What is Free Speech and Terrorism?

What is Free Speech and Terrorism?

The topic of free speech has been handled differently by different nations worldwide because each country has its definition and limitations to free speech. Therefore, the question on whether in this age of terrorism, should we limit free speech, is a very disputable fact taking from the findings on the cases of terrorism on journalism.

Free speech is described as the right of a citizen to rightfully express his or her information, ideology, and opinions without the interference of the laws or restrictions of the governing power. In the United States, the famous First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution declare that one is free to speak, as long as his or her actions do not come between the interests and wants of the citizens or government (Smith, 2012). Terrorism, on the other hand, is the act of premeditating terrorist activities that are inspired by either political or social agendas. These acts are mostly targeted towards civilians and non-military individuals, and they depend on the environment, state relations, motivation, and or objectives. In the recent past, it has been noticed that civilization, which is the father of free speech, has been welcomed differently because of nations bearing the different meanings of the term (Miller, 2013).

Why can one talk of religion, specifically Islam, openly in America, but when the same person travels to the Emirates, one has to watch how one speaks of the same faith? Why can a Muslim woman talk back to men and stand up for her rights in America, but in Saudi, it is a taboo of her? This is because, in both countries, freedom is defined differently. There are five main types of terrorism, and they include; dissent terrorism whereby terrorists rebel against their government, state-sponsored terrorists who act as a directive of the government or its officials. Religious terrorists, who operate and or are motivated by religious reasons, criminal terrorists, who aid and aim for illegal profit, and the left and right terrorists who are rooted in political ideas (Hasisi, Alpert,& Flynn, 2009s).

The Charlie Hebdo Massacre

In the Charlie Hebdo case, it talks about a famous newspaper that, more often than not, was criticized because of his criticism on not only the Muslim religion and its impact on promoting acts of terrorism not only in France, but also worldwide, and also the influence of other faiths on the birth of ethical and moral issues. It was on a chilly morning on the 7^th of January, when two terrorists forced their entry into the offices of Charlie Hebdo, who was a satirical journalist and columnist (Weber, 2015). Claiming to be members of the Al-Qaeda, a terrorist militia group from the Arab Peninsula, the two terrorists killed 12 people injuring 11, during the terrorist attack. They claim responsibility because they cite Charlie Publications as being responsible for depicting and satirically illustrating Muhhamad, the Islamic Prophet, and a symbol of unity among the believers. To look more closely at this, we had to dig into all the faith and media at play.

1. The French Media, Christian/ Modernist

The French media, as per Peggy Noonan, were quick and fast to criticize the Muslim culture because Islamists do not take it lightly when one, either a believer or not, mocks or makes fun of their religion. This to the French media was too traditional and was not what civilization, or free speech in this context, entailed. They believed that everything deserved criticism to prove its viability and know its foundation (Noonan, 2015). She went further to cite a case of Theo Van Gogh, a famous writer, and filmmaker who was shot dead in a night in December 2004 because of his production of a short film on women and Islam. She also shows how other journalists and cartoonists died, how others exiled, to when it got to the killing of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo Centre, which even Islamists claim it was insulting to them and their religion.

2. The French media, The Islamists

As per the Islamic culture, any form of personalization or depiction of Allah or His Prophet Muhammad, as blasphemy, therefore, one of the highest sins committed by man. To add this to the fact that Islamists are one of the most strict religions, they rarely tend to stray away from their ways; thus, their view on Charlie Hebdo was one. The publication house, to them, was not to entertain the printing of such ‘blasphemous’ material and distribute it to the nation and world. Nevertheless, they did not condone the fact that the group took it into their hands and killed and injured such a considerable number of people. They went ahead to state, and only Allah could judge and punish them since no human is perfect, we have no ability to kill or judge so harshly. They criticized both parties because they believe each acted out their own free will, trying to prove their ideologies (Gladston & Somaiya, 2015).

3. The Islamists

Their view on the matter is not any different from the Islamists from the French media; this is because they value and highly regard their religion. This makes it very difficult for them to view the story from another angle. They also, however, do not stand with the terrorists, as they say, Islam is a religion of peace; therefore, such acts are not of Islamic taste; instead, the terrorists believe that Islam has given them the opportunity to revenge. They view the whole story as a confusion between the two parties; that is the religious terrorists and the modernist journalists.

4. The French Citizens

They believe that the Islamists should be open-minded and incorporate free-mindedness that is the core of modernization, into their religion. This is because they stated that Charlie Publications did not only scrutinize, depict, or criticize the Islam religion alone, but they also did that to other faiths such as the Hindu, the Buddhists, and the Jihadists. They did not see any wrong in criticizing as the paper illustrated finely and accurately poised, but also a wicked sense of humour. The publication’s writers openly and gleefully attacked the Church after some of its leaders and followers wronged, but the Islamists did not notice this. Instead, they partly still blamed the journalists who scrutinized the wrongdoings of those so-called “religious leaders.” Charlie Hebdo often criticized the church leaders for their corruption, their views towards promoting homosexuality, and other wrongs and abnormalities. Therefore, they did not see any wrongdoing performed by the publicists to criticize religious terrorists (Sullivan, 2015)

5. The Art Used

We understand that the reason behind the killings is because of Charlie Hebdo depicting the Holy Prophet Muhammad, which was the greatest sin of all. This to the French people, of who the majority are Christians, mostly Catholics, was wrong because they believed art in itself is as harmless as a dove.

Furthermore, most claim that they did not know it was a sin to depict the Holy Prophet, as Jesus and their God was often portrayed, not only in satirical and humorous nature but also in an educative and a Holy manner as seen in the Bible. As Tim Kreider writes, art has never harmed a single being in power; therefore, it cannot hurt the Islam God or any God for that matter. He believes that all creation was made to criticize the wrongs of ourselves and others to create a universe where mutual understanding plays a role in promoting peace and sustainability, which were the cores of modernization. Unusually, the cartoon art became more prominent and meaningful; thus, the people ended up terming Charlie Hebdo artists as ‘heroes’ of the modern-day slavery (Sulzberger Jr., 2015).

Free Expression in the Age of Terrorism

We can see that the effects of free speech and free expression have consequences on us as human beings, simply because my ideologies and beliefs cannot be similar to yours. We are made to like different tastes and thoughts; that is why today we should limit the use of free expression. Especially during this age of social media whereby we see so many cases of cyber-attacks from friends-to-friends, to a Muslim-to-Christian, and so many other forms of racial discrimination.  It is very noticeable that people are quick to judge a story without knowing the two sides of the story; this is because some people take it upon themselves to spread hate, confusion, and anger. As Smolla states, if a society devises rules for openness and freedom of expression, it will live in peace because members of the community will understand and respect each other’s boundaries (Smolla, 1993).

But to do this is not easy, because even though governments make it a law, it will not apply it to the people. After all, some people do not adhere to rules; this has been one of the biggest hindrances to the passing of freedom laws. We simply have to protect free speech and expression, and this is by making sure we make firm laws and rules that will limit people from making harsh or unethical practices that can elevate the risk of retaliation among members of a community. Also, we have to ensure that we have the knowledge of the religion and culture of our societies, because if we do not, it may lead to us interpreting, illustrating and spreading unwanted material and information that risks our peace. Rarely can you see a revolution take place when two negative sides clash, it will only lead to suppression, hatred, guilt, and division of interests and people that are very detrimental to the growth of a community and a nation (Sullivan, 2015).

Taking into consideration in the case of Charlie Hebdo, we can see that the Islam followers do not abide by their laws and rules, this is because many of the terrorist attacks were perpetrated and planned by the Islamist terrorist groups. The First Amendment mainly takes into account the happenings of the government, then followed by other parties. In this case, the government of America would isolate and ban the entry of Muslims across its borders to ensure safety (2020). In general, free expression and speech should first be taught to citizens; therefore, it becomes easier for them to self govern and protect their community’s interests. This, with the addition of regulation of expression and speech by the authorities, will ensure that we are steadfast and careful when addressing each other.

Regardless, we are living in a world where we need to be open-minded to operate and live in peace and harmony with others. Therefore, we should only criticize other people, but not take it into our hands to punish others as the terrorists did. And is it really punishing? Us being humans, who is pure enough or righteous enough to judge another human being? To the best of my belief, it is no one. This is because we never know what the end holds for us, if one criticizes or point out a wrong, it is not the same as judging. We tend to take criticism wrongly, and it has affected many people and institutions negatively. If they were criticizing only Islam followers, improperly, it would be correct to maybe point them out. Still, in this case, Charlie Hebdo’s Publications were seen as works of heroes because they mainly and correctly criticized religious and political leaders (Sulzberger Jr., 2015). In the end, the Islamist media and religious leaders were seen as closed-minded because they did not take the criticism as the way the publications had planned out for it to be.

In conclusion, yes, we should limit free speech in this age of terrorism, because as much as we are open-minded, we should also understand the fact that we are different, and as cultures and beliefs vary, so do the people in the cultures. We should always ensure that we pass out information and messages carefully to minimize the risk of retaliation, which may be in the form of terrorism.

References

(2020). Retrieved 9 March 2020, from http://nyti.ms/1suJj0V.

Gladston, R., & Somaiya, R. (2015). New Charlie Hebdo Cover Creates New Questions for U.S Media. The International New York Times, pp. 1-3. Retrieved 9 March 2020, from.

Hasisi, B., Alpert, G. P., & Flynn, D. (2009). The impacts of policing terrorism on society: Lessons from Israel and the U.S. In To Protect and To serve (pp. 177-202). Springer, New York, NY.

Miller, M. A. (2013). The foundations of modern terrorism: State, society, and the dynamics of political violence. Cambridge University Press.

Noonan, P. (2015). Salman Rushdie, Meets Charlie Hebdo. The Wall Street Journal, p. 13. Retrieved 9 March 2020

Smith, B. (2012). Protecting Citizens and Their Speech: Balancing National Security and Free Speech When Prosecuting the Material Support of Terrorism. SSRN Electronic Journal, 3. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2021415

Smolla, R. (1993). Free speech in an open society. Vintage Books.

Sullivan, M. (2015). Readers Sound Off to Public Editor Decision Not to Publish Cartoons. The New York Times, pp. 1-2. Retrieved 9 March 2020, from.

Sulzberger Jr., A. (2015). United in Outrage. The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2020, from.

Weber, C. (2015). The Mocking Tradition Behind Charlie Hebdo (1st ed.). Universal History Publishers.