On Censorship

[JRP1994]

I've been thinking.

What makes this horrible and barbaric terrorist attack in Paris even more disturbing is that this was not merely an attack on a magazine office in Paris - this was, quite simply, an attack on one of the most basic and most fundamental rights of man: freedom of expression.

The right to speak/write freely exists, by definition, to protect controversial speech - speech that some will inevitably disagree with, and that some will consider offensive or blasphemous. Think about it. Small talk doesn't need protection - there are no crusades to stop people from talking about the weather. You never hear about car-bombings against sports pundits. The fact is, it’s controversial and offensive speech that does need protection. Not a single person on earth has the right to censor someone - much less attack them - for the mere purpose of avoiding offense. Nobody has the right to not be offended merely by being a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or of a certain political persuasion.

I firmly believe that unless someone's speech or writing presents a clear and present danger - such as an explicit call to violence - it should NOT be censored. This includes pornography, obscenity, political dissent, criticism of any and all religion, racist/xenophobic/homophobic speech, and any similar controversial speech.

The fallacy of censorship is that it assumes that man cannot decide for himself what is appropriate for him to hear, yet finds it perfectly acceptable to give that responsibility to other men - government, specifically - to determine it for him. Even the most disgustingly offensive speech must be granted utmost protection. If a radical says that the Jews deserved the Holocaust and brought it on themselves, his speech must be protected. If a cartoonist draws a cartoon depiction of Mohammed that some find offensive, his speech must be protected. Phil Robertson's anti-gay statements are as important as Noam Chomsky's writings in the sense of the necessity to protect them. Simply put, the more controversial the speech, the more important it is to protect (so long as the speech does not incite violence.)

As Salman Rushdie said, "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

[Oakvale]

?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you clutch your lapels when you wrote that?

Anyway, I'm not really sure what the awful events of yesterday had to do with censorship, even if they obviously had a lot to do with freedom of expression. Censorship is about an authority (typically an arm of the state, but not necessarily) using its authority to suppress something. It isn't the same thing as trying to shut someone up with threats (and acts) of violence, even if there can sometimes be an overlap. The maniacs who gunned down a bunch of (harmless) scatological cartoonists (and their staff) were agents of no authority.

[politicus]

a bunch of (harmless) scatological cartoonists (and their staff) were agents of no authority.

Strange term to use in this context.

[Deus Naturae]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

I trust you on this since you knew what Charlie Hebdo was before this happened and I didn't, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is often a finer line than we like to think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

I trust you on this since you knew what Charlie Hebdo was before this happened and I didn't, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is often a finer line than we like to think.

Yes, I assume some will disagree with what I've said and cite drawings that maybe stretched this line a bit. But still, I don't think you will find any text or image from Charlie which directly attacked Muslims (or for that matter, Catholics or anyone else) as a people. I think that's worth reminding considering how often they've been wrongfully accused of being hateful douchebags. Nothing could be further from reality.

[Deus Naturae]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

What do you mean by "hate speech"? I don't the OP or anybody else would suggest that their legacy was one of racism or hatred (well, some people might, but not anyone who supported the cartoonists), though of course people should be free to express those things as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

What do you mean by "hate speech"? I don't the OP or anybody else would suggest that their legacy was one of racism or hatred (well, some people might, but not anyone who supported the cartoonists), though of course people should be free to express those things as well.

I just want to point out that Charlie Hebdo's line was very definite and not quite as "anarchical" or "inconsiderate" as some may have suggested. Certainly these people exercised their freedom of expression and took it very far, but they knew what they were doing - and what they didn't want to do.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Despite everything that had been said, the brilliant people who animated Charlie Hebdo knew all well  the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. Their drawings were often crude and provocative, but never hateful. Despite their old slogan, they were anything but "dumb and mean". They were animated by values of universal solidarity and peaceful coexistence. Yes, they were militant anticlericals, but frankly I don't think that's the main point. They opposed organized religions because they saw them as forces of hatred and oppression. That's their legacy IMO.

Those limits being?

Hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never engaged in hateful drawings or commentary, and had a policy of attacking ideas and beliefs rather than groups of people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good job taking a picture that was denouncing racism and the FN completely out of context.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In all fairness, I don't speak French I just found it on google

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course you did. There are many lies that circulate online against Charlie Hebdo. They are hated by Islamist radicals and their apologists as much as they are by Catholic fundamentalists and far rightists.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Of course you did. There are many lies that circulate online against Charlie Hebdo. They are hated by Islamist radicals and their apologists as much as they are by Catholic fundamentalists and far rightists.

Many fellow leftists seem to be accusing them of racism. The most...questionable cartoon was that one of the kidnapped Nigerian girls shown as pregnant.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Of course you did. There are many lies that circulate online against Charlie Hebdo. They are hated by Islamist radicals and their apologists as much as they are by Catholic fundamentalists and far rightists.

Many fellow leftists seem to be accusing them of racism. The most...questionable cartoon was that one of the kidnapped Nigerian girls shown as pregnant.

you're misrepresenting

You must be logged in to read this quote.

other lovely not-at-all-hateful cartoons

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

[politicus]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

It was still a post-68/leftist no respect publication and letting the Pope say "the French are as dumb as n****rs" is rather obviously part of its anti-clerical satire.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

It was still a post-68/leftist no respect publication and letting the Pope say "the French are as dumb as n****rs" is rather obviously part of its anti-clerical satire.

Yes, I know. I meant to say that I didn't have a personal experience of it so I don't feel like vouching for it. I certainly don't think it was racist either. On the other hand, I will always wholeheartedly defend post-1992 Charlie Hebdo, whose values are mine.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

this isn't reddit. "it's just 'dark humour'" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for racism

[politicus]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

this isn't reddit. "it's just 'dark humour'" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for racism

It is only "racism" if you choose to interpret it that way. Their line was "fight against power and oppression wherever you find it" and in the French anti-clerical tradition they had a special fondness for attacking religious leaders and reationary religious people. In a French context that meant going after a fair amount of Muslims, anything else would have been hypocritical of them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People can interpret things in different ways, of course (and are well within their rights to). If there's a right to offend, there must also be a right to be offended. Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to what happened though; even had Charlie Hebdo been the house comic of the Front National (hah!) then its staff would still not have deserved to be gunned down at their weekly editorial meeting.

[politicus]

To those that think Charlie Hebdo only were rude to Muslims:

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Next cover should satirise Muslims and the Front, to prevent Le Pen soapboxing anymore.

(Le Pen has just announced she is "not Charlie")