# The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not an attack of freedom of speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707 "2015-01-13T12:58:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/181 "2015-01-14T19:04:45Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Alright, my bad. I went off topic when I expressed my opinion about the caricature, rather than the attacks. So, one more time, for all to see, here’s what I think about the killings: Do not murder. Should any one religion have the right, in a country they do not control, to impose religious rules over those who are not of that religious persuasion? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/182 "2015-01-14T19:25:48Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > Hopefully the radicals will see that they can continue their faith and respect of their prophet while the rest of the world enjoys the satire. Both things can happen at the same time…no killing necessary. Since this hasn’t stopped anywhere in human history, I think it’s not likely to start anytime soon, especially when religion is part of the package. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/183 "2015-01-14T20:11:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the other guy is an enemy, as in they are fighting a war, then there is no issue of free speech between them. Soldiers fighting each other are not protected by free speech. If the guy is an “enemy” in the sense of “very unfriendly”, then the attack was on free speech. We may just have to agree to disagree about this since I think it really comes down to semantic differences. For something to be an attack on free speech, I say that it has to be an attempt to silence that speech, either by preventing others from hearing the ideas expressed, or by preventing the same ideas from being expressed in the future for fear of retaliation. It is not sufficient that the attack merely be the result of the speech. But it sounds like your definition is different from mine. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/184 "2015-01-14T20:18:49Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > That is assumed, yes. > > Probably not. So? Does that mean whether or not it’s okay to do something depends on your expectations for getting killed in response? Well, yeah. People participating in the public discourse, even through acts like drawing offensive cartoons or burning stuff they own can and should expect to get yelled at. If they are intimidated into not speaking because of that, tough on them. They should not expect to be physically harmed. In that case all the fault lies on the people responding to speech with violence. > [@](#): > > It’s wrong as well. By and large, worse, because it easily leads to antisemitic violence. But again, I don’t see how that makes the caricature right. The same people who rant and rave about speech they don’t like have no problem with this kind of stuff. (Which is broadcast on TV is some Arab countries according to an article in the Times.) So they are being hypocrites. And they are free to say how wrong it is anywhere they want. But that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/185 "2015-01-14T21:09:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How are societies without free speech better than societies with free speech (including the freedom to be offensive about religion)? Societies with free speech are a little safer from the threat of tyranny. It would be too easy for an oppressive government to ban open criticism of government policies (and lèse-majesté laws banning open criticism of the monarch.) Since open criticism is pretty much vital to a working democracy, banning it undermines political liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/186 "2015-01-14T22:06:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I have no moral qualms against drawing cartoons of Jesus or Moses. So you are **for** hate speech? That’s what it often comes down to. One man’s free speech is another’s hate speech. Sometimes it’s hard to draw…the line. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/187 "2015-01-14T22:25:02Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > So you are **for** hate speech? > > That’s what it often comes down to. One man’s free speech is another’s hate speech. Sometimes it’s hard to draw…the line. Not for me, nor for most others who understand what hate speech is. Hate is not simple ridicule. Hate speech is advocating or inciting imminent danger or violence. The Supreme Court has [drawn that line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul), so in the US, it is not a squishy concept. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/188 "2015-01-14T22:31:40Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Not for me, nor for most others who understand what hate speech is. Hate is not simple ridicule. Hate speech is advocating or inciting imminent danger or violence. The Supreme Court has [drawn that line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul), so in the US, it is not a squishy concept. Yeah-“I will hate you if you say, write or draw that” does not equal “hate speech”. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/189 "2015-01-14T23:09:36Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > I wonder how many people would defend the right to publicly burn Torah scrolls - which is, religiously, about on par with that caricature - and call those cowards who refuse to participate. I think just about _evrybody_ would defend the right to publicly burn Torah scrolls, assuming the scrolls are owned by the person burning them (and they’re not archaeological relics). Don’t know how the “cowards” comment relates to this, though. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/190 "2015-01-14T23:12:03Z")
[QUOTE=Trinopus] Societies with free speech are a little safer from the threat of tyranny. [/QUOTE] Ha ! Yeah totally, man. Which is why, as I’m writing this, 54 people and kids (and counting) have been arrested across France for “terrorism apologia” - for cracking jokes about the events, or saying they agreed with the Kouachi brothers. A drunk man arrested Saturday over a DUI crash was rushed right through the system and, instead of earning himself a fine or having his license revoked, got 4 years no parole because he’d told the cops hauling him away that he hoped they’d be the victims of the next jihadis - who said Justice wasn’t swift ? So freedom of speech is cool, and that. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/191 "2015-01-14T23:28:21Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Ha ! Yeah totally, man. > Which is why, as I’m writing this, 54 people and kids (and counting) have been arrested across France for “terrorism apologia” - for cracking jokes about the events, or saying they agreed with the Kouachi brothers. A drunk man arrested Saturday over a DUI crash was rushed right through the system and, instead of earning himself a fine or having his license revoked, got 4 years no parole because he’d told the cops hauling him away that he hoped they’d be the victims of the next jihadis - who said Justice wasn’t swift ? > > So freedom of speech is cool, and that. I was going to ask for a cite, but [found one](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-aftermath-french-police-arrest-54-people-for-defending-or-glorifying-terrorism-9977434.html) on my own. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/192 "2015-01-14T23:33:56Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Ha ! Yeah totally, man. > Which is why, as I’m writing this, 54 people and kids (and counting) have been arrested across France for “terrorism apologia” - for cracking jokes about the events, or saying they agreed with the Kouachi brothers. A drunk man arrested Saturday over a DUI crash was rushed right through the system and, instead of earning himself a fine or having his license revoked, got 4 years no parole because he’d told the cops hauling him away that he hoped they’d be the victims of the next jihadis - who said Justice wasn’t swift ?. I am completely against this type of speech-suppressing garbage. Expressing opinions that are uncomfortable, even offensive, is just as integral to a free and open society as expressing the “socially-condoned” opinions. It seems France doesn’t even understand what they were rallying for… ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/193 "2015-01-15T00:18:30Z")
Well some speech is just freer than others, yanno ? #We’re all Charlie. No, not _you_. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/194 "2015-01-15T01:01:24Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I am completely against this type of speech-suppressing garbage. Expressing opinions that are uncomfortable, even offensive, is just as integral to a free and open society as expressing the “socially-condoned” opinions. If the world was as simple a place as far-right conservatives make it out to be, then problems would be simple to solve. Alas, it is not. “Expressing opinions that are uncomfortable, even offensive” is fine only up to a point. What point? Well, how about the point at which it precipitates [Kristallnacht](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)? And a consequent Holocaust. That was the point of my earlier post. The US is unique in the world in endorsing unconditional free speech absolutism. It is rooted in a fundamental distrust of government, but ultimately it doesn’t solve anything. Indeed what it does is create the “invidious equality” that I mentioned in another post in a different context, whereby corporations run the country, and ordinary citizens – an extraordinarily high percentage of whom don’t even vote – only _ **think** _ they live in a democracy. I am of course completely supportive of Charlie Hebdo and am delighted at the amount of support it’s getting. But let’s not get all confused about what free speech really is, and the legitimacy of limitations both on genuine hate speech and on the commercialization of politics. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/195 "2015-01-15T01:20:01Z")
Please. Free speech did not cause the Holocaust, nor empower corporations over citizens. And hate-speech laws that lock people up for jokes and spiteful remarks won’t stop these things, either. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/196 "2015-01-15T01:29:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And what is the appropriate response, when someone tramples on what is most sacred to a person? Turn the other cheek? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/197 "2015-01-15T01:32:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If the world was as simple a place as far-right conservatives make it out to be, then problems would be simple to solve. Alas, it is not. “Expressing opinions that are uncomfortable, even offensive” is fine only up to a point. What point? Well, how about the point at which it precipitates [Kristallnacht](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)? And a consequent Holocaust. . . . Even the U.S. has remedies against that kind of speech. Remember Tom Metzger. We don’t even need to make it a criminal offense: we just penalize people who go so far in their speech as to urge, impel, or persuade others to commit crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/198 "2015-01-15T01:35:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If the world was as simple a place as far-right conservatives make it out to be, then problems would be simple to solve. Alas, it is not. “Expressing opinions that are uncomfortable, even offensive” is fine only up to a point. What point? Well, how about the point at which it precipitates [Kristallnacht](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)? And a consequent Holocaust. > > That was the point of my earlier post. The US is unique in the world in endorsing unconditional free speech absolutism. It is rooted in a fundamental distrust of government, but ultimately it doesn’t solve anything. Indeed what it does is create the “invidious equality” that I mentioned in another post in a different context, whereby corporations run the country, and ordinary citizens – an extraordinarily high percentage of whom don’t even vote – only _ **think** _ they live in a democracy. > > I am of course completely supportive of Charlie Hebdo and am delighted at the amount of support it’s getting. But let’s not get all confused about what free speech really is, and the legitimacy of limitations both on genuine hate speech and on the commercialization of politics. One of the first initiatives of Nazi rule was the destruction of books, art, and ideas that the Nazi’s (see: government) did not condone. To suggest that Germany’s absolute regard for free speech led to Kristallnacht is ludicrous. The Nazi’s suppressed all ideas that did not support their ideology. _Mein Kampf_ was required reading. Opinions critical of Nazism were NOT allowed. This is a lesson in why all forms of speech must be protected. We cannot allow government to determine what opinions are “acceptable.” I appreciate why European nations make Holocaust denial illegal; I just think it is sorely misguided and unprincipled. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/199 "2015-01-15T02:14:25Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > I don’t see how that makes the caricature right. Which caricature do you mean? While I find some of the cartoons in questionable taste, the violent militants don’t distinguish criticisms of specific aspects of Islam or Mohammed’s legacy, allowing that to be OK, while only getting violent over writing that crosses the line. Look at the cartoons from the 2005 Danish controversy: > **[Cartoons of Muhammad](http://www.aina.org/releases/20060201143237.htm)** > > News and Analysis of Assyrian and Assyrian-related Issues Worldwide Compared to Charlie Hebdo’s strongest, or even average, efforts, those in my last link were mild. But they nonetheless resulted in [several hundred deaths.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) While Charlie Hebdo can be overly broad, that’s not why they were attacked. I’m with Charlie Hebdo not because I like the publication, but because stuff I do want to read (_Santanic Verses_) is equally unacceptable to the crowd which murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/200 "2015-01-15T09:44:49Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > To suggest that Germany’s absolute regard for free speech led to Kristallnacht is ludicrous. It would be ludicrous, if that’s what I had suggested. I did not. The point I’m making – as amply demonstrated by that event and many other instances of hate speech – is that speech can be a powerful shaper of public opinion and, used in the wrong way, a powerful incitement to hatred. And that fact is true regardless of whether such speech comes from government propaganda or from private-sector lunatics. > [@Stringbean](#): > > The Nazi’s suppressed all ideas that did not support their ideology. _Mein Kampf_ was required reading. Opinions critical of Nazism were NOT allowed. This is a lesson in why all forms of speech must be protected. No, this is a lesson in the importance of reasoned judgment about laws governing speech, instead of blind ideological absolutism stemming from a baseless and paranoid distrust of democratic government. It’s a lesson in the importance of protecting free speech like that of Charlie Hebdo, while simultaneously prohibiting ignorant backlash like, for instance, calling for violent retribution against all Muslims. The way to deal with extremist violence is through the process of law, not by inciting the rabble to public violence. > [@Stringbean](#): > > We cannot allow government to determine what opinions are “acceptable.” In a functional democracy, “government” is the people. Did you forget why the USA declared independence in the first place? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=11)