The Right to be Offended

16039997749_67e2637f11_k
Protesters march in France in response to the deadly terror attacks.

By: Austin McCandlish

Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie.

This sentence has been the rallying cry of countless news organizations, satirists, and French citizens following the heinous terrorist attack on the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper. But most people are not Charlie. Charlie Hebdo is far braver than many of us will ever have to be. It is also far more offensive. Charlie Hebdo frequently offends with intention, and continues to do so despite being the victim of an attack that killed twelve, including five staff cartoonists.

The magazine has published cartoons that many have found, and continue to find, insulting, disrespectful, and prejudiced. The terrorists responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo had such sentiments. In fact, they saw the newspaper’s cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad as so offensive that they warranted murder. It goes without saying that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a barbaric crime and an affront to the Western value of free speech. But even in the West, those who offend others are often censured, ostracized, and even imprisoned. Western society may value highly the freedom to offend, but it more often exercises its right to be offended. And it is the response of those who are offended by crude speech such as Charlie’s that usually set the precedent for what society will and will not allow to be said publicly. Even when acting well within the confines of the law, as was sadly not the case with the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo, the rage of those offended often has more power over what can be freely expressed than does crudeness of the offenders. The people who tend to offend are, after all, members of society who depend on the response of the public for their reputations, respect, and careers. Those offended by them have the ability to destroy all three. Laws criminalizing speech that is offensive should be repealed or diminished in scope, and the offended public should be careful who and what it condemns. Unrestrained anger can be just as much censorship as bans and codes.

Before Charlie Hebdo was brutally attacked by terrorists, the French government had also taken issue with the magazines cartoons, and had threatened legal action against Charlie on multiple occasions. In France, using speech that insults, defames, or incites hatred on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex, or sexual orientation is not merely frowned upon, but illegal. In 2006, France’s President Jacques Chirac warned Charlie of potential fines should it continue to provoke other members of French society. Furthermore, Charlie has been involved in lawsuits for its supposed mockery of Muslim people. In France the offended have legal means of retaliating against those who offend. Indeed there does not seem to be much of a “right” to offend at all under French law. Few would suggest that any cartoonist or journalist should face death as a consequence of offending some, but are large fines or years of imprisonment an appropriate response? The French government thinks so.

France’s laws prohibiting insulting speech would appall many Americans. In America, one has a right to be a bigot. In America, individuals, corporations, and the press are free to express any beliefs, ideas, or values that they may have without fear of legal repercussions, no matter how distasteful they may be. But this is certainly not to say that people in America do not get offended, and that the offended do not exercise their right to free speech with just as much zeal and passion as those who offend. In America, those who offend are not subject to legal discipline but rather populist rage.

As one example, American outrage has crippled Donald Sterling, the former Los Angeles Clippers owner who was forced to step down after it was revealed that he had made racist comments during a private conversation. Furthermore, countless CEO’s have recently been asked to resign or fired due to their personal beliefs regarding homosexuality. Roaring anger has cancelled television shows and ended careers. Had Charlie Hebdo been an American newspaper, it likely would have witnessed petitions, protests, and quite possibly divestment and exile. Perhaps Charlie Hebdo should not be faced with legal charges for offending, but would eradicating it through petition be appropriate?

None of this is to say that ideas that are clearly misguided or dangerous should not offend people. Nor is this to say that individuals who are offended should not exercise their rights to speak, protest, and petition against such damaging thoughts. What it is saying is that the offended have a powerful responsibility. When a magazine makes a comment about Islam, it is the offended among society who determine whether such a comment will be tolerated, as well as what consequences the offender will face. Donald Sterling may have the right to hold racist worldviews, but it was those who were offended by his views that had the power to get him fired. This is precisely why the offended must exercise their rights with more caution than the offender, or they may soon find themselves in a society where not even their own views may be expressed.

In the case of France, often times what is seen as an honest critique of religious dogma by one is seen as ferocious anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia by another. This is why criminalizing hateful speech is a bad idea. Someone can perceive almost anything as hateful or insulting, and too often anti-hate speech laws act as a cover for governments to silence news organizations they disapprove of. Furthermore, such laws mute honest conversation about some of society’s most difficult subjects. What is left is nothing more than censorship.

Outside of a legal framework, though, how should people respond when they become offended? They should respond with thoughtfulness, empathy, and tolerance. In certain cases, as with Donald Sterling, public fury is both warranted and effective. His antiquated views not only ran in contrast with a society still yearning for a less racially prejudiced society, but also were also fundamentally pertinent to his profession. Sterling was an owner in an industry with not only many black players, but also many black fans and black owners. Sterling’s views therefore cast into doubt his ability to be an honest, effective, and fair owner. It cast into doubt his ability to work appropriately with his peers and players. Furthermore, owning a basketball team makes one a public figure, which entails public responsibility. Sterling was in many ways the face of the Clippers. His firing is an example of an offended public rightfully delivering consequences to a man whose bigoted speech lessened him not just as a person, but also as a public role model and as a professional. In other instances, however, such as the forced resignation of Mozilla Firefox’s brief CEO Brendan Eich due to his views on homosexuality, the offended public seemed to lack the empathy, understanding, and tolerance that it so proudly claims to represent. Just as in the case of Donald Sterling, context here is key. Society simply has not progressed to the point in which everyone is accepting of gay and lesbian people, in fact the tides have only recently shifted. Few would say that everyone who does not believe in gay marriage should lose their job, but this was the case for Brendan Eich. True, Eich’s views may be offensive to many, but they were highly unlikely to impact his job. It is doubtful that just because Eich did not believe in gay marriage, he would be prejudiced, cruel, or demonizing to the gay individuals who may have worked beneath him. And while being CEO of a search engine company is in a way becoming a public figure, it is certainly not to the degree of a basketball owner. Public anger at speech it finds offensive should always value context, and should always be employed with thoughtful empathy.

Charlie Hebdo is a newspaper that proudly exercises its right to offend. Its satire is bold and irreverent and distasteful to many. But the recent terrorist attack on Charlie has reminded us that is not usually the adolescent blasphemer who poses a threat to society so much as it is the humorless man with the guillotine. Laws criminalizing insulting speech should be repealed and public outrage should be less inflammatory and more targeted. All members of a tolerant society must remind themselves that they have the capacity to both offend and be offended, and that the censure they set for those who shock must always be crafted with thoughtfulness, tolerance and empathy. If it is not, it will be honesty, dialogue, and expression itself that will pay the ultimate price.