Since
the terrorist attacks on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo
headquarters, an appropriate debate has erupted over whether there are
limitations to freedom of speech. The gunmen, linked to al-Qaeda, set out to
murder the staff because of their numerous depictions of the Islam prophet,
Mohammed, creating a narrative that this was as an assault on free speech, a
value adamantly associated with democracy. And while it is almost unanimously
agreed that all should be allowed to express their opinions, there has been
some slight pushback about whether those opinions cross the thin line into the
many forms of hate. One such voice came from an unlikely place, the Vatican, as
Pope Francis said “[t]here is a limit” when it comes to free speech.
Just
like everyone else, Francis denounced the terrorist acts, calling them an “aberration”
and profound misinterpretation of religion. And like everyone else he expressed
the importance of free speech, saying it was a “fundamental human right” and
one must speak for the “sake of the common good.” Unlike everyone else Francis
acknowledged that to “insult the faith of others” is disrespectful and causes
that other to feel angry and perhaps want to act violently. He offers this with
a simple comparison, that if his “good friend…says a curse word against my
mother, he can expect a punch.” Be respectable to one another, seems easy
enough.
As the
human race has shown, nothing is ever that easy.
Instead
of acting compassionate to one another, people rather flip the pope and think
freedom of speech is an excuse to be hateful. They say “I’m not a subject of
theocracy,” although Francis is hardly advocating for a religious state
considering he said to respect all religions, not just his. They say “there’s
something wrong with your convictions if you can’t handle criticisms of your
religion,” but insults and criticisms are hardly the same thing. Saying the
Catholic Church is unwelcoming to the LGBT community is offering a valid
criticism; calling the Catholic Church a congregation of rednecks born out of
incest is an insult.
Furthermore,
do these people understand that hate speech can be considered freedom of
speech, at least in their view? Do they even know that Charlie Hebdo
contributor was fired and had charges brought against him for being anti-Semitic?
And if there are anti-Semitic laws in France, then why aren’t there laws
protecting Muslims and other faiths from forms of hate speech? Many have
pointed out that France has a ban on hijabs and has issued countless tickets to
Muslim women that wore headscarves, wanting to freely practice their religion
but their freedom of speech stomped on instead. These free-speech warriors may
not believe in the limitations of free speech, but these examples clearly show
there are many.
When the colonists demanded freedom
of speech and freedom of religion, it was to escape the imprisonment for
criticizing the king or church. It wasn’t to grant the Ku Klux Klan freedom to
espouse racism; it wasn’t to grant the West Boro Baptist Church freedom to
protest funerals and insult the LGBT community; it wasn’t to allow strangers to
be disrespectful to people that go to an abortion clinic; it was certainly not
granted to demoralize a group of underprivileged citizens. If this is your idea
of free speech, then count me out. Like Pope Francis, I rather be respectable to
others. (And you better not say anything about my mama or I will definitely knock
you out.)
No comments:
Post a Comment