Maxim Gaijin: The entire notion of free speech being something that we always have to defend on principle ignores how racism actually works and gains strength. There was no real reason for Charlie Hebdo to be printing the portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad that it did in a country where Muslims are such an embattled minority. Satire is a pretty weak justification for something that has social consequences. We should be clear about that. I also have to note though, that this justification of we satirize everyone equally is something that people like Seth MacFarlane say a lot too, and it doesnt work when you remember that there are different social consequences for attacking and satirizing different people, and different groups, at different times. Satirizing Muslims right now in this way is clearly not the best thing to do in a country that is constantly trying to criminalize the faith in more and more violent ways. Anyone who goes out of their way to create a graphic of Mohamed and put it on the cover of your publication is a jerk. On a technical level I support their right to do that, in the same way, that I support the right of the KKK to march in the streets(without their hoods), but just because you have the right to do something doesnt absolve you of being an asshole. Being murdered doesnt absolve you of being an asshole either. This was terrible and the terrorists are far worse than the publishers, but they were being assholes for sure. Note: Debating what is improper uses of speech can only happen with free speech.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:09:49 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015