It is safe to say that virtually all of us condemn deadly violence as a reaction against speech, ideas and opinions. Few would argue that speech — regardless of its content — is a sufficient provocation for murder, and we can all agree that the Charlie Hebdo shooting is a great tragedy.
I, however, have trouble understanding why people have been so quick to intimately align themselves with Charlie Hebdo, thereby implicitly condoning the magazine’s decision to publish works that could be labeled as hateful speech. When I read the ubiquitous hashtag “#JeSuisCharlie” it seems explicit in what it conveys — I am the perpetrator of hateful speech, and I could be the next target — we stand together. But one can support the value of free speech, affirm the tragedy of needless loss and balk at senseless violence without identifying oneself as a tone-deaf bully or martyrizing a hugely problematic magazine and the decisions of its writers.
All of this uproar suggests that freedom of speech is inherently valuable. The images and commentary Charlie Hebdo often published contain shocking and deeply offensive content relating to nearly every religion and ideology, some of which I would argue may even be hate speech. For example, the magazine is rife with Islamophobia, such as a Sep. 2012 cover that depicted the Prophet Mohammed on all fours with his genitals bared — note that seeing any visual depiction of the Prophet is considered to be a sin. Many people, however, still stand by the magazine’s right to publish such content, as disallowing it would impinge on a group’s right to express themselves — no matter how vile the expression.
Expression is important, regardless of what you are expressing, because it is a liberty that is crucial to an open society. In fact, expression is central to identity within such a society. Any kind of perceived censorship, especially when applied in a discriminatory manner, would communicate that your society does not value your freedom as much as that of other people in your society. To censor certain ideas constitutes widespread denial of the most essential human characteristic — speech. An unsavory outcome for a liberal democracy, right? France, however, curtails the rights of Muslim citizens to express themselves. France has banned pro-Palestinian protests, as well as religious symbols — even making it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public, thereby outlawing the burqa, hijab and the niqab. If free speech sometimes includes matters others may find offensive or even hateful, but is worthwhile anyway, then free speech must also include expressions of religious beliefs and tenets to which we do not all adhere. One cannot use freedom of expression as a defense for some actions, while completely ignoring its relevance elsewhere.
It is understandable that the present debate is focused on the particular type of speech that was targeted in the violent attacks. The notion that violence can ever be a reaction toward opinions is a frightening one — one that makes the world seem much less free and much more divided. It is important, however, to remember that there is a difference between oppressive government censorship and vigilante retribution. The latter can cause a deep mistrust of those around you and their commitment to liberal values. The former, though less immediately tragic and horrifying as violence or murder, is more insidious because government and systems of power can more effectively limit and shape speech. Despite this fact, French reactions to it are often tepid. For instance, where was the outcry when France ruled to ban Muslim school children from wearing hijabs? It is neither ideologically consistent nor helpful to the cause of free speech to be outraged by infractions only when a small handful of extremists with relatively little power target a handful of people.
We must have a complex understanding of free speech that does not include supporting groups in power’s harassing minority groups and exacerbating existing social ills. Though offensive speech may be a necessary evil, it can still be acknowledged as such without diminishing one’s commitment to anti-censorship sentiments. It is also important to include the involvement of government and other power systems along with small groups who threaten such values when discussing freedom of expression.
