If this blog post turns out to be amalgam of
sorts, don't be surprised; my ADD mind isn't the best at staying on one track.
On one hand the intended focus is on specific, international current affairs.
More abstractly, it's about beliefs, and navigating the conflict that arises
when they clash. Few things seem as interesting to me as our belief systems,
these problematic things that even the most irreverent among us must have,
which we care so strongly about and pour so much of ourselves into. We forge
our identities about them, and are always ready to defend them fiercely and
blindly.
Surely we've all seen and heard enough of the recent Charlie Hebdo shooting and aftermath that I don't need to go into great detail. And as this blog post is already on track to be unreasonably long, I think I'll try to frame my focus on the occurrences of the past couple days. In the wake of all the Je suis Charlie and condemnation of religious extremism, there's now been another string of protests, these against Charlie Hebdo and its most recent depiction of the Prophet Muhammad on its front. Many have been relatively peaceful, but anyone turning on world news on Monday saw images of violent rioters in Niger, where 10 were killed and many more wounded. Personally, I was almost bothered more by the confusedness of it than the violence. How was ripping apart bibles and burning dozens of Christian churches and schools a logical response to the irreligious sentiment of an adamantly atheist publication? It shouldn't be surprising that angry people are conflating vaguely related entities in their search for targets; this French-language blasphemy = France = the West = Christians. I suppose once the torches are lit something has to be burned. Need I even ask why there was an Israeli and American flag being burned alongside the Tricolore?
I could get off on a theological tangent, looking to medieval
representations of Muhammad in the Muslim world and pointing out the Quran
never exactly actually forbids this, but I don't think any explicit religious
canon should be the focus here. In large part, Charlie Hebdo's offensive cartoons are intended as provocation,
even with the rather reconciliatory tone of the headline that accompanied the
latest cover, "Tout est pardonné." The things they
publish may often seem vulgar or gratuitous, and they've offended the
sensibilties of far more than one or two groups--no doubt its perceived poor
taste has had something to due with the magazine's fairly limited circulation
in the past (about 60,000 copies, normally). But none of this has stopped the
outflowing of support since the January 7th attacks, as evidenced by the
millions of copies the last edition has sold and the largest public
demonstrations France has ever seen. I'll refrain from indulging myself with
that oft-misattributed quote about defending to the death a certain right of
yours, despite our differences in opinion. Still, it is applicable. Even those
that consider themselves moderate, I think, should recognize the important role
played by shockingly blasphemous satirists. They challenge our beliefs, yes,
but more important they create a zone of free speech in which we can operate
safely, expressing our comparatively mild ideas.
Part of me can't help but worry that I might be hypocritical in
saying all this, given that there are certain opinions in the US I would rather
see disappear (including some very racist and homophobic ones). Frankly, I'm
not sure how to answer the seeming paradox in tolerating intolerance. But there
is a fundamental difference between objecting to a viewpoint and trying to
forcibly prevent it from being shared. I've had to roll my eyes of late
whenever certain segments of the right lament the death of free speech because
some insensitive comment is facing public criticism (people who wish to rant
about the First Amendment really should gain a better understanding of it).
Perhaps public censure discourages open exchanges of ideas in a way, but the
encroachment would be far worse if we tried to limit others' ability to object
to our beliefs.
If there's one thing everyone on every side of every issue can
find common ground on, it's the enjoyment of some good ol’ righteous
indignation.
I believe everyone agrees that there just some things you shouldn't say to others or in public, yes this goes against freedom of speech but for the sake of social harmony people just know. That being said there is a hypocrisy in who can say what. For example how black people can say black pride and nobody batts an eye but if i was to say white pride people would call me racist. There are even some words that I do not need to say on here that only certain types of people can say, Is that freedom of speech? Is that true equality?
ReplyDeleteI agree that society has a mess of double standards that can seem arbitrary and senseless, and it's difficult to maneuver these at times. No doubt even identical content of speech will face different reactions depending upon the speaker's race, gender, affiliations, socio-economic background, etc.This isn't equal, and it may not be fair, but is it a freedom of speech issue? I'm not sure. Just because we refrain from saying certain things for fear of appearing racist or stupid doesn't mean we "can't" express these offensive ideas. We're self-censoring for our convenience.
DeleteThat's how exactly why freedom of speech works. You raise the good point, Matthew, that there's an important difference between getting pushback, and being censored. Indeed, one of the most powerful forms of pushback is to simply ignore something altogether--that's often the best form of countering an offensive opinion without suppressing or censoring it. The notion of freedom of speech in many ways has several affinities with Smith's notion of the invisible hand, in that even if individuals can "say whatever they want" or pursue whatever economic activity they choose, in practice their desire to see themselves as part of a community will tend to encourage them to dialogue productively. And if they don't, they will most often be ignored, or, in the economic realm, their services or their produces won't be purchased.
DeleteI agree that there seems to be some sort of disconnect between the idea of freedom of speech and the actual execution of it. Charlie Hebdo was a satirical publication, and that was well known from the beginning. Their goal is pretty much to incite some new forms of thought or somewhat force people into a middle ground that they can agree upon. It seems to be a recurring theme over the years where groups of people get upset over works of satire (i.e. Animal Farm) when in reality the authors of such literature generally are not writing them in malicious intent. If its not written maliciously, then i see no reason in these groups rebelling and being angered besides their own insecurity in their beliefs. If you are sure of your faith, most faiths firstly call for peace (some variation of "love thy neighbor") then there is no reason to attack others for expressing their opinions or an inflation of opinions that are already floating around the general public.
ReplyDelete