# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/201 "2015-01-15T12:43:48Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Everyone knows that. They may disagree that it justifies having the government ban some sorts of speech, or that doing so would even be effective. > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. As it happens, free speech in the US is not [absolute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions), and we’ve arrived at the current state of free speech law through hundreds of years of legislation and court judgments (same link). In other words, reasoned judgment, not “blind ideological absolutism”. The only blind ideological absolutism I’m seeing here is coming from you, in fact, with these rants about the US. > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Check out the [imminent lawless action](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) exception, calls for others to commit crimes aren’t protected speech. ---
**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, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/202 "2015-01-15T13:14:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Oh no, that’s perfectly fine. No arrests for that that I’m aware of. Gotta protect that free speech, it’s just high tempers, Muslims shouldn’t be so thin-skinned, it’s only words and so on and so forth. > [@](#): > > In a functional democracy, “government” is the people. And yet while France houses an estimated 10% Muslim population, and a 15% non-white population (hard numbers impossible to give, because the census deliberately does not feature questions relative to religion or race), out of 544 representatives and 348 senators there are only 1.4% non-whites and a grand total of zero (0) Muslims. So we ban headscarves and burqas, and talk about “the Muslim problem”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/203 "2015-01-15T13:58:31Z")
Pope Franky isn’t helping, either: > [@](#): > > Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one’s mind for the sake of the common good. > > But he said there were limits. > > “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/204 "2015-01-15T15:12:39Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > My point is that it don’t seams to me that the mainstream media (that publish reprints of these cartoons) are targets of extreme islamists. It seams to me that Charlie was in some kind of war with Islam and this was the reason that they where targeted and attacked. That would still be an attack on freedom of speech, considering that any “war” Charlie Hebdo waged on Islam took the form of speech. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/205 "2015-01-15T15:14:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Pope Franky isn’t helping, either: The **Pope** can’t turn the other cheek?! ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/206 "2015-01-15T15:20:01Z")
Cut him some slack, he’s Italian. They get weird about their moms. ---
**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 15, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/207 "2015-01-15T15:22:49Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Turn the other cheek? > [@Kobal2](#): > > Cut him some slack, he’s Italian. They get weird about their moms. Pope Francis isn’t Italian, he’s Argentinian. ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/208 "2015-01-15T15:31:48Z")
Curses ! Foiled by facts again. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/209 "2015-01-15T17:13:26Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Pope Francis isn’t Italian, he’s Argentinian. Italian genes. Same dif. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/210 "2015-01-15T19:22:20Z")
AK-47’s and grenade launchers may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/211 "2015-01-15T20:21:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Pope Franky isn’t helping, either: I wonder if anyone on this board thinks that the pope is correct, that there is some sort of right not to be offended. He spoke as if insulting his mother were analogous to insulting his religion. And then says it’s only to be expected that either one (apparently) would logically and fairly result in a punch. I know this is probably not controversial, at least not here, but I here go on record with the view that there is no right not to be insulted, that if I insult you or any person, thing or institution you hold dear, there are many things you may do, but you do not have the right to physical violence against me. Period. I suspect that there is case law in the US about mitigation of penalties for an immediate attack if one is seriously provoked, but I also suspect that this has to do more with the attacker’s state of mind (e.g. lack of premeditation) than with any right to respond to verbal provocation with violence. At least I hope so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/212 "2015-01-15T20:24:47Z")
I hope that Pope was just having a senior moment there, because what he said was monumentally stupid. Or, maybe it was taken out of context. Because otherwise, he just said that the attack on CH was “normal”. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/213 "2015-01-15T20:33:09Z")
Well… there is a difference between “a punch” and an automatic-weapons massacre. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/214 "2015-01-15T20:53:52Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Well… there is a difference between “a punch” and an automatic-weapons massacre. Of course. But both are wrong, and he’s implying that CH incited to violence. And if it’s OK to go and punch them out, it’s a slippery slope to shooting them. Same church, different pew, so to speak. Now, if there was more context to clarify the comment, then OK. But as it stands… monumentally stupid. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/215 "2015-01-15T23:08:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. I don’t doubt this. But I would ask for historical examples of private-sector speech, absent government sanction, that lead to major atrocities. It is _when government gets involved_ and defines what is acceptable that atrocities occur. > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Is the Nazi episode not the finest example of why distrust of government is well-based? > [@wolfpup](#): > > In a functional democracy, “government” is the people. Did you forget why the USA declared independence in the first place? Did the German people want to burn their books and proclaim absolute allegiance to the Nazi’s? Or did a small minority take control of the government and force these things? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/216 "2015-01-16T00:30:39Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I know this is probably not controversial, at least not here, but I here go on record with the view that there is no right not to be insulted, that if I insult you or any person, thing or institution you hold dear, there are many things you may do, but you do not have the right to physical violence against me. Period. I second this view. > [@Roderick Femm](#): > > I suspect that there is case law in the US about mitigation of penalties for an immediate attack if one is seriously provoked, but I also suspect that this has to do more with the attacker’s state of mind (e.g. lack of premeditation) than with any right to respond to verbal provocation with violence. At least I hope so. See the [fighting words doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States), established in 1942, and steadily narrowed and backed away from since. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I hope that Pope was just having a senior moment there, because what he said was monumentally stupid. Or, maybe it was taken out of context. Because otherwise, he just said that the attack on CH was “normal”. And as noted, totally counter to Christ’s teachings. ---
**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 16, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/217 "2015-01-16T01:25:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > As it happens, free speech in the US is not [absolute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions), and we’ve arrived at the current state of free speech law through hundreds of years of legislation and court judgments (same link). In other words, reasoned judgment, not “blind ideological absolutism”. The only blind ideological absolutism I’m seeing here is coming from you, in fact, with these rants about the US. That link does nothing to support your position – it does the opposite. The “limitations” on speech that it lists are activities that would be flagrantly criminal anywhere that had any laws at all, things like slander and libel, direct threats, etc. The only part that deals with anything like what I’m talking about is the very short section on “imminent lawless action” that you mention later, and that short little section exactly proves my point; quoting from your own link: In _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for “advocating … violence … as a means of accomplishing political reform” because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence. This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in _Schenck v. United States_ (1919), which simply decided that a “clear and present danger” could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize “mere advocacy”. Examples abound: _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ overturned the convinction of a teenager – on the grounds of free speech – for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family. _Virginia v. Black_ struck down KKK convictions on the grounds that cross-burning represented “the Ku Klux Klan’s protected messages of shared ideology”! Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist “church” harassed veterans’ funerals with grossly offensive hateful messages and nothing could be done until the guy finally had the good grace to die. Indeed that went to the Supreme Court, too, and in _Snyder v. Phelps_ the court, citing free speech, ruled in favor of Phelps. I’m not “ranting about the US”. I’m pointing out the salient fact, in response to a previous poster, that the vast majority of industrialized nations consider hate speech laws to be a reasonable limitation on free speech. The US does not. That’s absolutism. The US Supreme Court has pretty consistently reflected that prevailing view. Free speech absolutism has also been used to overturn campaign finance laws, in which _Citizens United_ is just one egregious example of about half a dozen such recent cases, on the basis that billionaires apparently have a Constitutional right to spend billions of dollars to flood the airwaves with their political messages without restriction, because this is somehow equivalent to your right and mine to discuss politics on public transit. Absolutism by definition. If you like it that way who am I to argue? Just don’t say it ain’t so. > [@Kobal2](#): > > And yet while France houses an estimated 10% Muslim population, and a 15% non-white population (hard numbers impossible to give, because the census deliberately does not feature questions relative to religion or race), out of 544 representatives and 348 senators there are only 1.4% non-whites and a grand total of zero (0) Muslims. > > So we ban headscarves and burqas, and talk about “the Muslim problem”. From my understanding, it’s true that Muslims have been marginalized in France, and this is certainly a Bad Thing. And it was undoubtedly a factor in the various riots that have occurred. But let’s not kid ourselves that it had anything to do with the attack on Charlie Hebdo. These were extremist lunatics engaged in terrorism and it would have happened no matter how well integrated or represented Muslims were in mainstream French society. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/218 "2015-01-16T01:28:58Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But let’s not kid ourselves that it had anything to do with the attack on Charlie Hebdo. These were extremist lunatics engaged in terrorism and it would have happened no matter how well integrated or represented Muslims were in mainstream French society. How can you possibly know this? ---
**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 16, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/219 "2015-01-16T01:29:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > From my understanding, it’s true that Muslims have been marginalized in France, and this is certainly a Bad Thing. Marginalized by whom? It is my understanding that they marginalized themselves, by resisting cultural assimilation. ---
**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 16, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/220 "2015-01-16T01:42:34Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I don’t doubt this. But I would ask for historical examples of private-sector speech, absent government sanction, that lead to major atrocities. It is _when government gets involved_ and defines what is acceptable that atrocities occur. You’ll find some examples [here](http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/hate-speech-media-activism-and-the-first-amendment/). With that in mind, and some of the cases I cited in the previous post, one could argue that hate speech has been a factor in the whole history of American race relations. > [@Stringbean](#): > > Is the Nazi episode not the finest example of why distrust of government is well-based? > > Did the German people want to burn their books and proclaim absolute allegiance to the Nazi’s? Or did a small minority take control of the government and force these things? Indeed. I think the second part of that quote answers the first part. No, you don’t react to the risk of tyrannical governments by crippling them to the point of dysfunction or, as Grover Norquist likes to say, reduce government to the point that you can drown it in a bathtub. Nor do you react to the risk of tyranny by stocking up on guns’n’ammo. You do it by recognizing the important principles that uphold democracy and safeguarding the processes that support them. Things like a free press and an informed and politically engaged public. We are, however, getting rather far off topic for this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=12)