T. J. Sullivan sees the terror attack at ‘Charlie Hebdo’ in Paris as a reminder that defending freedom of speech means defending speech we find uncomfortable, offensive, or scary.
___
Three items crawled across my Facebook newsfeed this morning.
First, that Atlanta’s fire chief, Kelvin Cochran, was fired in November after self-publishing a religious book in which he called homosexuality a “perversion.” Publisher’s Weekly quoted Atlanta’s mayor Kasim Reid as saying the chief was fired for his “judgment,” which might expose the city to discrimination lawsuits, not his faith.
Second, an item promoting support of a Change.Org petition urging a boycott of an upcoming TLC show, “My Husband’s Not Gay.” In the program, debuting this month, a group of Mormon men married to women attempt to subvert their sexual attraction to men. Petition supporters believe the show might send negative messages to young LGBT people in religious settings.
Third, the breaking news about the terrorist attack on the Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo satire magazine. Extremists have long targeted the magazine and its staff over depictions of the prophet Muhammad, and it appears that terrorists have now responded with violence.
Make no mistake, these three items are related.
A simple post on Twitter that takes 15 seconds to compose can inspire a victim, create awareness of a health crisis, or incite a riot halfway around the world—all within moments.
|
We celebrate the immense power and connectivity the Internet has brought us. It has opened up economic, educational, and informational opportunities that couldn’t have existed one generation ago. A simple post on Twitter that takes 15 seconds to compose can inspire a victim, create awareness of a health crisis, or incite a riot halfway around the world—all within moments.
As we celebrate this immense new power, we must also realize that the concept of free speech is a critical value freshly in need of defense. As surely as we considered carefully the significance of the 1971 publishing of “The Pentagon Papers” or the 1989 censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic art, we must consider today’s censorship battlefront.
♦◊♦
Today, everyone seems willing to promote censorship of ideas they dislike. Some gay community members who might have defended the value of Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic art are now willing to attack a TLC reality show or the self-publishing of a public official. Our outrage and willingness to censor is highly subjective.
While I agree the TLC show is exploitative and potentially harmful, I cannot support a petition to boycott it. I can’t support the firing of a public official for self-publishing his ideas outside the domain of his professional capacity. With the exception of hate speech, I can’t support censorship of opinions I don’t like just because I don’t like them.
I may squirm at Chris Rock’s SNL monologue about the Boston Marathon bombing. I might question the value of cartoons that incense violent Islamic fundamentalists. However, I need to actively support the right of free thinking individuals to go there. The greatest threat to this treasured freedom is our personal or collective annoyance and outrage leading to an effort to shut free speech down.
The line between firing a public official publishing a repugnant opinion and shooting an automatic rifle at a satirist is a straight one.
|
Censorship is wrong, even when you disdain the item being censored. Check yourself. If you dislike something, change the channel, cancel your subscription, avoid the comedy club. The line between firing a public official publishing a repugnant opinion and shooting an automatic rifle at a satirist is a straight one.
Nothing is more critical to the evolution and preservation of a free society than provocative art and ideas. Offensive as it is, we must defend the right to offend.
Photo—IsaacMao/Flickr
No John, they were terrorists, and they were mulim, therefore Muslim terrorists. Call them what they are They may hide and disguise themselves as Muslim or followers of Islam but that is just to promote hate, you said. No again. If I am a Christian and I dressed in a hajib or other traditional Arab dress according to the tenets of the Muslim community, shouting allahu akbar while doing it, and did such an atrocious act, then that would be a disguise borne of hate to pin the blame on others. Are they followers of moderate Islam? Probably not, but… Read more »
Sorry John, but I disagree. This attack was completely inspired by Islam and the depiction of the prophet Muhamed in a cartoon. It is not hate speech to identify something for what it is. Sweeping it under the rug will only serve to have more people killed in a similar fashion for similar reasons; you can’t solve a problem if you aren’t even willing to address it…
Why do you use the phrase “Muslim terrorists have now responded with violence”. The word “Muslim” does not need to be included. These are “terrorists” and nothing else. They may hide and disguise themselves as Muslim or followers of Islam but that is just to promote hate.
“Everyone seems to promote censorship of ideas they dislike…”
It is sad that those French writers died writing satire and criticism…to train men to fire machine gun rifles instead of how to speak, think, and write is an atrocity…
There should be no sacred cows…or cows too scared to even “moo” satirically…
Oddly enough, it’s frequently the people who argue for “tolerance” that are the least tolerant of those who disagree with them.
To paraphrase ‘Dirty Harry’, nothing’s wrong with offending as long as the right people get offended.
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/in-defense-of-the-right-to-offend-fiff/ I tend to agree with the OP, with perhaps very very few, if any, caveats: I don’t think anyone is trying to defend or succor overt, bald hate-speech: Even in the freest, most open of societies, we have instituted limits & recourses to what is and is not legally, morally, and ethically protected under the right to offend- it’s broad, but it is by no means infinite or completely unconditional; nor is it absolute or monolithic. As such, the relative, situational and tenuous boundaries are what concern us; yesterday, today, and going forward tomorrow. I’m also reminded of… Read more »
Free speech, including the right to offend is the greatest gift from the united states, and the one most under the knife today. Without it we have no dialogue nor any opportunity to learn. Surely the right does this but I found the left is our greatest danger because they couch it in terms of for the people, and civilized, and warm puppies and cookies. For the children they say but it is a lie of power and control. To go against them is to argue in favor of nuclear war and all sorts of despicable things humans are capable… Read more »