Assuming I can format this correctly, this is the first of my truly philosophical-based writings primarily expressing my own opinion, and looking at the MLA blog potentially the first post there too… For the sake of irony, lets hope this isn't censored or distorted too much in editing.
I was talking to a fellow blogger on this page, James Herbert, regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and its implication on wider western society and the Freedom of Speech held close to all of us, I assume, on something as freedom-necessitating as the internet. And it prompted me to air an important point on what freedom of speech actually means, and what we should understand about it before we truly proclaim to believe in it.
I fundamentally believe that people are neither good, nor bad. That morality wavers with time, and that no one can judge anyone more so than they themselves can be judged. In a moral and just society, there is literally no executioner, judge, or jury which is not potentially going to be put before their peers.
This is not to say, once said, things should not be judged. Merely one cannot judge anything before it has been said, and that anything is subject to critique once that opinion is out there. That is free speech to me. You have the opportunity to say anything without criminal proceedings before you, but once a statement has been publicly declared, it is subject to public opinion and — verbal — backlash. Physical actions are irrelevant to statements in this regard — and arguably should be to any liberal. You can only physically damage the voice of the opinion, not the opinion itself: you cannot beat down or hide away a racist opinion, only racists.
The Charlie Hebdo attacks and international response are proof of western culture’s hypocrisy with proclaiming the basic value of freedom of speech, and then defending the prosecution of those things we value as ‘taboo’. Those in the front line of the ‘freedom of speech’ defence marches are right dicks about the entire concept and some came not in defence of the attackers, but in conversation effectively said ‘talk shit, you ought to expect to get hit’: creating an ethical link between freedom of speech and political correctness. Both counter what the march, and what Charlie Hebdo stood for (that is, even if Charlie Hebdo didn’t realise it).
Before I really begin, Charlie Hebdo is an awful satirist magazine, truly. They did nothing to further any cause bar to widen the gap between the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds: ‘haha’ cried some non-Muslims as the highly rated figure in Islam engaged in obscene acts, and ‘I don’t like this’ cried some Muslims in the same instance. Others didn't care about the relatively small publication, but that aside, those that did learned nothing and no one was taught about any truth that was previously hidden to them. It was bad satire. I could show you fifty pictures of Jesus in worse positions, but that’s not the point. It was never the point to humanize the prophet Muhammad (which would have been potentially beneficial) but to humiliate him within an echo-chamber that only non-Muslims (well, Islamophobics) would appreciate. If that isn't bad satire, god knows what is: and frankly if it was good satire I’ve lost faith in the genre as an educational tool.
That aside, Charlie Hebdo and others have the right to be absolutely stupid, and disagreeable. Within a week of the ‘free speech’ march, an anti-Semitic comedian (Diuedonne) was arrested and will potentially stand trial for saying a stupid thing within the same nation as these marches and attacks occurred. This is an escalated business as usual for those who say the wrong thing.
I am a liberal, truly, in the sense that I believe that idiots will make our lives harder — be they those who gun down others, fly planes into buildings, or antagonise people to do so. But that’s the entire point. We should aim for a world where people like Diuedonne have their tours cancelled, not because the judicial system disagrees with their stances and orders them to stop, but because no one agrees with their anti-Semitic stances, and so no one buys their tickets to shows promoting that stance. And anyone else who believes in free speech I argue should agree with this, completely in the acknowledgement that it means sometimes people will say things which cause others to want to kill perpetrators . You can hope for better, but you sadly cannot demand it. The act of being an idiot does not have any relation to another’s ability to take a life, or the desire to do so. To put responsibility on the victim of an attack like this would be, as Bill Mahr says, “like saying the rape victim didn’t understand that her clothes were too provocative” and so they should harbour responsibility. Both are stupid statements, regardless of how much anyone has a right to state them.
Jack Moran, 24/01/2015
