Charlie Hebdo offends – and we must defend its right to do so
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Bill Durodie of the University of Bath argues in the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo offices by gunmen society and the media have a duty to overcome the censorious culture which has seeped into Western societies.
The motive behind the tragic shootings at the headquarters of satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris has not yet been confirmed but it seems clear that there is a link between the publication’s stance on controversial content and the decision by several masked gunmen to launch such a murderous attack against the staff.
The perpetrators of the attack, in which 12 were killed and several more critically wounded, must be apprehended – but, more broadly, we also need to reaffirm the importance of absolute freedom of expression in an open society – regardless of how offensive it might be to some and, on occasion, how puerile it may become. The solution to bad ideas – as the enlightenment philosopher John Stuart Mill noted – is not censorship but more speech with which to counter them.
By all accounts Charlie Hebdo has certainly been scurrilous and provocative in the past and hasn’t relented in its approach since 2006, when it republished controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, or since 2011 when its offices were fire bombed. Recent front covers have poked fun not just at the Muslim prophet, but the Pope, Jesus, Jews, various world leaders and celebrities. Infantile as some of this may seem, it is also a reaction to an increasingly censorious society.
great stuff Bill
There is a big difference between defending freedom of speech and actively seeking to offend people. Of course I do not think this attack was at all justified, but I do not agree that we should defend the media’s right to offend, no matter who it is. Where you say “censorious” I would argue society is trying to be more respectful towards one another. We do not live in the dark ages when understanding about other ideas, religions, beliefs was limited. People learn these days at school and throughout life what different beliefs mean to their believers, that a certain act may be humorous to one culture but truly offensive to another. People might have the right to act a certain way or publish something under freedom of speech but is it necessary? What does it really achieve? To me, doing something just because you have the right to do it, regardless of the impact on others, is arrogant and condescending. There are many ways to encourage more speech about “bad ideas” as you put it. Cartoonists around the world have managed to poke fun at Islam for decades without actually drawing the Prophet Mohammed. Doing so and still getting the message across makes it all the more clever. I hope the media remembers this as the week goes on.