# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/161 "2015-01-14T18:29:07Z")
Can we please try and distinguish between LEGAL and MORAL right? Obviously CH did not break French law, and I never suggested they did. I’m sure we can all think of examples of laws in some countries that we don’t agree with just because they are laws. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/162 "2015-01-14T18:31:05Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > I’m not talking about the general, legal right to free speech that protects from government oppression. > (As a side note, Judaism has an expansive set of laws regulating what may or may not be said to or about others, and even oneself; and I’ve always found it utterly enjoyable and refreshing to be around people who follow those laws. It’s kinda nice when people don’t attack and slander each other at every opportunity.) Then what are you talking about? Voluntary being-nice sounds great, but should force or violence be used against those who say things that are not nice? What should be the response, in your mind, if someone draws a cartoon like the ones from Charlie Hebdo? What should be the response if someone kills the cartoonist for this? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/163 "2015-01-14T18:31:40Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Can we please try and distinguish between LEGAL and MORAL right? Obviously CH did not break French law, and I never suggested they did. I’m sure we can all think of examples of laws in some countries that we don’t agree with just because they are laws. Ok. How do you decide what is a “moral right”? Also, do you have a right (I guess a “moral right”) to force others to adhere to your definition or a “moral right”? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/164 "2015-01-14T18:32:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I agree that it’s not an attack on freedom of speech. Everyone keeps forgetting what freedom of speech is. It is not a moral value. Bullshit. > [@](#): > > It is a restriction on the government in restricting your speech, lest they be able to use that ability for tyranny. Also bullshit. “Freedom of speech” as philosphical concept is not the same thing as from “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” in the same way that “Human Rights” as a concept is distinct from “the United Nations Universal Decalaration.” The latter is a specific explication and legal codification of the former, but the concept is bigger than any one manifestation of it. For one thing, there are plenty of societies that – more or less – embrace “freedom of speech” as a concept without having laws on the books specifying any such limits. The UK, AFAICT, is one such. For another, the concept goes far beyond legal codification. Imagine one household where the evening dinner table features lively debate on a whole host of topics, with everyone expected to participate; imagine another where only the parents speak, and children are forbidden to utter a word unless a parent asks a question. Confining the concept to merely a restriction on government means concluding that the two households are equally devoted to “free speech” as an ideal of human flourishing. I would call the latter an example of bad parenting, and that’s my moral judgement. _The First Amendment_ only pertains to government. _Free Speech_ is a much bigger concept. > [@](#): > > Threatening to kill someone because they have said things you find offensive is not a freedom of speech issue. Read this sentance aloud to to youself. > [@](#): > > If freedom of speech were a moral right, having moderators on messageboard would be immoral. Kicking your friend out for saying shit about your mother would be immoral. None of us think that freedom of speech is really a moral issue. I do, as do plenty of others. I just recognize that it isn’t the ONLY moral issue, and that it doesn’t automatically trump all others. I’ll accept someone talking shit about my mother up to a certain point, and then I’ll conclude they’ve crossed the line. I’ll accept, even embrace, moderating up to a certain point, and for certain reasons, and after that I’ll conclude the moderators are intolerant assholes. The fact that there is not 100% unanimity on where the line is does not mean people do not agree to the concept as an ideal. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/165 "2015-01-14T18:34:08Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Can we please try and distinguish between LEGAL and MORAL right? Obviously CH did not break French law, and I never suggested they did. I’m sure we can all think of examples of laws in some countries that we don’t agree with just because they are laws. Which was less morally right-The cartoons or the murderous response? ---
**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 14, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/166 "2015-01-14T18:35:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I agree that it’s not an attack on freedom of speech. Everyone keeps forgetting what freedom of speech is. It is not a moral value. It is a restriction on the government in restricting your speech, lest they be able to use that ability for tyranny … > > … If freedom of speech were a moral right, having moderators on messageboard would be immoral. Kicking your friend out for saying shit about your mother would be immoral. None of us think that freedom of speech is really a moral issue. You appear to be muddling two different things together here, neither of which have anything to do with the topic. The interpretation of free speech as a prohibition against government restriction thereof pertains only to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and equivalent constitutional protections in other nations. That’s not the general definition of free speech, and has no relevance here. And it’s equally irrelevant whether it’s a moral issue or not, a claim that no one here has made. What is relevant in this discussion is that when someone takes it upon themselves to unilaterally impose punitive consequences on someone else because of something that person said, it is by definition an attempt to restrict speech. Any moral or ethical or legal questions are beside the point. Any other motivations are beside the point. It’s a freedom of speech issue by definition, period. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/167 "2015-01-14T18:37:20Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > What is law in some country does not determine what is morally right or wrong. If it’s okay to do it to one group of people, it should be fine to do it to another group as well, no? I have no moral qualms against drawing cartoons of Jesus or Moses. ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/168 "2015-01-14T18:39:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which was less morally right-The cartoons or the murderous response? The murders. You’ll have to excuse me; you keep making arguments that have nothing to with what I said; and I’m getting tired of that. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/169 "2015-01-14T18:42:55Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > People are pissed because it was an act of “hitting where it hurts most” and directed at Islam on the most general level, rather than criticizing specific aspects or expressions. “You are Muslim; and that’s reason enough for me to take what’s most sacred to you, and trample it.” And what is the appropriate response, when someone tramples on what is most sacred to a person? ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/170 "2015-01-14T18:44:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You keep using the word “vulgar” as if that explains something that we are missing. > > Listen, if you think someone is printing something vulgar and you want them to stop doing that, so you kill some of the people involved, that is not only a physical attack but it’s also an attack on the free speech rights of not only those people, but also that magazine and EVERYONE else as well. > > You seem to be implying that there was some justification for the act in the vulgarity of the content of the speech. The message there is that people should avoid being vulgar if they don’t want to die. I say fuck that shit. Fuck it in the ass with a giant dildo. > > Silencing people for what they say is an assault on free speech. This. Satire is often vulgar. Other times, it’s mild. But none of that matters. Free speech is what matters. That said, I have to ask: Isn’t the prophet big enough to take a few insults? ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/171 "2015-01-14T18:44:33Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok. How do you decide what is a “moral right”? Also, do you have a right (I guess a “moral right”) to force others to adhere to your definition or a “moral right”? How does anyone decide what’s morally right or wrong? And how am I “forcing” anyone? What the heck is wrong with saying you don’t think that something is okay? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/172 "2015-01-14T18:47:04Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > How does anyone decide what’s morally right or wrong? And how am I “forcing” anyone? What the heck is wrong with saying you don’t think that something is okay? Nothing. If that is as far as it goes. Is that your point - that you have a right to say that you don’t think someone’s actions are ok? If so, you’re absolutely correct. But that is a trivial point. ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/173 "2015-01-14T18:47:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And what is the appropriate response, when someone tramples on what is most sacred to a person? That depends. Why? ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/174 "2015-01-14T18:49:10Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > How does anyone decide what’s morally right or wrong? And how am I “forcing” anyone? What the heck is wrong with saying you don’t think that something is okay? Nothing, if you are just expressing your opinion. But when someone tries to try to put moral force behind it, or compel compliance with their beliefs, that crosses the line; and violent retribution is right out, I think we all agree. ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/175 "2015-01-14T18:51:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Nothing. If that is as far as it goes. Is that your point - that you have a right to say that you don’t think someone’s actions are ok? If so, you’re absolutely correct. But that is a trivial point. Oh, I see. You were talking about the attackers, not about me. May I point out, again, that I’m in no way trying to defend their actions? My opinion of that caricature does not depend on other people’s response to it. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/176 "2015-01-14T18:52:04Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > That depends. Why? It seemed like you were leading up to something. As if insulting what a person holds most sacred justifies a certain response; or, should be warning to those who cast the insults, as though they should expect consequences. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/177 "2015-01-14T18:52:28Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > The murders. > You’ll have to excuse me; you keep making arguments that have nothing to with what I said; and I’m getting tired of that. You want to talk about why the attack happened without talking about the fact that the attack was an overreactive illegal terrorist act. In other words, you would like to censor the conversation. Sorry, but I’m afraid that’s going to be a no go. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/178 "2015-01-14T18:54:47Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Oh, I see. You were talking about the attackers, not about me. May I point out, again, that I’m in no way trying to defend their actions? My opinion of that caricature does not depend on other people’s response to it. What about the terrorist’s response to it? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/179 "2015-01-14T18:58:13Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Oh, I see. You were talking about the attackers, not about me. May I point out, again, that I’m in no way trying to defend their actions? My opinion of that caricature does not depend on other people’s response to it. Again, you (or anyone) can have any opinion of the cartoon you like. You can also express that opinion, loudly and publicly, if you like. What you cannot do is force someone to desist from publishing that cartoon. Because THAT would be an attack on freedom of speech. I hope this made it clearer for you. ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/180 "2015-01-14T19:01:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You want to talk about why the attack happened without talking about the fact that the attack was an overreactive illegal terrorist act. In other words, you would like to censor the conversation. > Sorry, but I’m afraid that’s going to be a no go. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=10)