Freedom of Speech or Unnecessarily Offensive?
On 7th January 2015, two gunmen forced their way into the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. 12 people were killed. The shooters could be heard shouting “the Prophet is avenged”.
The magazine has been criticised and even physically attacked in the past for printing cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, as well as many other images that religious groups and individuals have found offensive in their content.
On 14th January 2015, just one week after the shooting at their offices, Charlie Hebdo published an issue of their magazine again depicting the Prophet Muhammad on the cover to reiterate their belief in freedom of expression.
In printing an image of the Prophet on the front page of the first issue since the terrible events of 7th January, Charlie Hebdo have created a public debate. One side believes that the human right of freedom of expression allows the magazine to publish whatever they like without any retribution, regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the actual content. The other side believes that the publication is unnecessarily offensive and has a moral obligation to ensure that the magazine’s content does not insult or upset any group or individual because of their religious beliefs.
Many arguing on the side of support for Charlie Hebdo have expressed their frustration at the aggressive response of many Muslims calling for the publication to be shut down or legally charged for promoting religious hatred. They argue that the magazine does not focus entirely on satirising Islam. Many of the cartoons published depict Jewish and Christian individuals in a negative manner and yet the offices have not been attacked by Jewish or Christian fundamentalists. Why is this?
One of Charlie Hebdo’s former employees wrote an article in December of 2013, many years after his departure from the magazine, expressing his concerns that the publication was heading down a worrying path. Click here to view the article. (Warning: Offensive Language)
The main question to arise from the shooting and subsequent response from Charlie Hebdo is as follows: Should there be limits to freedom of expression? And if so, where do we draw the line?
