|
In France, it looks like a funny way to honor those who paid for free speech with their lives. The photos of French citizens, showing their faces as they held up their copies of Charlie Hebdo for the camera, in a symbolic act of defiance against terror, were censored by the "Anglo-Saxon media."
|
By coincidence, a thoughtful diary focused on improving discussion, here, when people talk about religious beliefs, and questioned whether comments about the topic should be moderated. When does opinion cross over into prejudice? by Wee Mama.
The friction that disrupts civil discourse is a long, long way from the atrocity that left a dozen people dead in Paris. But it came to mind this week with a few comments condemning all the world's Muslims because "All this for a cartoon?" We already know religious beliefs are a sensitive topic for everyone alike, not just Muslims, believers, or non-believers.
Juan Cole wrote an excellent article this week to explain how terror organizations use devices like offensive cartoons for recruitment. He says their strategy is to persuade Muslims in France who are mostly apolitical and apathetic that they're singled out unfairly and under constant attack. Rightwing leaders like Marine Le Pen oblige them with gratuitous rhetoric that stirs up her follows, but has little to do with actual problems.
By replacing normal judgment with elevated levels of fear and anger in just a few receptive individuals, organized terror groups manage to attract recruits. Juan Cole is correct and others have been saying the same in France for months. The Front National refuses to tone down unnecessary rhetoric. Today, the press reported that all of France's political parties agreed to participate in a national unity rally on Sunday with one notable exception. Mme. Le Pen spent the day crying to anyone who'd listen because she and the Front National were not invited.
|
What would it say to Muslims around the world when they see the front page of 'Charlie Hebdo' pixelated and blurred out by US newspapers like an obscenity? We all agree what they shouldn't do. But wouldn't some take it as a confirmation of something offensive, after all? If the material was just an inconsequential cartoon, they'd show it, wouldn't they?
When Le Monde inquired with the Associated Press about the blurred images, the reply was in standard bureaucratic jargon. "It's not their policy to publish deliberately provocative images." CNN referred to Charlie Hebdo's caricatures as "offensive." Editorial decisions at the New York Times, the New York Daily News, Reuters, and a number of other news outlets in the US and the UK were the same or similar. They could have omitted images entirely, substituting descriptions, instead of what they communicated non-verbally, with blurring, which suggests enough to lead the imagination to extremes.
There's no hint from any of these news sources that it ever occurred to them that they gave the public mixed messages about the cartoons, or considered how their news reports would be received. The Financial Times in London published an article that called 'Charlie Hebdo' "stupid" and "irresponsible." It was revised later but its editor made matters worse with this statement
|
France is the country of Voltaire but too often editorial irresponsibility prevailed at "Charlie Hebdo." It's not in the least a case of excusing murderers, who must be caught and punished, nor to suggest that freedom of expression shouldn't apply to satirical representations of religion. But only to say that common sense would be useful in publications such as "Charlie Hebdo," or the Danish newspaper "Jyllands-Posten, " which claim victory for freedom by provoking) Muslims, when, in reality, they are only stupid. |
|
The American free speech formula is weakened by contradictions. They say it comes with no strings attached, including freedom of speech we hate, like when the
Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977. We certainly disagree with the editorial content presented by media outlets, but we don't attack them with weapons. We accept what we don't like, and expect the same tolerance from others in return.
The First Amendment only protects the right of individuals to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal from the government. But free speech between individuals isn't protected and free speech between a business enterprise and an individual isn't protected, either, except in cases of libel or slander.
American media censored Charlie Hebdo's caricatures and they don't need more explanation than what they gave.
In France, freedom of expression is reinforced with a guarantee that extends it equally to everyone. The Declaration of Rights, written in 1789 at the time of the Revolution is similar to the American Bill of Rights but it includes an additional Article.
|
IV. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. |
|
Article IV makes bigotry and racism a crime. Most Americans, today, would see that as an infringement on their freedom of speech and expression and the free exchange of ideas. But racists and bigots don't accept a system founded on equal rights for all, or for anyone but themselves and those they choose to include. In France, that makes them an existential danger to the system itself, and therefore, not entitled to permissive laws that allow them to practice bias against others.
Americans cherish their freedoms. They recite the words. But they fail to guarantee freedom and justice for all while the French make a determined effort to reach the high ideals and principles we share with them.
In other words, #IamCharlie only goes so far.