The terrorist attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris have led to widespread global outrage and have led to fervent discussions regrading the nature of free speech, the need to defend it and the way in which it relates to existing social inequality. This paper will reflect on two aspects of the incident and claim that it both draws attention to the importance of free speech and to problems associated with it.
It is clear that the attack has drawn attention to the idea that freedom of speech is something that is not politically neutral and that the incessant pursuit of it can often put people in danger. The magazine had become controversial for printing satirical images of the prophet Muhammed, something that is explicitly forbidden by the laws of Islam. As such, the attack has been framed as a conflict between freedom of speech represented by an innately rational and democratic institution and an innately irrational and violent extremist attitude. In this sense, the attack draws attention to the fact that ideals of freedom of speech are, generally speaking, inseparable from ideas of liberal democracy its own belief in sovereign reason.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Charlie Hebdo and Free Speech".
On the other hand, however, the mass defence of freedom of speech actively covers up existing inequality. Muslims in France are frequently subject to racist attacks and the country became the first in Europe to ban traditional face coverings for Islamic women. In essence, the attacks actively draw attention to an inequality of social standing. Freedom of speech, if it is to function as an ideal, assumes that two or more parties exist on an equal footing, and therefore are in a position whereby speech by each would mean the same thing. The second feature of the attacks is to show that this is manifestly not the case.
