Below is my column in the Sunday Washington Post on the free speech implications of the massacre in Paris and what it means to “stand with Charlie.” Rather the piece explores the status of free speech in France and The murders themselves are clearly the work of Islamic extremists who need little reason to kill innocent people in their twisted view of faith. However, the victims were journalists who had struggled with rising speech limitations and regulations in France as well as other European nations. (Indeed, at least one surviving journalist expressed contempt for those who now support free speech but remained silent in the face of past efforts to shut down the magazine). We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
As many on this blog know, I have a particular affection for France and its people. I was moved to see the protest spontaneously protest as thousands can out to defend liberty and French culture. It was a quintessential moment for the French. Indeed, it reminded many of us of how the French once voiced the “Rights of Man” and rallied around civil liberties at a defining moment for all of Western Civilization. We all felt victims of these attacks and most of us were moved to see our French counterparts joining together in one voice to support free speech. However, there needs to be some frank discussion of threat posed by increasing speech regulations and prosecutions. Ironically, while thousands have demonstrated against immigration as a threat to national identity, the real threat is not the immigrants themselves but the loss of national identity from these prosecutions. What is France if it is not its liberties and freedoms? France cannot simply be defined by brie and baguettes. Those who want to join Western countries must accept their core commitment to free speech as part of a social convenant not just with the government but with each other.
(The title of the piece is selected by the Post, not the author. (We usually learn of the titles when the reader does). The print version includes a title that the “threat” comes not terrorism but the French. Many may conclude that the piece somehow blames the French for these attacks which is obviously not true. Rather, with the rallies (including the huge rally today) in support of free speech, the column explores the primary cause of the erosion of free speech in France — and what can be done to restore it. Likewise, this article is not meant to suggest that any criticism of religion is no longer tolerated in France. After all, the magazine continued to publish despite efforts to prosecute the editors and journalists. Moreover, French courts have ruled in favor of free speech in some critical cases. However, while some efforts have been curtailed by the French courts, government censorship has been increasing, particularly when the challenged speech is directed at living individuals. Other restrictions are broader and the appetite for such regulation appears to be increasing. For example, a few years ago, when the government made the denial of the genocide of Armenians by Turkey a crime, the drafter of the law Senator Valerie Boyer dismissed the objections and said “That’s democracy.” Indeed, Boyer exemplified why John Adams warned that “ democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The clash between democracy and free speech is growing as different groups demand that others be silenced in the name of pluralism and tolerance.
Here is the column:
Within an hour of the massacre at the headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper, thousands of Parisians spontaneously gathered at the Place de la Republique. Rallying beneath the monumental statues representing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, they chanted “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) and “Charlie! Liberty!” It was a rare moment of French unity that was touching and genuine.
Yet one could fairly ask what they were rallying around. The greatest threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on free speech.
Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been conditioned on being used “responsibly” in France, suggesting that it is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial views.
In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against such “obvious provocations.”
“Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided,” he said. “Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.”
The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims — a crime that carries a fine of up to 22,500 euros or six months’ imprisonment. French courts ultimately ruled in Charlie Hebdo’s favor. But France’s appetite for speech control has only grown since then.
The cases have been wide-ranging and bizarre. In 2008, for example, Brigitte Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy about how she thought Muslims and homosexuals were ruining France. In 2011, fashion designer John Galliano was found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris cafe. In 2012, the government criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide (a law later overturned by the courts, but Holocaust denial remains a crime). In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for “glorifying a crime” after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to school wearing a shirt that said “I am a bomb.” Last year, Interior Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, declaring that he was “no longer a comedian” but was rather an “anti-Semite and racist.” It is easy to silence speakers who spew hate or obnoxious words, but censorship rarely ends with those on the margins of our society.
Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, “We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized.” The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn’t feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was “making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites.” The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.
Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google — for her negative review of a restaurant.
While France long ago got rid of its blasphemy laws, there is precious little difference for speakers and authors in prosecutions for defamation or hate speech. There may also be little difference perceived by extremists, like those in Paris, who mete out their own justice for speech the government defines as a crime. To them, this is only a matter of degree in responding to what the government has called unlawful provocations. As the radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary wrote this past week, “Why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims?”
It was the growing French intolerance of free speech that motivated the staff of Charlie Hebdo — and particularly its editor, Stéphane Charbonnier — who made fun of all religions with irreverent cartoons and editorials. Charbonnier faced continuing threats, not just of death from extremists but of criminal prosecution. In 2012, amid international protests over an anti-Islamic film, Charlie Hebdo again published cartoons of Muhammad. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault warned that freedom of speech “is expressed within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts.”
Carbonnier wasn’t cowed — by the government pressure, the public protests or the inclusion of his name on a list of al-Qaeda targets. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, he echoed Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata and proclaimed, “I would rather die standing than live on my knees.” Carbonnier was the first person the gunmen asked for in their attack on the office, and he was one of the first to be killed.
The French, of course, have not been alone in rolling back protections on free speech. Britain, Canada and other nations have joined them. We have similar rumblings here in the United States. In 2009, the Obama administration shockingly supported Muslim allies trying to establish a new international blasphemy standard. And as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton invited delegations to Washington to work on implementing that standard and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Likewise, in 2012, President Obama went to the United Nations and declared that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
The future once belonged to free speech. It was the very touchstone of Western civilization and civil liberties. A person cannot really defame a religion or religious figures (indeed, you cannot defame the dead in the United States). The effort to redefine criticism of religion as hate speech or defamation is precisely what Charbonnier fought to resist. He once said that by lampooning Islam, he hoped to make it “as banal as Catholicism” for the purposes of social commentary and debate.
Charbonnier died, as he pledged, standing up rather than yielding. The question is how many of those rallying in the Place de la Republique are truly willing to stand with him. They need only to look more closely at those three statues. In the name of equality and fraternity, liberty has been curtailed in France. The terrible truth is that it takes only a single gunman to kill a journalist, but it takes a nation to kill a right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) January 11, 2015
Thank you, DBQ. I have been trying to do just that for ages without success. Even a search online wasn’t helpful.
I owe you one. 🙂
No ” marks are included in the code. I just put them in there so that it would not confuse the wordpress bots
po
you can place your words in italics and it would be easier to read. People tend to skip over a wall of text and especially one that is all capital letters.
HTML code: your text that will be italicized
Instead of “the code for italics insert the letter i. You can do the same thing to bold text by inserting the letter b the / figure in the ending closes the code. Don’t forget to put the closing code in there 🙂
Inga – you are clearly CUI. No one in their right mind would diagnosis alcoholism or dementia at long distance.
oops, here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcxzIE4xxrI
Said by the playmaker! 🙂
happypappies,
I will be responding in caps, not because I am yelling at you :), but to make sure it is easier to distinguish my words so as to lessen misunderstandings.
were you referring to original sin when you said that the Muslim has a direct relationship with god and Judeo-Christian does not?
NO, THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF ORIGINAL SIN IN ISLAM.
Intellect and knowledge in western language is the same as head if you know what I mean.
HEAD ALSO REFERS TO AUTHORITY. THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY, HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT, HEAD OF THE RELIGION…
This is the thing that is hard for me. While I respect your right to worship as you wish and I am disgusted with the hypocrisy rife in my own religion, I do not buy that Islam is a religion of Peace after re reading the Koran.
WHILE MANY MUSLIMS CALL ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE, I CALL IT A RELIGION OF BALANCE, BETWEEN THE EXTREMES OF ATONEMENT IN JUDAISM AND THE EXTREME OF GOODWILL IN CHRISTIANITY, THE EYE FOR AN EYE OF JUDAISM PLUS THE TURN THE OTHER CHEEK OF CHRISTIANITY. YOU MAY TAKE AN EYE FOR AN EYE BUT IF YOU FORGIVE, IT IS BETTER FOR YOU.
THE QURAN IS NOT A COUPLE OF QUOTES FROM ONE SURA, NOR IS IT 1 HOUR OF READING. IT IS TO GO THE BOOK WITH AN OPEN HEART AND AN OPEN MIND, TO LISTEN TO WHAT IT TELLS YOU, RATHER THAN LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN IT. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN IT, READ IT FROM THE START WITH AN OPEN MIND, FOR A WHILE. I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO INQUIRE HOWEVER.
THIS GUY HERE DOES A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING HIS COMING TO THE QURAN.
So, again, I am sorry and I don’t understand a God that is not forgiving to a Prophet after Jesus Christ.
I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. ISLAM IS ALL FORGIVENESS. GOD FORGAVE THE PROPHET EVERYTHING, THEN TELLS US HUMAN BEINGS TO FORGIVE TOO. FORGIVENESS IS THE RUNNING THREAD IN IT ACTUALLY.
Inga –
Inga, you play games all the time. You play until your fingers get burned and then you get help.
Ari,
I have no quarrel with you. I actually like your perspectives, even when they don’t agree with mine. It’s hard to learn from those with whom we agree…one of the sufi saints used to say that he engaged in no debate but he wished to be wrong so that he came out having learned something.
I also believe that face to face, and without the distraction of my shooting back at snipers (who also serve a purpose), yeah, we would get along quite well. No doubt in my mind.
Correction: “…what I just applies…” should have been “…what I just said applies….”
Po, I think if we ever had a chance to sit down face to face, we’d find more in common than in opposition. If you are ever in or near Detroit, let me know, if you’d also appreciate such a meeting. You can be provocative
and I certainly can be, but face to face I’d bet we’d find more common ground that opposed stances.
Actually, what I just applies to 99% of those who post here. In general, it is a pretty good crowd. Even rafflaw 🙂 He reminds me of those professors I had in college way back in the Jurassic period of my youth…a challenge I can learn from. I don’t learn much in an echo chamber, but I find when face to face, especially with opposition folk, learning happens. I think I’ve said that a few times generally here and elsewhere.
If I fail at anything it is to anger and comment as such, a flaw I still haven’t fixed but have improved.
unfounded argument.
*Of nasty.*
Again I apologize for taking a thread so far off topic. I is my bad.
Sandi, I don’t think you’re going to convince Professor Turley to pick up a gun and join the military. And Sandi, please don’t speak for what people in the military want. A holy war on our own soil should be the last thing any sane person wants.
Professor Turley it’s easy to stand by freedom of speech. Notice today France turned to their military. Called 10,000 to Paris. I guess they’re ready to fight for that freedom. Are you? Because if they start killing our writers/cartoonists here; and they are here. Would you use a gun to protect anybody being threatened?
That’s why we have such great people in our military. They don’t want you to have to. But they can’t stop it from here. Give them the freedom to go protect our freedoms, because that’s why they are in the military!
Obama did not march because he does not agree with the purpose of this event.
His participation would have been half hearted and grudging much like that of Bill De Blasio at a cops funeral.
You have to realize he is on the other side.
I really liked the article, too, and I fully agree with Spinelli’s first comment.
From a Twitter photo (which I’d have posted were it possible) of a fellow holding a sign while marching in Paris:
I walk but
I am aware
of the confusion
and of the hypocrisy
of the situation
Speaking of hypocrisy, I enjoyed seeing Bibi there representing US interests and apparently having temporarily stowed the lawnmower.
“It is He Who sent down to thee, in truth, the Book (Quran), confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (Quran) (of judgment between right and wrong). – Holy Quran 3:3”
“And in their (the earlier prophets) footsteps We sent Jesus the son o Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.” Qur’an:5:46
Happy
Did you read my reply to your taking me to task for what I said about the difference between Islam and Catholicism?
I am not sure what just happened but between Lee thinking I called her an islamophobe and you thinking I was making a claim of superiority of Islam above Catholicism, either my writing is very obscure and difficult to understand or neither of you gave me much benefit of the doubt as to my thinking.
I have made it very clear, many times that Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all from the same source and therefore all parts of the same message.
I have also explained that because Islam doesn’t have a head, a pope, there is no central authority…therefore everyone can claim direct access to God, which makes it so that no one’s insight can be authoritatively countered by any islamic authority really. Hence the fact that islamic terrorists can make the claims they make.
Why would I attack Christians when the Quran itself praises them? When Jesus and his mother Mary are routinely praised in the Quran?
When the muslims were given refuge by the Christian king of Ethiopia when they were oppressed by the pagan arabs?
When you say this:
” Well, I looked and looked and looked through these Suras until I couldn’t stand the Desert Psychosis I was looking at any more. I suppose that is nice if you like Ali Baba or something but to make a religion out of it is a real trick imo. Sorry Po if you are reading this, No disrespect meant, If these people can remain calm and reasonable when they practice their “Religion” okay, but I certainly don’t understand the weirdness I read in Sura 31-34 and I read the whole this.”
should I feel disrespected?Seems like some disrespect was surely meant.
Considering you have defended Islam previously, eloquently and truthfully,, I can only assume these words above were in response to a perceived slight.
There is a saying back home that one’s truth is that which one said while one wasn’t yet mad, I still believe that was your truth.
Po: I could not find any of your comments and I was saying the truth as I perceived it. If you tell me where to look, I will look there. I said in my comment to explain myself once again to the Canon as I was getting ready to speak to you regarding your comment about Christianity being a religion of the Head and Islam interacting straight with God. I don’t know if this is a language thing here. It might be.
The thing is, putting everything aside because I think it’s just getting in the way, were you referring to original sin when you said that the Muslim has a direct relationship with god and Judeo-Christian does not? Because if you were referring to that —– that is a different thing.
Intellect and knowledge in western language is the same as head if you know what I mean. And I am never condescending. I have too many personal hangups to make someone else feel bad about themselves. So, I am sorry if it seemed that way.
This is the thing that is hard for me. While I respect your right to worship as you wish and I am disgusted with the hypocrisy rife in my own religion, I do not buy that Islam is a religion of Peace after re reading the Koran. I will cut and paste my source if you care to disseminate what I read
[Ahzab 33:63] People ask you regarding the Last Day; proclaim, “Its knowledge is only with Allah; and what do you know, the Last Day may really be near!”
[Ahzab 33:64] Allah has indeed cursed the disbelievers, and has kept prepared for them a blazing fire.
[Ahzab 33:65] In which they will remain forever; in it they will find neither a protector nor any supporter.
[Ahzab 33:66] On the day when their faces will be overturned being roasted inside the fire, they will say, “Alas – if only we had obeyed Allah and obeyed His Noble Messenger!”
[Ahzab 33:67] And they will say, “Our Lord! We followed our chiefs and our elders – so they misled us from the path!”
[Ahzab 33:68] “Our Lord! Give them double the punishment of the fire and send upon them a mighty curse!”
I will say this again Po – I was looking for what was promised to us in the Judeo Christian Religion that is carved on my heart – that is Jeremiah
A New Covenant
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
If you have that in there – I couldn’t find it and I am not being condescending. I found what I related above.
http://www.alahazrat.net/alquran/Quran/033/033_063_073.html
So, again, I am sorry and I don’t understand a God that is not forgiving to a Prophet after Jesus Christ.