# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 12
**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, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/221 "2015-01-16T01:58:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How can you possibly know this? I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. How can I know they were terrorists? I think it’s now clear that they were well trained by AQAP specifically for this military-style mission. How can I know that this would still have happened if Muslims were well integrated into French society? Obviously I can’t, but one can make a reasonable inference from the fact that terrorist plots have been disrupted or events have actually occurred in nations that do make a concerted effort at inclusion, including the US and Canada. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Marginalized by whom? It is my understanding that they marginalized themselves, by resisting cultural assimilation. That may indeed be a factor. I’m not an expert in French politics. But many expert observers believe that the several major riots that have occurred in recent years are the result of ghettoficaction of many immigrant populations, notably Muslims. And as\*\* Kobal2\*\* just said, "So we ban headscarves and burqas, and talk about ‘the Muslim problem’ – i..e- it seems that the French have been notably hostile to this particular group. Oddly enough, and perhaps not coincidentally, one sees the same attitude in parts of Quebec, in very distinct contrast to the cultural inclusiveness in the rest of Canada. ---
**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, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/222 "2015-01-16T02:58:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Precisely - that ain’t absolutism. Virginia v Black, for instance: the statute was struck down because it required defendants to prove that they _weren’t_ intending to intimidate by burning crosses. Is that the sort of law you’d support? > [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m not “ranting about the US”. That may not have been your intent, but re-read this passage: > [@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. That is a rant, and a poisoning of the well. Right from the off, you’ve declared that nations with rules that you approve of arrived at that decision though reasoned judgment, and those that didn’t are blind ideologues, paranoid to boot, and their concerns are baseless, in the bargain. No room for honest disagreement or nuance, just a flat declaration of who’s right and who’s a fool, applied to something as subjective and complex as national free speech standards. Naturally, I defend your right to propagandize in this fashion, gallant figure that I am. > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. After mentioning the various limitations on free speech in the US, you then turn around and declare “absolutism”, because those limitations don’t count for some reason. If you meant that the US is absolutist on the very narrow subset of free-speech law that is hate speech, that’s one thing…but that’s not what you wrote. > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. One rant at a time, please. ---
**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 16, 2015, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/223 "2015-01-16T03:40:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Marginalized by whom? It is my understanding that they marginalized themselves, by resisting cultural assimilation. Assimilation is a two-way street. ---
**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 16, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/224 "2015-01-16T03:59:00Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. It has \*\*everything \*\*to do with it. Don’t you think that, had the Kouachi brothers or the Coulibaly kid been happy, equal, productive members of an equal-opportunity society ; rather than having to decide what they wanted to do with their lives, a hard choice between scrubbing toilets or dealing coke ; that they would have turned to fundamentalism in the first place ? Would they have felt such hatred towards the institutions of their country ? “They were lunatics” doesn’t explain shit. What, they were born terrorists ? Please. From where I stand, the religious angle really is a red herring. They didn’t want to know about Islam, and they didn’t even care about the prophet that they purportedly avenged (their own “garage imam”, whom Cherif Kouachi had met in prison, said as much - that Cherif was only interested in and always talking about “the struggle”, but wasn’t interested in hearing about the religion itself). They attacked symbols of a country that told them, every day and in a myriad little ways : “Fuck you. Fuck you hard. Fuck you long. Fuck you raw. No but seriously, fuck you.” Islam isn’t what made them do it. Islam was their flagpole, the thing they turned to to feel like they were part of something bigger than themselves, like others felt what they felt, and had the power to do something about it. The thing that scares and angers Frenchmen, too. ---
**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, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/225 "2015-01-16T04:28:09Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It has \*\*everything \*\*to do with it. Don’t you think that, had the Kouachi brothers or the Coulibaly kid been happy, equal, productive members of an equal-opportunity society ; rather than having to decide what they wanted to do with their lives, a hard choice between scrubbing toilets or dealing coke ; that they would have turned to fundamentalism in the first place ? Would they have felt such hatred towards the institutions of their country ? Your characterization of Islam as an enabler rather than a root cause is interesting and probably quite valid. It’s also true, as I acknowledged earlier, that France has been particularly hostile to its Muslim immigrant population. Yet I think you are still missing the point. My counterexample is the [Toronto 18](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot), a terrorism plot of similar if not even greater potential that was broken up in Ontario, Canada, perhaps the most liberal province in one of the most liberal countries in the world, in the city that has been called the most culturally diverse and inclusive in the world. That didn’t stop this organized threat, and later on their wives were quoted in interviews spewing hateful venom against the entire country which had done nothing but try to accommodate them, and all of western society which had never harmed them. Some years later a lone lunatic attacked the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa, as you undoubtedly know. Others have gone off to Syria and elsewhere to fight for ISIS. I think it’s just naive to think that the French attacks were caused simply by disaffection with the social status of Muslims, as opposed to a fundamental and fundamentalist opposition to all of western society on the part of an extremist fringe that is hell-bent on its total destruction. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/226 "2015-01-16T05:23:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It has \*\*everything \*\*to do with it. Don’t you think that, had the Kouachi brothers or the Coulibaly kid been happy, equal, productive members of an equal-opportunity society ; rather than having to decide what they wanted to do with their lives, a hard choice between scrubbing toilets or dealing coke ; that they would have turned to fundamentalism in the first place ? Would they have felt such hatred towards the institutions of their country ? It is certainly possible. The Fort Hood guy, the 9-11 guys, a bunch of the London bombers, and many ISIS recruits all have come from more privileged situations. > [@](#): > > From where I stand, the religious angle really is a red herring. They didn’t want to know about Islam, and they didn’t even care about the prophet that they purportedly avenged (their own “garage imam”, whom Cherif Kouachi had met in prison, said as much - that Cherif was only interested in and always talking about “the struggle”, but wasn’t interested in hearing about the religion itself). They attacked symbols of a country that told them, every day and in a myriad little ways : “Fuck you. Fuck you hard. Fuck you long. Fuck you raw. No but seriously, fuck you.” > > Islam isn’t what made them do it. Islam was their flagpole, the thing they turned to to feel like they were part of something bigger than themselves, like others felt what they felt, and had the power to do something about it. The thing that scares and angers Frenchmen, too. Lot’s of groups are told “fuck you.” Many far louder. I don’t see any American Indians attacking Family Guy cartoonists for caricaturing them. They also don’t nurture an ideology that condones wiping out their enemies either. This is not a coincidence. What about the non-Muslims in Muslim countries? What about the Hindus, Ahmadiyya, and Christians of Pakistan? ---
**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 16, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/227 "2015-01-16T05:41:40Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > It is certainly possible. The Fort Hood guy, the 9-11 guys, a bunch of the London bombers, and many ISIS recruits all have come from more privileged situations. Wasn’t the Fort Hood guy legit mentally unbalanced ? Like, from a medical standpoint ? And look, I’m not saying this particular set of circumstances or rationales apply to every last jihadi (nor do I believe that being relatively more privileged insulates one from the “fuck you” - as another poster said, the movers and shakers behind Indian independence, both violent and peaceful, were by and large middle-class, educated people who’d realized that no matter how “respectable” they got the British still othered them) - I’m just saying that in \*this \*particular case, for \*these \*specific people, social circumstances and the French zeitgeist are probably more on point than any talk of religious fanaticism or the simplistic, reductive notion that they killed people just for publishing silly cartoons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=11)