In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assassination, along with the recent controversy surrounding the release of Sony’s film “The Interview”, many have considered the question “How far is too far?”
Well I’ll tell you. ‘Too far’ is when you start making threats of violence because you didn’t like what somebody had to say. ‘Too far’ is when you actually commit said acts of violence. ‘Too far’ is when you start considering limitations to free speech in order to avoid pissing people off. So it goes without saying that actually limiting free speech is going ‘too far’.
I have heard many arguments suggesting that sometimes people ‘cross the line’ in media. I can say that I have felt the same way at times, usually when somebody says something stupid (So, pretty much every time I watch Fox “News”). With that said, I would never advocate that someone does not have the right to speak their mind because I find their words offensive. Especially when it’s in jest.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical organization, it would not be correct to say that everything they publish is entirely in jest. Often they have been half-joking; trying to be funny while still attempting to make a point. Still, they have every right to say what they want to say regardless of the fact that there exists in this world people with asinine (I’m being nice here) ideas for what qualifies as a justified response.
It’s these ideas that are the real issue, the violence is merely a symptom. The best chance we have of successfully combating these toxic philosophies embedded in religious beliefs is not only to educate people as best we can, but to boldly speak out against such ideas. Hiding in the shadows and speaking in whispers because your afraid of what might happen otherwise only ensures that the ‘better man’ loses (sorry ladies, it’s just an expression).
Censorship is exactly what these terrorists want. They don’t like our ideas, our perspectives, our lifestyles, or anything else about us for that matter. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, we oblige and enact policies, or even legislation, that censors the media in order to avoid more violent responses. What happens next? Do we start insisting that women cover themselves from head to toe in public?
Now I will acknowledge that such a leap seems a bit hyperbolic, and please forgive me for using the slippery-slope here, but indulge me for a moment. We are talking about people whose beliefs not only allow them to justify murdering someone who insults their so-called prophet, but obligates them to do things like burn their sister alive because she had sex out of wedlock. That’s not hyperbole by the way, that shit really happens.
My point is that these terrorists don’t simply wish to keep us from referencing ‘he-who-shall-not-be-named’ (*cough* Muhammad *ahem* Sorry, had something stuck in my throat), they aim to destroy every freedom we rightly enjoy. In their view, it’s us or them. There are no compromises. So unless we want to live in some dystopian world where limitations are imposed upon us in some vain effort to appease those among us that throw the most devastating temper tantrums, I suggest we don’t compromise either.
In all honesty, I feel sorry for those who are so deeply indoctrinated by such ignorant ideology that they feel obligated to resort to bloodshed in order to settle their differences. I long for the day when such naively motivated assaults are a thing of the past. But such a day will only be realized in the wake of raised voices and shouting matches, silence will get us nowhere.
Lastly, it is worth noting the words of one of our most practical and influential founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
