"We should not have either a blunt knife or a freedom of
speech which is ill-managed."
-- Epictetus
Free speech is being bandied about willy-nilly again, as if
everyone agrees on what it does and doesn't mean. I would like to say we all
agree that it means you can draw a cartoon of anything you want, of anyone you
want, and not be murdered. Of course I can't say that, as we've known for several years before Charlie Hebdo, since
some Danish folks died for the same reason almost a decade ago.
There's been a fair amount of tsk-tsk behind most of the words of
support France and the victims have received. The general idea is that they
were poking the bear, something along the lines of "We should all have
free speech, but we probably shouldn't actually use it to deliver any unwanted
messages." A friend actually said the same thing about "The Interview"
a few weeks ago--that Sony should have known what they were doing when they
decided to mock a tyrant and a madman.
In fact, they did know what they were doing, and these are just
the sort of exercises that ought to be protected wholeheartedly, without
reservation. I haven't seen "the Interview" yet. It looks juvenile,
frankly. But that may be part of the charm too. In some ways, I wonder if it
isn't portraying the transition a Hollywood up-and-comer goes through the when
they suddenly realize they are part of the establishment, with
responsibilities, an audience, and a bully pulpit. Can you remain entirely a
lightweight, or must you, at some point, say something? Having stayed out of
the way long enough to build a following, one must, perhaps, finally lead. Or maybe
they just wanted to make fun and North Korea was an easy target. Their
leadership is certainly not a protected class. We make fun of nearly everything
and everyone else. Why not them?
Religion too, is hardly off limits in any other case save Islam.
"Is nothing sacred?" someone will ask, and the answer is a resounding
no. Make no mistake though; these journalists who dared to print these images
did so with clear intent. At least in part, they believed that religious
figures, particularly those that are arguably historical, belong to the world,
not merely to their adherents. Suggesting that no one can speak of Mohammed or
Jesus without being a believer is tantamount to saying that no one may speak of
Santa Claus without accepting that reindeer can fly.
Those who imagine themselves the most civil may suggest that it
was the manner of the argument that was the problem--that one can object
without violating an opponents spiritual imperatives. No doubt, that's true.
But let's not pretend it's common practice, or even generally well received.
These same supposedly principled but cautious citizens might well have
supported the civil rights movement, but only up to the point where the races
actually wanted to marry. After all, that sort of thing could (and did) result
in violence.
The truth is that the violation is necessary, and, sadly, the
violence probably is too. The pen is quickly being adopted as the ready symbol
for the rebirth of free speech as an issue. As in all things, it seems, I am a
man without a party. For while I believe in the pen, and that it should be
wielded free from the threat of violence, I also believe that such safety is
only bought with blood or the threat of it.
Thus, if words are the weapon, the ink is nevertheless red.
I'm not French. My understanding of press freedoms is
American. But wherever one may find
oneself, the rule is the same: a person possesses only such freedoms as they
are willing and able to defend. The rights recently exercised, to such
disastrous results, may be defended by many means: marches, speeches,
editorials, and even police tracking down those responsible. But whatever means
of redress are taken up, one more thing will also have to happen: those rights
must be exercised again. And again.
Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted saying something along the
lines of "free speech doesn't give you the right to yell 'fire!' In a
crowded theater." Yeah, we all agree, and nod sagely. No one mentions that
in the case the quote comes from the court allowed a pamphlet writer to be sent
to jail for advocating nothing more than nonviolently asserting your right to
be a socialist. The problem with the quote is that the metaphorical theater may
indeed be on fire, and the disparaged shouter simply ignored. For among our other
rights in a democracy is the right to sit and insist on being entertained until
we burn to death, popcorn still in hand.
Better to put up with a little shouting, me thinks.
