Freedom of Speech

With the recent attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine by Islamist extremists, there has been a revitalized flurry of discussion around the concept of "Freedom of Speech". On the one hand, there has been an outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo and public outcry against the terrorists who attacked it; people have cited their support of the freedom of speech as a basic human right as their justification for defending the magazine. There is also a group of people who, despite their significantly smaller size, stand firm against the magazine, claiming it should have been shut down long ago due to its unnecessarily vitriolic attacks against some of the world's largest and most helpful institutions, especially those with large followings. Regardless of the side people are on, everyone is strongly against the terrorists; extremism is never a solution and the ruthless killings of journalists has struck a chord with the people. One could argue that as satirists, they were simply doing their job, and their defenselessness as civilians further generated anger for their deaths. After all, without satire, society would never be able to look at its flaws from an objective point of view. But is the "freedom of speech" argument really so accurate? Are the people supporting it hypocrites, or simply deluded?

As was explained in the fascinating video we watched in class, freedom of speech is the ideal that any human being should have the right to say absolutely whatever he wants without the fear of oppression or persecution. However, and perhaps more importantly, a human being should also have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (two of the unalienable rights declared by the founding fathers of America, the third being life). And it is the conflict between these two sets of rights that has set the foundation for centuries of debate. What if something we say hurts another person so much that it destroys their mental freedom from anger and sorrow, or impede their happiness. Which right is more important? Our right to say what we wanted to? Or the other person's right to be happy and free from anguish? One of the most famous philosophers of all time, Voltaire, argued for freedom of speech above all else. In the famous maxim, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall to summarize Voltaire's attitude, she stated "I disapprove of what you have have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it." Proponents of freedom of speech have argued for years that society as a whole can never progress if its restricts the freedom of its citizens; most of modern journalism could never exist without this right, and dictatorships are a prime example of what can happen if a society is not allowed to speak up about the issues present in it.

On the other hand, there are some very good arguments against freedom of speech. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, from Schenck vs. United States, is a famous metaphor for a person's right to say what they want, despite great cost to the lives of other people. Creating panic in a tightly crowded room could easily cause a stampede which can result in the deaths of hundreds of people due to compressive asphyxiation. Literally every single government in the world restricts freedom of speech to some extent; copyright violations, hate speech, libel, and pornography are all examples of oft-restricted types of speech. If we had complete freedom of speech, there would be nothing to prevent people from creating child pornography or racists from spreading cruel propaganda against members of a race. And yet that is something the supporters of Charlie Hebdo do not understand. They viciously defend the right of the magazine's editors to free speech, but what about the right of their targets to a happy life? Are the cartoons and parodies of the magazine not simply cheap, disgusting attempts at generating controversy for a quick cash grab? Many former critics of the magazine have condemned its scandalous content. Like the video said, what if, instead of a terrorist attack on the magazine's editors, a small child, so anguished by the horrifyingly offensive content against her lifelong beliefs, had committed suicide outside their offices? Would people still be screaming for the protection of free speech? Would these same people who want to protect free speech also advocate for the removal of restrictions on pornography? Do we prohibit people's rights to be forgotten, their right to privacy to preserve the right for free speech?

Growing up in a progressive and significantly liberal environment, I was always a proponent of free speech and strongly against censorship. Embarrassingly, I never had the presence of mind to question these ideals, ironically mocking the same people who got brainwashed into censorship while never thinking about what I was being manipulated into thinking. Even now, in my junior year of high school, when I heard about the Charlie Hebdo attack, my knee-jerk reaction was an outpouring of anger and hatred against the terrorists, and sympathy for the magazine's editors. While I still strongly sympathize with the magazine's editors and their families, and wish for harsh punishments on the scum who took their lives, I have been forced to reconsider why I'm defending them. Is it simply a case of wanting to take the side of the perceived victim in a conflict? In that case, perhaps I was wrong. The Charlie Hebdo staff in no way deserved what happened to them, but from now on, I will refrain from blindly defending them and justifying myself by claiming I'm defending free speech, since that would be hypocritical. The right to free speech is not perfect and we will never live in a world where it is completely unrestricted.