Ever since the artists and publishers of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris were assassinated by the Islamic Extremists, France has been on a maximum security threat level. Several arrests have been made, but the vicious circle continues. When Charlie Hebdo exposed its first cover after the attack that left several of its staff members dead, another debate has sparked as to how far the boundaries can be pushed when it comes to freedom of expression in images. It is essential to know as to who draws those boundaries and how those boundaries get drawn (Charlie Hebdo attack 2015). The essay looks at essential questions such as if there should be limits to freedom and what kind of images should be kept away from the realm of satire or artistic expression. There is no denying that attack on Charlie Hebdo has been the worst terror attack in recent decades. However, that doesn’t give them the freedom to push the limits to artistic expression and satire.
Charlie Hebdo
Little was known about Charlie Hebdo until the attack. Soon, the magazine was seen as a symbol of French secularism and freedom of expression and the slogan ” I am Charlie” became very popular across social media. The satirical Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine often aims at Muslims and targets Prophet Muhammad as well as Christians and Jews politically. Recent years have seen the magazine feature numerous anti-Islam images and Islamophobic provocations. One finds bullet-ridden Korans and bullet-ridden Korans in their drawings (Cole 2015). France suppression of Islamic cultural expressions is a mere reflection of its ugly colonial history.
Double standards
After the mass murder at the paper’s Charlie Hebdo offices, the Western society has gone ahead and committed a mass free-speech fraud. Free speech is welcome but at the same time, the contempt for the real freedom of expression can be seen in the provocative publications. Western political and cultural elites state that they are not Charlie now and support the right to be offensive (Hume 2016). Those instances show that freedom is not just by those few barbarians, but the free speech faces more prevailing enemies within the civilization itself. Double standards flourish, and French authorities are seen cracking down those whose speech they find offensive. Western societies are a variegated space where freedom of thought and speech exists, but in the face of provocation, there are strong efforts to control speech. It is ironical that the governments leading protesting against the brutal killings in Paris by the Islamic jihadists are executioners of writers and cartoonists themselves. This raises essential questions as to where all this is heading to? (Joe Sacco: On Satire 2015).
A wrong recipe for satire
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were ideologues and the incredibly racist cartoons make it clear that they have been made to provoke. And just like any other cartoonists, their recipe for good satire often goes wrong. The murder of their cartoonists does not prove that their satire was good. Their drawings may be good, but the satire in them reek of racism. It is sad to see people getting killed over cartoons. Free speech is important for the society, but it certainly doesn’t mean that it has the freedom to mock or criticize anybody. Those cartoons are often used as bait, and the world has seen the horrific results. In fact, those cartoons give the Radical Islamic groups reasons to garner outrage and support for the Islamic sentiment.
The intellectual, artistic merit often gets muddled by the free speech contests. Both supporters and opponents of the Freedom of Expression Courage Award was bestowed on Charlie Hebdo, for paying the price. The magazine is seen as racist and Islamophobic. The attack on a “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” has raised essential questions. While every writer and artist has the freedom of expression, he should know when the lines are getting crossed. This doesn’t mean that the assault on the contest and Charlie Hebdo are justified. Both the gunmen and who provoked them carry the responsibility here. It’s become the issue of motives here rather than the content of those artworks (Heer 2015).
There are examples from American history where images have often given rise to conflicts in society. The use of the mascots and nicknames in Native American imagery has often sparked controversies. There are conflicting viewpoints on the issue that such imagery is meant to honor Native American people while other viewpoint states that this kind of imagery is offensive. Native American athletic imagery has been dehumanizing and cartoonish (Locklear 152). Based studies, the scholars find that most of the images used in mass media are degrading to Native people and make a mock of their traditions, history and culture as they portray Native Americans through stereotypes.
French satire differs from other national satires, and the masses are used to occasionally garish caricatures (O’neill 2016). However, things are different when drawing Muhammad with a furiously Islamist bent and deride the religion. Charlie Hebdo is being banned on some campuses and distanced from because of its potentially offensive images. The US is considered to be a land of the free and offers protection to freedom of speech and the press. Still, the crusaders and bloggers have distanced themselves from Charlie Hebdo (Hume 2016).
Freedom of speech and expression doesn’t mean the freedom to offend. The enormity of the killings in Paris will remain with the world for a long time. France will remain in sorrow for many years. But the violence from the pens on the paper has to stop. There should limits to freedom of expression, and it is best to keep some subjects and themes away from satire or artistic expression. Had the French satirical newspaper realized that the moderate Muslims might have to get offended by its cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, perhaps the brutal killings won’t have taken place and many lives saved. The free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to insult the other. An artist must show respect to sacred images and under all circumstances, especially when the world is reeling under the global threat of terrorism. Such works and images will only give radical psalmists to gain sympathy and more support for their motives. Issues of religions and racism are already very sensitive, and the world remains divided on that front. Such images will only incitement to racial hatred and incite more incidents of violence and lead to more innocent people getting killed. The majority of people feel that the images of the Prophet published by Charlie Hebdo offend Muslims and should not be published. The world needs to understand Islam and that not all Muslims are terrorists, but want to live in peace and harmony. The freedom of speech and expression doesn’t mean that one can say or write anything. If there are no limits set, the free speech can turn into hate speech and one should know the implications of what they draw or write. With the Islamic communities gradually becoming aware of the publication of such cartoons, it is no surprise to see or expect passionate expressions of anger. There are two prime reasons here. First, the Muslim belief is against any pictorial representations of the Prophet and secondly, those cartoons of the Prophet are associated with terrorism. The opponents of such publications state that there should be limits to freedom of expression, and at no cost should any work denigrate a religion or insult the community of religious people. It is essential to think regarding humanity and develop an awareness regarding the place of freedom of expression in society.
Works Cited
"Charlie Hebdo attack: Censorship and freedom of expression." mprnews. 2015. Web. 18 April. 2016.
Cole, Teju. "Unmournable Bodies." newyorker. 2015. Web. 18 April. 2016.
Hume, Mick. "We Know They Are Not Charlie Now." .spiked-online. 2016. Web. 18 April. 2016.
Heer, Jeet. "The Anti-Islam Exhibit Attacked in Texas Is a Clearer Free Speech Case than 'Charlie Hebdo'." newrepublic. 2015. Web. 18 April. 2016.
"Joe Sacco: On Satire – a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks." theguardian. 2015. Web. 18 April. 2016.Locklear, Elizabeth A. "Native American Mascot Controversy and Mass Media Involvement: How the Media Play a Role in Promoting Racism through Native American Athletic Imagery." University of North Carolina 1.1 (n.d.): 152-158. Print
O’neill, Brendan. "We Must Have the Freedom to Offend Anyone." spiked-online.. 2016. Web. 18 April. 2016.
