We spoke about how wrong it is to do evil in the name of religion, and I will never stop condemning what happened in Paris during the past few days. In spite of being very saddened by the tragedy which occurred at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, there are always two sides of the story. Therefore, today I will tackle another issue, which is quite tricky in this case: freedom of speech.
Yes, the media should be free to express its views in an uncensored manner. But what about satirical media (which is actually what Charlie Hebdo is)? Charlie Hebdo has had a long-term reputation for being a controversial and irreverent publication. It has not been denigrating Islam in particular, given the fact that they did the same with the symbols of Christanity. Most probably, a very religious Christian would find them offensive, whereas someone who is not religious would just have a laugh. Charlie Hebdo was not xenophobic, given the fact that once upon a time they also pointed their satirical arrows towards Charles De Gaulle, a nation's hero and one of the most prominent figures of the history of France, shortly after his death. So, Charlie was like that nasty kid who has fun by being mean - but, just like in life, with this sort of people you should not take them seriously, but you don't go killing them either.
The staff of Charlie Hebdo were brave: they ignored past threats from enemies and warnings from authorities, and continued with their merry ways. However, can we REALLY talk about defending freedom of speech? Or rather, defending the traditional "naughty" identity of Charlie Hebdo as a publication? I don't know about you, but I'd be more inclined towards talking about freedom of speech if it were the case of a "serious" publication serving public interest, or really tackling crucial issues for society in a mature manner.
I said it before and I will say it again: nothing justifies murder, nothing justifies killing in the name of God, or Allah, or Buddha, or whoever we believe in. Satirical humour has the purpose to make people laugh, although sometimes it can be "too much" or just plain unfair. Should they stop in the future? Probably not, and I have the feeling that they WILL not. Because they are brave. I just hope that nothing like this terrorists attack will happen again. Yet, the fact that the cartoonists "died to defend freedom of speech" is a highly debatable theory. What do you think? Is it about freedom of speech or freedom of humour? I would go for the second option.
No comments:
Post a Comment