and qualified, with more than a few pundits and news organizations posting “what did they expect” and “theirs was hate speech” commentary.
Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League, issued a statement that read:
Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated … But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.
Over at Slate, the bodies weren’t even cold before we saw the reminder:
But their work featuring Mohammed could be sophomoric and racist. … This, in a country where Muslims are a poor and harassed minority, maligned by a growing nationalist movement that has used liberal values like secularism and free speech to cloak garden-variety xenophobia.
At the Huffington Post, an editorial suggests that freedom of speech is dependent on the quality of that speech – that you’re only entitled to speak freely when the words you’re speaking have merit, and that deliberate provocation is not, or at least should not be, protected.
Other pundits twisted themselves into knots to make sure that their readers understood that they’re committed to the principles of free speech and that they condemn the murders, but that no one should for a moment think that they supported what those racist, islamophobic, homophobic and whatever other -phobic folks at Charlie Hebdo wrote, said or drew. Heavens forbid that anyone infer, even in the slightest, that their condemnation of murder be conflated with an endorsement of any of the messages or sentiments the Charlie Hebdo people published – that would be a tragedy too great to bear.
Sadly as well, many people in this, the land of the free, aren’t interested in defending freedom. Reason.com published the results of a poll that shows 1/3 of Americans and a slight majority of Democrats favor hate speech laws. The press is awash in stories from college campuses about the restriction of speech, especially political speech that doesn’t conform to a particular agenda, either to “designated free speech zones” or off the campus entirely. Non-conforming speakers are protested and disinvited, “microaggression,” where intent to insult is presumed/read into even the most innocuous comments, is the the new “in” thing, and campus speech codes prohibit even the slightest provocation or inferred provocation. Protestors take great joy in denying others’ right to speak and be heard, sometimes even resorting to physical means. I recently had a discussion with an Internet friend who thought it was perfectly justified for a police officer to use physical force in response to verbal provocation, and have seen many others comment similarly.
Lost upon those who think thus is a simple reality: Without the right to offend, freedom of speech is just an illusion. Just as you’re not truly free to engage in certain activities unless you get a license, you’re not truly free to assemble unless you get a permit,, and you’re not truly free to practice your religion if some religions but not others get preferential treatment from the state, you’re not truly free to speak if someone else gets to decide whether what comes out of your mouth is acceptable.
Somewhere along the way, our society decided that some people’s ears had more rights than other people’s vocal cords. That there is a right not to be offended. We are left to wonder whether those who agree with this idea, even to a degree, have contemplated how it would be effected and enforced. Freedom of speech is pretty simple:
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.
Boom. Done. Simple. Freedom from offense, on the other hand, requires defining what is offensive. We might leave that in the hands of lawmakers, but the root principle of our constitutional republic is that lawmakers are governed by a set of rules and restrictions, and granting them the authority to decide if certain words, phrases or ideas are not free speech completely subverts that principle. We might look to the majority, or to “society,” for guidance, but majority rule is the opposite of individual liberty, and “society” is an ill-defined and ever-changing thing. We could leave it to the courts, and allow the legal system to establish precedents for what’s offensive, but that merely empowers those who seek personal gain by legislating aggrievement. In other words, there’s no objective or dispassionate way to legislate against offense. Yet, even if there were, how can that be justified in a free society? How do all our other liberties get exercised or protected if we acknowledge and accept that the government can tell us not to say or write certain things?
Blaming the murdered victims at the Charlie Hebdo in even the slightest way for the violence committed against them is no different than blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. Verbal or written offense does not justify a physical response. Ever. Nor should we even consider “blaming the victim” as a mitigating factor in decrying or prosecuting violence.
You do not have a right not to be offended. You’re welcome to be outraged, insulted or offended in response to something someone else says, writes, draws or otherwise utters, but unless what’s been said or written is both false and deleterious to you, you have no right to legislate or litigate in response. And, you certainly do not have a right to physically respond. The risk of being called a bad word or a dirty name is a crucial part of living in a free society. Satire and ridicule, even to the point of offensiveness and bigotry, must, must, MUST be understood to be free speech.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters