By now, you’ve probably heard of the devastating terror attacks that shocked and horrified the nation of France. The terror began last Wednesday when masked gunmen murdered 12 people at the Paris office of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, a publication known for deliberately mocking various religions and politicians. Two days later, the violence continued as the attackers killed a French policewoman then held 16 hostages in a kosher supermarket, killing four.
In the midst of the aftermath, social media exploded with an outpour of support for the people of France. Using the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie — “I am Charlie” — Twitter users stood up for freedom of speech and expressed solidarity with the victims. Many journalists and news publications quickly condemned the attacks and grieved the magazine’s murdered staff members, stating that no one should have to die for expressing an opinion.
But even as 3.7 million people took to the streets of Paris this Sunday to stand against terrorism and to demonstrate their dedication to the freedom of speech, many social media users and journalists criticized #JeSuisCharlie as a defense of speech that is hateful and offensive. Though these people outright condemn the murders of Charlie Hebdo’s staff members, they refuse to defend a publication that insults religions and diverse groups of people. Essentially, they believe that free speech should come with responsibility. Therefore, expressing incredibly offensive opinions is irresponsible and does not deserve our support. For that reason, the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasCharlie — “I am not Charlie” — was born.
Before going any further, let me first be clear: Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are undoubtedly offensive to a variety of religions, cultures and peoples. There is no question that the magazine’s depictions of Muhammad were both insulting and provocative, and it would be laughable to defend the images as “great journalism,” satire or not.
However, it is disappointing and worrisome that so many people, journalists especially, reject the notion that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are worth defending. This trend reveals a troubling disregard for the purpose a freedom of speech has in a liberal and democratic society. We need people to be unafraid to express their views, no matter how disgusting, awful or insulting anybody else might find them.
The free exchange of ideas is necessary for society’s evolution, and this means that we have to swallow our anger and allow all views to be tolerated — not just ones we deem appropriate. If we pick and choose which ideas are allowed to be expressed and which aren’t, then we cannot claim to live in a free society.
Public discourse can only thrive if there are opposing views. Without people disagreeing openly with each other, the exchange of ideas is stifled. Silence will replace the important conversations that need to happen. That’s why it is so crucial to show support for Charlie Hebdo, even if you disagree with the images it publishes. We need to demonstrate that all ideas will be tolerated, even the ones we find may personally find intolerable. As Voltaire famously said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Some people reading this column might completely disagree with my opinion. If that’s the case, there are many outlets to express your beliefs. You can write a letter to the editor, a guest column, a post on Facebook or Twitter or even comment on this article online. In providing your own ideas, you will be fueling more conversation about an important topic — and that’s the beauty of free speech.
Moriah Camenker is a UF public relations senior. Her columns appear on Tuesdays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 1/13/2015 under the headline “Even offensive speech must be defended"]
