Earlier last year, both the United States Department of Justice and the White House Press Office took home top dishonors at Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression for their efforts in vigorously prosecuting government whistleblowers at home, like Chelsea Manning, and Edward Swowden, while extending those intimidation tactics to rank and file members of the press. It is grandstanding for a right rarely protected unless under immediate attack.įor all of our noble appeals to the freedoms provided for in our Bill of Rights at home, the Obama administration has continued its own slow, less sensational attack on freedom of the press. This has been in no short supply this week, with many saying that, yes, while much of the material published by Charlie Hebdo was indeed offensive, perhaps racist, and certainly well over the line of propriety, the very fact that they were in operation despite those disagreeable qualities is what makes freedom of speech so important in the first place.Įmbedded within the protections of freedom of speech, however, is also the freedom to exaggerate, to manipulate, to grandstand, and this is exactly what much of the world’s political reaction to this tragedy amounts to. No one wants to align with less freedom at a time like this. The speaker conjures up centuries of collective sagacity, aligning oneself with an eternal, inarguable good. Like much of the rhetoric that comes attached to freedom of speech, the “Voltaire” quote is meant as a robust championing of sobriety and fairness. ![]() To paraphrase the old saying about pornography: I may not be able to define freedom of speech, but as long as it applies to the type of thing that gets me off, it qualifies. Consider the boob in Maryland, city councilor Kirby Delauter, who has threatened to sue the Frederick News-Post for merely mentioning his name in print for evidence of that. It's fitting that one of the most common clichés invoked in times like this is a quote often misattributed to Voltaire-“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”-as most of the time when it comes to freedom of speech, many of us don’t seem to know exactly what it is we’re talking about. “Paris terrorists aimed at freedom of expression, we must defend it,” read one characteristic headline in the LA Times. Editorial and political cartoon pages from throughout the world almost unanimously came to the same conclusion. “We must never allow the values that we hold dear of democracy, of freedom of speech to be damaged by these terrorists,” David Cameron said at a meeting with Angela Merkel, who reiterated much of the same. The attack, President Obama said, “underscores that these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press,” echoing a statement made by John Kerry that “freedom of expression is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror.” Leaders from throughout Europe joined in. It was something ineffable and harder to define: freedom of speech. But if you listen to our leaders, they weren't the real targets here. ![]() The motivation for the attack, it appears, was retaliation for the typically religiously offensive cartoons published by the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. ![]() On Wednesday, 12 human beings were massacred in Paris.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |