This essay argues that the shooting at Charlie Hebdo is an example of how, in certain and rare cases, free speech should be limited. Free speech is something to which everyone is entitled to, but with entitlement comes responsibilities. These responsibilities should not be taken lightly or it results in horrific incidents such as that of the shooting being discussed. The theorist John Stuart Mill shares these views towards freedom of speech, which can be applied to the shooting in Paris.
On the morning of January 7th 2015 Islamic terrorists murdered 17 people, including 2 police officers in cold blood, all in the name of their religion. O’Doherty (2016) reported that Islamic terrorists calmly murdered 12 people in Paris for the crime of offending their religion before moving on to a kosher deli to murder a further five people for the crime of being Jewish. This senseless murder spree shook the city of Paris and much of the world. Paris went into lock down while they searched for the group responsible. Bohan (2015) stated that the magazine has repeatedly taken aim at radical Islam and has been criticized by some Muslims for its cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. In the report (Bohan, 2015) it said that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons caused fury across the Muslim world. This is a key example of how free speech can damage other individuals. Mill would condemn the cartoon of the Prophet purely because it was attacking the religious views of someone and making a joke out of it, therefor indirectly causing them harm. Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit (Mill, 1869). Mill believed that everyone who benefitted from society had the responsibility to return that benefit. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the Authors of the magazine had the responsibility to respect the religion of their readers, especially when a big majority of French citizens are Muslim. I agree tremendously with this arguement. A society will not function if the people in that society do not respect each other and their political and religious views. However, the punishment of death by murder goes against society. It is not only illegal, but also immoral and contradicts every religion on this earth. It is impossible to justify murder in the name of your religion.
Mill was a strong advocate for freedom of speech throughout his life. In ‘On Liberty’ Mill (1869) argues that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. Although written over 200 years ago, this statement is very much applicable to modern society and the world today. Mill tells us that any doctrine should be allowed the light of day no matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else (Van Mill, 2002), but as I noted above, Mill also suggests that we need some rules of conduct to regulate the actions of members of a political community; the limitation he places on free expression is “one very simple principle,” now usually referred to as the harm principle (Van Mill, 2002). There are many different meanings associated to the word ‘harm’, but generally when talking about free speech, invasion of human rights is considered harmful. This links in with the Charlie Hebdo shooting. The authors had the right to say whatever they wanted but, in reality, they had the responsibility to respect people religions and rights the express that religion. As Daniel Jacobson (2000) notes, it is important to remember that Mill will not sanction limits to free speech simply because someone is harmed; for example, the corn dealer may suffer severe financial hardship if he is accused of starving the poor. Mill distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm, and it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation of rights that it can be limited (Jacobson, 2000). Mill’s views were very fair and manageable. They did not exclude anyone from this right to free speech and also very practical- do not harm anyone and they will not harm you. Mill (1869) argued that “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty”. He was adamant not to exclude anyone from this freedom of speech, thinking that every voice deserved to be heard- including women. Mill believed that even women had right which, in that time period, seemed obscured. Mann and Spinner-Halev (2010) stated that Mill’s commitment to equalizing power relations between men and women led him to argue that justice was not possible with restructuring the family and transforming conventional gender roles. This proves how advanced Mill was for his time and how abstract woman’s right and freedom of speech really was. Notably, there is an inverse relationship between freedom and power such that freedom is diminished whenever, and insofar as, power is exercised (Baum, 1998). When power is exercised, the freedom of the recipients of that power is lost. The Muslim terrorists that used their power by means of murder, took away, not only the freedom of the Charlie Hebdo employees, but their right to life.
Although John Stuart Mill was not only in favor of freedom of speech, but a strong supporter of the principle, he was still under no illusion that there were no exceptions. It is agreeable that the right to say what you want should be limited, even if it comes as a contradiction to the statement. As with all freedom, there should be rules and regulations in the interests of society and the safety of human beings. In the example of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, had there been a limit on what could be published in the magazine regarding religion, the shooting would not have taken place. This in no way condones the shooting, it just shows that it could have been prevented. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will. is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (Mill, 1865). There are only certain, very limited, instances that free speech should be censored. There are many examples of instances in history where, with the censorship of free speech, many lives could have been saved and different outcomes in history would have unfolded. For example, had Hitler been limited and reprimanded with respect to his hateful speeches and blame on the Jewish community, perhaps many millions of lives could have saves. Although the second world war and the holocaust are much more complicated situations then just free speech, the accusations Hitler made fueled situations in Germany in the 20th century. Similarly, the employees at Charlie Hebdo should have been reprimanded for their publications of cartoons depicting the Prophet as a terrorist. More than anything else, the question during the cartoons controversy was that of 'self-censorship';Most observers did not dispute that newspapers had the legal right to publish the cartoons. At issue was whether newspapers should need to consider the offence that may result from the publication of certain material (Soutphommasane, 2006). In order for free speech to benefit everyone, religious and political views must be respected, otherwise it does nothing but allow hate and racism. Racist or obnoxious speech can vilify, degrade, humiliate and even dehumanize. Those bearing the brunt may well feel- in some circumstances- as though they are excluded from realizing full membership of society (Soutphommasane, 2006). This was the case in Paris in 2015. Muslims were feeling segregated and this resulted in a small minority of extremists to commit acts of terror, unnecessarily costing 17 people their lives. This tragic attack was uncalled for and changed the lives of so many people, not only the deceased but their family, friends and much of the world was affected. If we pay close attention to justifications of free speech, we would realize that free speech is not something of intrinsic value, but that much of it rests upon its contribution to the value of autonomy (Soutphommasane, 2006). Free speech must be of some value if it is going to contribute to society. Otherwise why have this freedom in the first place?
Throughout this essay, the concept of freedom of speech has been examined in relation to the Charlie Hebdo shooting of 2015. As mentioned above, Mill was a big advocate for free speech but also had very compelling arguments as to why free speech should be limited when it hurts someone else. If not, it gives rise to racism and hate, especially when made public. If free speech it to benefit society and if people want the right to this freedom, then everyone must also adhere to the responsibilities associated with those rights. If not, society will turn on each other and the results can be catastrophic.
Bibliography:
O’Doherty, I. (2016), “Lessons of free speech ‘Charlie Hebdo’ taught us have been forgotten already”, Independent, 6 January. Available at: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/lessons-of-free-speech-charlie-hebdo-taught-us-have-been-forgotten-already-34339414.html. (6 January 2016).
Bohan, C. (2015), “Manhunt for gunmen in Paris after twelve killed in massacre at satirical magazine offices”, The Journal, 7 January. Available at: http://www.thejournal.ie/shooting-charlie-hebdo-magazine-1869059-Jan2015/. (7 January 2015).
Mill, J.S. (1869), ‘Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual’, ‘On Liberty’. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty4.html. (Accessed 10 October 2017).
Mill, J.S. (1869), ‘Library of Economics and Liberty’, ‘On Liberty’. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html. (Accessed 11 October 2017).