On January 7, 2015, the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo made international headlines after two gunmen entered its office in Paris and proceeded to kill eight journalists. The attack sparked a three-day manhunt in Paris that culminated in the deaths of the two gunmen, brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi. The brothers, who had links to the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, had targeted Charlie Hebdo because of its portrayal of Islam, generally, and Muhammad, specifically, in both articles and cartoons.
The act of terror, heralded by journalists as the worst attack in France in forty years, familiarized millions of outsiders with the name Charlie Hebdo. Within days, the cry “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) had filled social media, as foreigners adopted the phrase to show their support for free speech.
Here, however, it seems important to make a distinction between the two issues at hand: terrorism and free speech. The attack on Charlie Hebdo, undoubtedly an act of terror, cannot be justified, and France is right to take the necessary actions to bring the perpetrators to justice and prevent further attacks.
But the issue of free speech isn’t as straightforward. Although most Westerners view freedom of speech as a paramount value, in this instance one wonders how many people know exactly what kind of free speech they are supporting. After all, familiarity with the title of a publication doesn’t necessarily signify familiarity with its content. And I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the people who jumped on the bandwagon of free speech would stop short of supporting some of Charlie Hebdo’s publications.
In light of the American tendency to pay at least verbal homage to tolerance, Charlie Hebdo is a bit of an anomaly. Its reputation for lambasting Islam, Christianity and Judaism and for publishing articles and cartoons intended to cause offense to adherents of these three world religions certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed. (In fact, major American and British newspapers have refused to republish some of Charlie Hebdo’s content – though whether this stems from scruples about decency or from fear of inviting attacks similar to the one in Paris is unclear.) That is why I hesitate to ally myself with the cry for free speech in this particular instance.
Like most Westerners, I view freedom of speech as an important value. But I also believe that there are values more important than this – values such as, say, decency, respect, and truthfulness in publishing. In other words, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to distinguish between free speech and responsible speech. In an ideal world, the two would go hand-in-hand. But Charlie Hebdo serves as a reminder that we don’t live in an ideal world. Here free speech can be both irresponsible and insensitive. It can be used, as Charlie Hebdo uses it, to publish inflammatory content purposefully designed to anger and offend certain groups. Over the last several days, Charlie Hebdo’s content has elicited not a few articles distinguishing between free and responsible speech. And given some of the magazine’s tasteless – may we even go so far as to describe the content as crass? – publications, I’d say that that is a fair distinction to make.
Before I’m accused of looking at Charlie Hebdo through the biased lens of toleration, I will point out that the issues surrounding some of its content have already evoked responses in its defense. One French citizen, in particular, asserts, “Even if their sense of humour was apparently inacceptable to English minds . . . it fell well within the French tradition of satire – and after all was only intended for a French audience.” The likes of Rousseau and Voltaire did come out of France, so I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise. When, however, did cultural practice become the litmus test for basic decency?
In the upcoming weeks, people of vastly different religious beliefs will be working through the two issues surrounding Charlie Hebdo, and as they do so, I think that it is perfectly appropriate to distinguish between supporting France’s fight against terrorism and supporting Charlie Hebdo’s inflammatory content.