Free speech update: The good, the bad, and the Charlie

Charlie Hebdo reprints Muhammad cartoons

2020 has brought a lot of unprecedented developments to us all, but there is one thing that definitely isn’t new: the bad arguments about Charlie Hebdo that are being recycled this week as the magazine reprints its controversial cartoons of Muhammad. The cartoons are being shared again as new trials begin for alleged accomplices of the 2015 attack. 

Responses to the reprints have ranged from supportive to critical to outright ugly. Turkey, one of the world’s worst jailers of journalists, released a statement asserting that “[t]he efforts of French authorities, especially President Macron, to explain this within the context of the freedom of expression, are unacceptable.” Pakistan, too, said that “[s]uch a deliberate act to offend the sentiments of billions of Muslims cannot be justified as an exercise in press freedom or freedom of expression.” Pakistan — where a man was recently assassinated in court over blasphemy allegations, and another man was sentenced to death for blasphemy late last year — is a perfect example of why offensive religious speech should be tolerated as an exercise of free expression. 

Then there was this head-scratcher of a tweet from “Leading Britain’s Conversation,” which asked if Charlie Hebdo’s republishing of the cartoons is “free speech or provocation.” That’s quite an “or.” And, finally, this tweet from Nigerian Senator Shehu Sani, which stated in full: “The publisher @Charlie_Hebdo_ ,Your last outing unleashed avoidable mayhem,bloodshed & destruction.The World has enough urgent & important issues that needs your attention & intervention;Insulting the religious sensitivities of others is unconscionable and condemnable.” It is simply vile to blame the “avoidable mayhem” and “bloodshed” on the victims of the attack. The gunmen, not the cartoonists, deserve the entirety of the blame. That was true five years ago, and it will still be true five years from now. 

But there were positive responses, too. The French Council of Muslim Worship wrote that “[t]he freedom to make caricatures and the freedom to dislike them are guaranteed and nothing can justify violence.” This is the correct response; cartoonists are free to make cartoons, and critics are free to oppose them. That’s how it’s supposed to work. French President Emmanuel Macron, too, affirmed the country’s “freedom of the press.” 

Lese-majeste for . . . mayors?

So, overall good free speech news out of France, right? Not so fast. Yesterday, French Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti announced that he would suggest to the public prosecutor’s department that insults to a mayor be treated as an offense of contempt, which offers a maximum penalty of community service of up to 280 hours or a fine of up to €7,500. According to Dupond-Moretti, “a mayor who is insulted is a mayor who, in legal terms, is abused.” (On that note, I would like to announce that I am running for mayor so I can file charges against everyone who has tweeted ASPCA ads at me.) 

It’s easy to mock this as an exercise of arrogance — it’s outlandish to believe that elected officials who can exert power over people’s lives deserve to be treated as if they are above insult or reproach. But it’s more than just arrogance. There are young people in Thailand who are currently putting their freedom on the line to protest their country’s monarchy and the lese-majeste laws that protect it from criticism. Arrests have already started. So now might be a good time to show solidarity for people protesting restrictions on their ability to criticize their leaders, not add to the argument that such restrictions are justified. 

The views expressed here are Sarah’s and should not be considered positions of organizations she’s affiliated with.