What are we talking about here?

Last week’s vicious attack on the staff of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo by Islamic extremists brought in its wake an outpouring of support for the victims and for the idea of free speech. The slogan “Je’suis Charlie” sprang up and spread through the internet and into the general pop culture with even participants at this weekend’s Golden Globe Awards using it as a show of solidarity. However, it seems that we have entered the reevaluation and counterpoint portion of the news cycle, with numerous individuals voicing disapproval of the content of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical cartoons. They point out that the cartoons do more than simply depict the Prophet Muhammad, they point to examples of work which appear to trade in vile racial stereotypes (I say—appear to—because I have witnessed numerous debates this past week where individuals debate the finer points of French satire. Despite my two years of French language study in high school, I am ill equipped to form a definite opinion in either direction. So “appear to” is the most honest and accurate description that I can use). While these commentaries declare that they denounce the violence of the terrorists, I’m a bit unclear as to their larger point. If their statements are an effort to reject the ideas conveyed by Charlie Hebdo’s work, I suppose that’s o.k. (although it might be considered poor taste to vilify a group of people that were just murdered in cold blood, but poor taste isn’t a crime), but other than that, I’m not sure what their objectives are.

The situation is complicated by events currently transpiring in France, where controversial comedian Dieudonné has been arrested for statements made on his Facebook page which appear (there’s that word again) to show support for one of last week’s terrorist attackers, Amedy Couilibaly. I won’t get into whether the decision to arrest Dieudonné is correct, other than to say that I’m always deeply troubled when anyone is incarcerated for what could be thought of as a thought crime. I am willing to concede that this is a case for the Europeans to debate; they have a different history, culture, norms, and legal system. However, it does appear to be at least a bit inconsistent, considering that over the weekend French citizens participated in a massive rally in support of free speech.

It would be easy for Americans to pat ourselves on the back at this point, and bask in the in the glory of the First Amendment. Speech seemingly enjoys broad protections here, and yet Reporters Without Borders recently ranked the U.S. 46th out of 180 countries for press freedoms. Much of that critique stems from actions taken in the name of national security. Depending on your point of view, this is either due to the actions of an overzealous national security state or—if you are more sympathetic to the government’s case—understandable and justified measures necessary to combat terrorism, but the forces threatening free speech do not reside solely in the Department of Defense or Homeland Security. A recent editorial by the University of Chicago’s student paper—The Maroon—asking the university’s administration to “maintain a consistent commitment to eradicating hate speech and harassment in campus discussion,” should in fact be almost as troubling as the actions taken by our nation’s national security apparatus. Let me be clear, I am in no way defending speech that consists of direct threats. I’m also sympathetic to the notion that today’s digital age provides new challenges as it relates to the issues of harassment and stalking that need to be addressed. Beyond that, the response to objectionable speech (to paraphrase Justice Brandeis) should be more speech, not less. 

What I’m profoundly saddened by is the revelation that today’s college students are insisting that administrators vigorously police them. Maybe I’m old-fashioned and out of touch, but I remember when campuses were the place that challenging speech was generated. If those institutions are now populated by young people who would prefer to give up that tradition in favor of (and I hate to use this term) political correctness, I am honestly concerned for the future of public discourse in this country. If you think that the culture wars are bad now, just imagine a world where what you could openly say was dependent upon who had been elected or appointed as attorney general. Again, don’t get me wrong, there are groups whose ideas I find absolutely abhorrent. I seethe with rage whenever I read about Westboro Baptist Church protesting yet another funeral, but the answer to that type of activity in a free society is to shun and completely ostracize the offenders. In the case of Westboro, this has been done to great effect, and now the group exists as little more than a punchline. 

So the question must be asked—in light of eroding free speech in this country—to those that have proclaimed that “Je ne suis pas Charlie” or “I am not not Charlie”, what are your aims? Do you want to challenge the speech of those you disagree with using speech and ideas of your own, or even social ostracism in cases that go beyond the pale, or do you want to impose your idea of appropriate and safe discourse with speech codes and official reprimands? If the answer is the latter, my only response is—Je ne suis pas vous, or I am not you.