Farah Al Bayaa
Professor Dania Adra
ENG 203
The Freedom of Speech Reconsidered
In its facile definition, the freedom of speech is the right to express and communicate ones opinion without the fear of censorship or the government. It is the right of every human being to express their opinions and beliefs; article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” However, what if the right to express became the right to abuse? Will it still be acceptable? The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris is an illustrative example of the freedom of speech reconsidered.
In contrast to the articles content, I believe that the Cartoon photos of the Prophet Muhammad were indeed an offense to 1.2 billion Muslim believers around the world; the fact that Islam has been a volcanic topic for the past several years, any act towards Muslims was considered an act of offense. Hence, it became a dilemma between free speech and hate speech. In opposition to what President Francois Hollande stated; “the massacre was “an assault on “the expression of freedom” that is the “spirit of the republic”, offensiveness does not qualify freedom of speech. Additionally, the New York Times article stated that the leader of the National Front party Marine Le Pen “sought political advantage with talk of “denial and hypocrisy” about “Islamic fundamentalism.” yet one cannot overgeneralize the attack on other muslims who are against violence, hence using the massacre as a way to worsen the image of Muslims and deliberately anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism is unacceptable for two muslim men died protecting the people during the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Despite my strong argument against the above topic, offensive images do not justify the murder of innocent victims. As the New York Times stated 11 people were wounded and 10 were killed; no act in the world should justify murdering innocent lives, people can use multilateral alternatives such as protesting their opinions peacefully instead of resorting to attacks and shedding blood on the streets of Paris. Additionally, as the article stated people linked the attack to 9/11 and started using the slogan “Je suis Charlie” which can be justified as an act of fear towards a new terrorist atmosphere; although the numbers of deaths between the two incidents and incomparable, the Charlie Hebdo Massacre was a clear international resemblance to the 9/11 attacks it initiated a international outcry for help.
Work cited:
“The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris.” The New York Times. 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” UN news center. UN. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
moodle
ReplyDelete