Raelene Kajkowski  |  Contributing Writer

Satire in film, literature and other forms of publication is usually used to humorously show fault in a person or an occurrence in the hope of prompting society to make a change for the better. Yet it can be difficult for society to determine which types of satire are appropriate for publication, if any at all.

France’s Charlie Hebdo newspaper was named after a cartoonist who was known for his intentionally controversial cartoons dealing with various religions and political figures. On Jan. 7, cartoonists and others at the offices of the satirical publication were brutally murdered for their artistry. Two gunmen avenging the Prophet Muhammad attacked the newspaper’s offices, killing 12 and injuring many more.

The image that the newspaper tweeted minutes before the attack was a cartoon depicting ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, with a caption above the image stating, “Best wishes and good health.”

Since the tragedy, many people around the world have responded by creating and wearing signs reading the words “Je suis Charlie” to honor those who were killed, and to demonstrate their support for freedom of speech.

“It is unfortunate that freedom of speech has been squelched by violence, that we no longer can express ourselves freely in the media” said APU student Angel Eleyae. As a senior journalism major, she places importance on the rights and safety of those exercising free speech.

“Although there is something called ‘politically correct,’ no one should lose their lives for art,” she added.

Satire is protected by the First Amendment and comparable free speech laws in other regions. Satirical publications like Charlie Hebdo and The Onion are well-known for putting hard topics such as politics into a more comedic light through jokes or cartoons. Charlie Hebdo was known for its savagely artistic treatment of sensitive topics such as religion, as in this case. For doing so, the cartoonists and others lost their lives.

Dr. Aaron Mead, professor of ethics and moral philosophy at APU, holds a strong stance on “flourishing together” while living among those of other faiths.

“I do think it is morally permissible for Charlie Hebdo to have printed and published religious satire,” Mead says. “Indeed, I believe the permission to publish freely, including views and content that might be offensive to religious people of all kinds, is a cornerstone of a good life and a good society. To live well, both as individuals and as a society, we need knowledge. We need to know what sorts of activities, rules and practices will help us flourish together.”

Journalists may refer to the code of ethics in their field, but that does not mean all abide by it. The interpretation of these tenets, just like values, differ depending on one’s experiences, background, culture and religion.

Mead states the key that John Stuart Mill taught in “Our Liberty” is “to be able to reach knowledge, one must not cast out the views that are different from others.” With those views, one must then question the truth and leave room for free and open debate.

“The people that perpetrated the crime in France seem far too confident in their views, to me,” says Mead. “They are convinced that there is no possibility that their extremist brand of Islam is incorrect, and thus they have closed their ears to any contrary views. They see no value in the free publication of satirical views like those printed in Charlie Hebdo because they cannot imagine that they themselves might be wrong.”

Mead continues: “Religious people, or people in general, need to have a thicker skin, and they need to really think about what their opponents are saying. If your opponent is right and you see why, then she will have helped you toward the truth. If your opponent is wrong and you see why, then she will again, have helped you toward the truth. Either way, she will have helped you.”

Dr. Brooke Van Dam, assistant professor of journalism at APU, believes that satire is used to “deflate intense conversations and differences” and to lighten certain heavier conversation topics.

“In the same way that you have the right not to buy [the magazine], he [Charlie Hebdo] had the right,” said Van Dam. “Their brand of satire was not forced on people. It wasn’t on government-sanctioned television in the evening; it was a small-circulation magazine that was known for creating cartoons that pushed the boundaries.”

People respond to different types of news according to their various backgrounds and experiences. In the U.S., a popular form of satire is carried on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report.” While many people tune in for a good laugh at the politicians or current news events, others may stay away from such humor. It is a choice whether to listen, watch or read such material.

Freedom of speech is an inherent right for many. However, with that right comes the unfortunate reality that not everyone is going to share a similar point of view. But as evidenced by the journalists of Charlie Hebdo, with freedom of speech also comes the difficult choice of “practicing safe press” or taking risks.