Charlie Hebdo and free speech

A French magazine which until recently ago was unknown to the vast majority of the UK public, has, in the past few days, become headline news around the world.  Charlie Hebdo (French for Weekly Charlie) is a French satirical magazine.  On 7 January, two masked gunmen forced their way into the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris and killed 12 people, including the editor and several contributors.  It is believed that the attack was in response to a number of controversial cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad.  A tragic and desperately sad event, and my heart goes out to the family and friends of all those involved.

It has been interesting to witness how the British media has responded, with countless hours given over to TV and radio coverage of the tragic events and the subsequent search for the perpetrators.  A vast amount of column inches have been written, and politicians from around the world were (quite rightly) quick to issue words of condemnation, many joining in the March for Unity which took place in Paris at the weekend.

The staff of Charlie Hebdo who were killed in last week’s massacre have been lauded in some quarters as heroes and martyrs for free speech.  Of course, free speech is something which we value very highly in our democratic system.  Yet I fear that sometimes it is used to justify almost any vitriolic or offensive language.  The apparent reality is that some of the material which appeared in Charlie Hebdo could be not only very highly offensive, but also racist.  The magazine was written with an intention to shock.  As Jordan Weissmann commented, “Charlie Hebdo’s work was both courageous and often vile.”  Free speech is a fine ideal, but is it an ideal above all others?  If so, where might it lead?  I am troubled, for example, by a quote from Stephen Fry, which highlights the issue very well:

“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’  As if that give them certain rights.  It’s actually nothing more … than a whine.  ‘I find that offensive.’  It has no meaning.  It has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.  ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so f****g what?’”

The implication of Fry’s comments is that we should be free to say or write whatever we like, taking no account of who might be offended by our words.  Yet at the same time, comedian and TV personality Sue Perkins expressed in a recent article her concern that some male comedians are making jokes about rape.  She comments, “It’s not all right to make rape jokes.”  I’m sure that most people would agree, but how does this tie in with the apparent ‘holy grail’ of free speech?  Does our desire for free speech give the green light to any vile or offensive language?  My opinion is that if Stephen Fry’s comment becomes the standard by which society thinks and behaves, we will have reached a desperately sad state.

The Bible has some relevant words to say on the issue:

‘Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you.’  Ephesians 4:29

‘There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.’  Proverbs 12:18

‘What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.’  Matthew 15:11

Free speech is really important.  It is vital that we should have the right to criticise what is wrong in society, and to speak out on issue which concern us  (Jesus regularly exercised his right of free speech to criticise the religious establishment of his day!)  But surely, in a civilised society, we also have a responsibility to consider the consequences of what we say or write.  The old “sticks and stones” saying really is a load of codswallop!  This is clearly not a black and white issue, but it’s one which we need to seriously consider before we reach a point of no return.