Free Speech, French Cartoons, and One Hell of a Week.
Note: This was first published in the February 2015 edition of the Central Circuit.
“I think we should take it down, it’s probably going to piss some people off.”
You’re never meant to start an article with a quote, or at least thats supposedly one of the ‘rules’ of journalism. In this case though, I think it’s the best place to start.
We had stuck the most recent Charlie Hebdo cover up on the office window, alongside a sign that said “Inappropriate or freedom of expression, let us know!” but we bottled it. We weren’t sure what the reaction was going to be, whether we going to piss people off, whether we going to get in trouble with the College administration, whether we going to get attacked? We didn’t know.
A staff meeting was called, and we discussed the idea of publishing the cartoon. With several different articles about the subject, it was only as we neared publication that we realised the question would have to be asked. Before that, it hadn’t even come to our heads as a potential problem. Perhaps thats telling in more ways than one.
Why did we want to publish the cartoon? Well originally, I was set to write an article about the murders in France, and the subsequent rising discussion regarding free speech vs. hate speech or offense. I felt that, as a journalist, the article was worth publishing with the picture because I wanted to encourage discussion between the students about free speech and its role today, and because I felt that it was an important piece to the jigsaw that is this story.
In the staff meeting, we all agreed as journalists that there could be a legitimate reason to publish the cartoon, not only as a sign of solidarity with the French journalists who lost their lives, but also because people should know what the fuss is about. In an industry dominated by visual media, we felt that it was an odd thing to say “There was a conflict over a picture, but we’re not going to show you the picture.”
So we decided to try and organise a discussion on campus. Lets hear the voice of the audience, lets hear those who it affects and then make a decent educated decision. The wheels started to turn, and as they did, the emails started coming. From faculty, not students.
“You are absolutely and completely wrong.”
“Do something important not trivial and useless.”
“I thought I’d share my thoughts[…] but I don’t wish to have an e-mail dialogue with the editor.”
“It will demonstrate that you are childish, rude and politically naïve. If that is all you are then show that to the world — but know that the experts on campus think you are just being childish and naive.”
“You are trivialising free speech, not honouring it.”
It was a larger response than we thought, and quite depressing. As students, to be made to feel like we were somehow stupid or ignorant by the same professors we respect enough to have teach us is slightly offensive.
Which is quite appropriate really, as being offended/offensive is what appears to be the theme of the day. Were we going to offend people?
It’s often the case that student journalists tend to find melodrama and wax lyrical in current social events. “This is it,” we tend to say. “This is the start of a movement! The start of the youth being interested in current events! By God, I have to cover this!” before it all inevitably blows over, and the mainstream media locates the next breaking story that makes us all wail and moan and share biased and uninformed articles on Facebook or Twitter. We on the staff felt (perhaps with blinkers on, after all, journalism matters to us) that this was an exciting and passion-inducing discussion on a balance, if any, there can be between free speech and offence.
As a journalist, free speech will probably be more important and undeniable to me than most, and I acknowledge that. To me, it has to be utilitarian. It has to be unanimous. If you can have a ‘church’ picketing funerals whilst displaying signs claiming ‘God hates Fags’, then you must allow the publication of a potentially offensive cartoon. If you can allow the publication of an offensive cartoon, you have to allow homophobia and racism.
It’s not a nice position, but I do believe there is no one qualified to tell others what is and is not offensive, and what hierarchy or order offence comes in. Is a picture of the Prophet Muhammad more offensive than telling a non-believer they are going to burn in hell? Who gets to choose? It’s completely subjective to our personal opinions.
It goes both ways. Some things that cause offence are readily available. Fox News causes offence to many because of it’s opinions and views. Nancy Grace pisses plenty of people off, Piers Morgan pisses plenty of people off. We give these people a platform, they say their pieces and they’re supported by their own sides.
I would argue that we can’t close the door on something just because it offends others. Even more so when it is the fear of violent retribution that influences us. If you’re angry, or incensed by the cartoons/decision to publish them. Formulate an educated argument against. Don’t just insist they be removed or shut down.
I would say that the power is within our words. I would deem it important to allow people to say what thoughts they have, even if they may be cretinous or ignorant. the reason why i think so, is because I don’t believe any of us should be afraid to tell someone they’re wrong. If someone says something you don’t agree with, isn’t it better to tell them why they’re misinformed? Isn’t it better to discuss something with someone, to try and make them see the error of their statements? Isn’t it better to force someone to back up their perspective and position, rather than to try and shut them down by citing offence?
Look at our world and look at how much we’ve grown as a society. Should women have stayed home? Should Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have remained silent? Because their opinions regarding women having the vote, and fighting against segregation caused offence and were at the expense of people who held certain political beliefs very dear.
To me, offence has to be ignored. Whatever you do, someone, somewhere will be offended. A perhaps odd source to cite, but nonetheless worthwhile is comedian Ricky Gervais. Gervais said“Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right. Some people are offended by mixed marriage, gay people, atheism. So what? Fuck ’em.”
No, I don’t want to see the ’n’ word in print. No, I don’t want to see homophobia shouted on the street. No, I don’t want to see Muslims offended by a picture. I don’t however, think those who are saying/doing such things should be silenced, because I don’t think there is anyone out there who is fit to tell me what I can and can’t hear. I don’t think there is anyone out there who is fit to tell anyone what they can or can’t hear. It’s all or nothing. It’s free speech. You can’t say “Well yea, free speech but…” or “Free speech except for…”
On Wednesday 28th, the Central Circuit and Student Leadership put on a panel debate/discussion for students to come and voice their opinions and concerns about the publication of the Je Suis Charlie picture which depicted the Prophet Muhammad.
It was an emotional and passionate afternoon, which was to be expected. We had a turnout of 86 people, not including Central Circuit staff and faculty. People brought signs, people brought books, people were fired up and wanted to say their piece. That was amazing. I was proud of our publication for bringing people together to talk about an important topic, I was proud of students for being interested and not sticking to being apathetic, in keeping with most of our generation, and I was proud of and had respect for the Muslim community on campus to come out to speak for what they believed in.
To feel the tension in a room crank up with every word you speak is an odd and unpleasant feeling. To feel the air suck out of a room the moment before you talk. To know that every word you’re saying is being examined and analysed for a mistake. To say I have more respect for those who publicly speak is an understatement. I stuttered, I made mistakes, ones I think were mistaken in turn for ignorance about the topic.
I don’t really think it mattered what I said to be fair, I think most in attendance had made up their minds. The signs (“Charlie Hebdo = Hate” and “Keep bigotry out of Seattle Central”) at the back of the room showed that. Fair enough, I was there to be say my piece, so how can I be surprised or judge others that were there to do the same.
It was the clash I thought it would be, even if not the discussion I had anticipated. Emotions were high, and people lost their tempers. To those who came up to me afterwards and apologised for yelling, thank you. It meant a lot.
We went over time, and we didn’t get a closing statement, so I’ll use this place to do so now. The people who kill cartoonists don’t represent Islam. Certainly, that was what was made clear by those in the room. They don’t represent your religion, so why not let us publish the cartoons. Let us publish the cartoons, andstand by us. Say to those who want to be violent that, “No we don’t like these cartoons, yes we find them disrespectful, but they have the right to publish what they think and responding with violence is not in line with our beliefs and we won’t let you represent us like that.”
But this isn’t an article about Islam, or religion. This is an article (or is intended to be) about free speech and where offence fits into that. Also, where violence rebuttal to speech fits into that.
Fear is rife. No one wants to particularly admit it, but its true, and its fear regarding violent reprisal. I know that some of us on staff are nervous, and I know that some people who attended the talk were nervous. Some of those at the back of the room let us know that some of the mutterings were slightly more aggressive than those spoken into the microphone. Someone said to us at the talk “If you publish this cartoon, then bad things could happen and that would be your responsibility.”
Even while writing this article, we received an email from an instructor containing the following: “I urge you not to print the cover. Freedom of Speech is respectable. But some things said are disrespectful. I don’t want to die, and I don’t want anyone else to die. Please do not risk the lives of so many by printing the cover.” If that doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does.
It’s worth repeating: “I don’t want to die, and I don’t want anyone else to die.”
I believe in free speech. I believe in the unanimous and unalterable requirement for all speech to be permitted, as there is no way to truly decide upon who gets to say what and who doesn’t. I do also, however, acknowledge the need for respect. We have a large Muslim community on campus, and that community would clearly feel disrespected if we were to publish the cartoon. Despite what people may think, I don’t want to disrespect people. We don’t want to piss people off for no reason. I know thats the perception some students have and certainly a large amount of the faculty have, but it isn’t true.
What to do then? Opinions on staff were split, and no one had an idea that united us all together.
One idea that was suggested was a link in QR code, one of those little black boxes you could scan with your cell phone and it would take you to the Charlie Hebdo website where you could see the image. That way, we were not publishing the cartoon and we were letting people have the option. If they hadn’t seen the image and wanted to, they didn’t have to go to an alternate news source.
Some of us felt that was the perfect compromise. We wouldn’t publish the image ourselves, but we would give you the avenue to do so if you felt like you wanted to see it, or wouldn’t be offended. It put the (we felt) responsibility in your hands. Do what you will, we reported the news and didn’t publish offensive material.
Others felt that this would still be disrespectful, and would be the same as forcing the offending picture into peoples faces. I don’t know what to do, thats the truth. I have my values, and I have my heroes. By not printing the picture, I feel like I am betraying myself as a person. I’m ignoring my own personal integrity. Who am I to say “Je Suis Charlie” when I’m not prepared to show their material in case I offend someone?
It’s a tightrope. Do I show respect to a community that will quite clearly be furious at the publication of an image, or do I show respect for the journalists and cartoonists that were slaughtered for using their pen? So many questions and not enough time to come up with the answers.
We’re not going to publish the picture, nor are we going to post a QR code for you. To all those who were worried, don’t worry, you got your way. We will show you the respect that I’m sureyou’d show us if the shoe was ever on the other foot.
I don’t know what the right thing to do in this situation is. Or maybe I do. Maybe I’m just not free to say it.
