I realize that a lot of people make a lot of noise about the supposed imposition of stricter controls upon our rights to own guns in this country, but freedom of speech trumps freedom to bear arms every day and twice on Sunday as far as I'm concerned. Granted, we free-speech-ers don't have a ready-made slogan like the gun nuts ("you can take my freedom of speech when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" doesn't have the same ring to it), but I have never owned a gun, I don't plan on owning a gun, and if the government ever did come after me to take my gun, they'd be disappointed. Freedom of speech, even when you disagree with it, isn't just an American right. It's a human-being right, no matter where you are. The people who worry so much about protecting their penis-substitutes won't say a thing if someone's right to speak out (especially if the right to speak out is against gun violence) is taken from them.
The attacks on Charlie Hebdo have done what often occurs when issues of free speech come up in the past: they've made an unlikely martyr out of something that probably doesn't deserve it. What I've seen of the magazine's cartoons is pretty awful, content-wise. But here's the thing: you can think that, but that doesn't give you license to walk into the place and shoot it up. "Je Suis Charlie" is trending now on social media, and like a lot of things that "trend," the subtle arguments one could make about the tastefulness of the magazine's cartoons don't fit well under a hashtag. I may not like what I've seen of Charlie Hebdo, but I don't think anyone deserved to lose their lives over it.
Freedom of speech, the freedom to form your own thought and not have it imposed from you on high, is taken for granted in this country. We simply don't give a damn about protecting it, especially when someone says something that we don't agree with. Vile and hateful speech has been a particular victim of social media, which is a good thing: if someone's stupid enough to post something derogatory, they deserve the scorn that is usually unleashed upon them. But what the attackers (who claimed to be Islamic warriors, though I think that they cloaked their actions in the idea of Muslim beliefs to "justify" it, just as Crusaders dressed themselves up in the Christian Church to explain away their campaigns of bloodshed and plunder in the Holy Land) did is never, ever, ever okay. If anything, they defeated the claimed purpose of their own endeavor with their very actions: those cartoons that they sought to suppress will probably be seen, and by millions more eyeballs than the magazine frankly probably deserves. It is a victory for freedom of speech, even if that speech is disagreeable.
Consider someone who comes from an oppressive regime, where basic freedoms aren't available; you think they give a damn about getting their choice of firearms at the local WalMart if they've escaped years, decades of torture and terror elsewhere? Speech, and writing, are far more powerful than any bullet can ever hope to be. Words convey ideas, illustrations, revolutions. So while I question the logic behind the "offensive cartoons" in the first place, while I find much of what else the magazine has done to be tasteless and vulgar, I defend Charlie Hebdo's right to do what they do without the fear of violent reprisal. Because, goddam it, that doesn't fly with me. "Je suis Charlie"? If that's what you mean, than yeah, Je Suis Charlie.
No comments:
Post a Comment