Havent posted about the Charlie Hebdo bombings, and I think this might be the only thing I might post. This, in particular, is gold: So no, were all not Charlie—few of us are that good, and none of us are that brave. If more of us were brave, and refused to yield to the bombers veto, and maybe reacted to these eternally recurring moments not by, say, deleting all your previously published Muhammad images, as the Associated Press is reportedly doing today, but rather by routinely posting newsworthy images in service both to readers and the commitment to a diverse and diffuse marketplace of speech, then just maybe Charlie Hebdo wouldnt have stuck out so much like a sore thumb. Its harder, and ultimately less rewarding to the fanatical mind, to hit a thousand small targets than one large one. And its not just those of us in the media business who have failed to be Charlie Hebdo. Every person in the broader West, whether it be a Financial Times editor or the president of the United States, who wrongly thinks that speech should not offend, and falsely believes that artistic commentary can somehow incite murderous violence, are also contributing to an ever-worsening cultural climate of speech, and therefore freedom. Today is an awful day for the basic project of free inquiry. Do you really wanna be Charlie Hebdo? Then get on out there, live and speak bravely. And God help you.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 23:05:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015