Reflections about the Freedom of Speech.

Europe Group.
Week 10: “Je Suis Charlie.”

Reflections about the Freedom of Speech.

“Je Suis Charlie”: three words that have traveled all over the world and upset all of Europe. The terrorist attack on the offices of the French satiric magazine have traced a new line in European history and have shown how vulnerable we are to such violent attacks. Millions of people, including a lot of heads of states and governments, united in the squares to mourn the victims and march against the violence of the extremists. The terrorists had not only killed some people, but they had also tried to kill a principle: the freedom of speech, which was fully represented in the French satire magazine “Charlie Hebdo” which nowadays is the symbol of that freedom. This has led to the debate about freedom of speech and whether or not in the case of satire there should be limits, and what those limits should be.

In what ways should the freedom of speech be censored? A general rule for censoring it does not exist. We should consider each situation alone. Still, there exists two cases when we should always (or almost always) reduce or apply some limitation to that freedom: When the recipients of a generic form of communication are psychologically weak (like children or teenagers who are influenced a lot by other’s thoughts) and when the message is violent or shows extremist ideologies (actually I’m not talking about violent film scenes, but about the fundamentalist propaganda that instigates unfounded violence).

With this said, we can now start to talk about the case of “Charlie Hebdo” and reply to the following questions: Should the freedom of speech in satire be censored somehow? Should the most offensive satirical cartoon of the French magazine be banned?

 Here begins the most complex part of our conversation, so pay a bit more attention. Let’s reflect, first of all, about what satire is. In the common conception, at least here in Italy, satire is a comedy form that uses news from politics and/or religion for its comedy.
But is it really like that? Satire is not only comedy, it has other benefits as well: it’s a form of communication that takes world news, often discarded from newspapers, and reformulates it into a comic version, making it accessible to all the people who don’t follow traditional mass media, and it allows us to see a fact from a different point of view, giving us the freedom to create a personal thought about it. If satire functions like that, censuring it becomes a negative thing.

How the censorship of satire related? The only form of tolerable censorship is the one that distinguishes the right satire from the “satire of hatred”. In my opinion, the cartoons or the people who use fake news, unproved prejudices or just attack or offend should be censored, but when the news is proven true, it must be told and should never be censored. That is the kind of satirical cartoon “Charlie Hebdo” is. It shows the negative sides of politics and religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So why should the Islamic world protest against that? Satire hits everyone in the same way: Italians, for example, were objects (and even now we are) of the foreign satire about our errors and stupid things we’ve done (like about our short governments or high level of corruption in politics), and as long as we continue to make errors, satire will continue to hit them. And we’ll continue to do the same with them. It’s almost an alarm bell to try to change the situation.

The fear of extreme Islam will not save one from negative opinions, but changing the negative aspects of the religion could possibly end the satire. But also where there is the freedom of opinion, there is the freedom to criticize. If the satire criticized without any real motivation, the protests might make sense, but there is an important fact, at least for Europeans, that we must not forget: YOU CAN’T KILL SOMEONE JUST FOR WHAT HE SAYS, even if you don’t agree with it. The exaggerated reaction of the terrorists is an absolutely intolerable attitude. If we stop showing that satirical cartoon now and censor the satire that hit Islam, like hit everyone else, it would be an additional win for the terrorists, and we can’t allow this.

I’d like clarify something before to continue: when I say Islam, I don’t refer to the whole religion and all its followers, instead I refer to the extremists and fundamentalist parts of the religion that think they are doing good through evil, and the fanatics, who in the last decades were the cause of a lot of international violence.

Islam is a religion, and as such it has a really noble and fundamental function for people, especially in the way of spiritual guidance and help in civil cohabitation. But as long as the fundamentalists continue to use violence to express their positions, the satire will continue, rightly, to hit them. Let’s learn together to see satire, not as an offence, but as an instrument for change. We must show the cartoon, we must make our voices heard loudly, and we must continue to show the errors of politics and the problems of religions. Only like that will people finally be able to understand that we must act and we must do it now. Only like that will we be able to change the declining trend of our world.

Je Suis Charlie, Nous Sommes Charlie!

By Michele C., Italy
19 years old