Two Muslim extremists sought Jan. 7 to avenge the Prophet Muhammad, who had been depicted in multiple vulgar cartoons by the satirical Parisian magazine Charlie Hebdo. Two men associated with Al-Qaida attacked the publication’s headquarters in a shooting that resulted in 12 deaths and 11 injuries of both Charlie Hebdo writers and the police officers who responded to the scene.
By now, most of us are aware of the events that surrounded the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the terror threats that have followed. One of the greatest responses to this tragedy has been the solidarity of western countries behind the cry, “Je suis Charlie,” or, “We are Charlie,” a phrase upholding the right to free speech and free press. The image of world nations coming together behind this phrase has been inspiring and encouraging, especially to journalists.
However, as events continue to unfold, the question that seems to be looming over Charlie Hebdo is, “How free is speech and where do we draw the line?” Many publications have refused to publish or share the controversial illustrations for fear that they will invite or incite more violence from radical Muslims. In a “60 Minutes” interview, radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary explained that the covers were interpreted by Muslims as “an act of war.”
In the United States, freedom of speech can only be limited when it is either offensive or threatening, such as fighting words that “tend to incite an immediate breach to the peace,” according to the 1942 Supreme Court ruling, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. So when it comes to choosing whether to publish controversial covers like those of Charlie Hebdo, are we simply avoiding violence or are we censoring?
While I understand the concerns of those who chose not to use the covers, I believe that their publication is necessary. The moment we allow opinions, especially those that are mere satire, to threaten peace, we open a door to excessive censorship.
Here’s the thing: Charlie Hebdo also published some pretty nasty covers with Jesus on them. Did I like those covers? No, not really. But an essential part of exercising freedom of speech and press is the ability to simultaneously exercise tolerance. It is completely understandable why anyone who practices Islam, let alone any other religion that Charlie Hebdo has mocked, would be upset or offended by its covers.
However, it is zealotry and intolerance that inspire the use of violence to silence any disagreeable use of free speech. Ultimately, to censor the magazine and not publish the covers is to condone the use of terror and intolerance of disagreeable speech – speech that is protected.
It’s for this reason that the French police officer and Muslim Ahmed Merabet has become a hero to many people, dying to protect the free speech that mocked his own religion.
Many people forget that Islam shares many of the same values as Christianity and that both religions even share some of the same prophets. Radical Islamists are not that different from radical Christians. They both may take their scripture out of context and use it to justify negative actions. The actions of Merabet illustrate tolerance cross-culturally and the need for all of us, regardless of our ethnic backgrounds, religions or political views, to respect free speech and press.
This is what it means to say, “Je suis Charlie.” It goes beyond whether or not something should be published; it is a symbol of respect for opinions and a tolerance for free speech, even when it is voicing an opinion we don’t agree with.
So now I’m asking, “Étes-vous Charlie?” Are you Charlie? If being Charlie means that we stand for freedom of speech and the press, then we have to be ready to stand up for the ugly side of Charlie – the side we don’t agree with.
As members of a Western country with such a high value of freedom, it is easy for many of us to stand up and say, “We are Charlie,” but how many of us can actually respectfully disagree with someone else’s speech?
If we are truly going to learn from the Charlie Hebdo shooting, it goes beyond just agreeing that free speech is a right, but also practicing our ability to discuss different opinions and make light of jokes we may not agree with. It means that we hear and respect voices different from our own, even here on Azusa Pacific’s campus. It means that we don’t just say someone is “stupid” for liking Obama more than Romney or vice versa. It means reminding yourself that a productive conversation has never happened over Facebook comments responding to an obnoxious post. It means being Charlie.
“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire