.
Democratic societies are all about ideas, but ideas only flourish when people are free to express themselves in all kinds of ways.
Friday’s military-style slaughter of civilians across Paris, and the killings at a free speech forum in Copenhagen and the horrifying Charlie Hebdo murders earlier this year are brutal reminders of the profound vulnerability of the freedoms that we take for granted.
In truth, these incidents highlight a number of tragedies, the first of which are the events themselves, graphically captured on now ubiquitous public surveillance cameras and citizen cell phones and broadcast on television screens and social media around the world.
Fortunately, we are not yet immune to the impact of such behavior because the Islamic extremists continue to outdo themselves. So, their senseless barbarism has hopefully inspired governmental leaders to finally respond.
Although the most recent targets were cultural – a concert, cafes, and a soccer game – all three massacres came with a slightly different twist. They were not just grisly performances to confront Western values and sensibilities. They had a specific purpose; and the purpose was to punish the French Government, the Hebdo editors, and the Danish cartoonists for the audacity to say and do things they didn’t like. And, it was also intended to intimidate you and me and to suppress freedom of expression on every occasion.
Syndicated journalist Peggy Noonan, in a column some months ago, reminded us that our founders recognized that freedom of speech is a central feature of democratic behavior. It’s the reason that it is the “first” amendment, because without unfettered speech the remaining amendments and rights could never be fully realized. And, without unfettered speech the creative juices, the innovative spirit, the flirtation with risk, and the collaborative behavior that are the DNA of a prosperous and democratic society would be sadly absent.
The Center for International Private Enterprise regularly preaches – freely, I might add – about the critical relationship between free speech and free societies. We advocate for advocacy in places where the people have no voice. And, we passionately argue that democratic governance – the real measure of democracy – is all about the transparency and accountability of governmental institutions that can only be achieved in societies where open communication is permitted and protected.
This leads me to the second tragedy of the Paris and Copenhagen incidents.
There are already some in this country – and probably elsewhere – that are actually debating if there should be limits on speech. “Maybe we should be more careful," they plead, “or more respectful of the feelings of others.” This is an amazing rush to intellectual appeasement.
As one trained in the law, I’m the first to recognize the reasonableness of the constraints around obscenity and “crying fire in a theater,” but I’m also quick to point out the slippery slope of public censorship and the differences between the two.
The third tragedy unfolded shortly after the Charlie Hebdo killings when some forty world leaders, representing a magnificent mix of geographies, religions and cultures, stood together in a Paris street to express their collective outrage at what had just occurred. We all saw it. It was a one-of-a-kind front-page picture in every major paper of what might have been the most poignant moment in the fight against religious extremism – and the United State was missing. America was AWOL.
We’re the country that considers itself – and is considered by others – to be the model society where individual rights, freedom of expression and an intolerance of intolerance are taken for granted, and that country – our country – was nowhere to be seen. The excuses were many and frail, but the unwillingness to participate, let alone lead, was both conspicuous and unfortunate, and a lost opportunity that will not be regained any time soon.
The events in Paris and Copenhagen are all about intolerance and the suppression of ideas, and there is a fourth and final tragedy that is an un-acknowledged shadow that lingers near America’s outrage in the wake of these slaughters.
Many U.S. politicians, thought leaders, media personalities and other so-called influencers properly trumpeted what we regard as a universal right to free speech and proudly pointed out how the intimidation of opinion is so alien to American society; and they’re right. Yet they failed to see the trees in our own backyard for the forests of Denmark and France.
In the United States today, thoughtful men and women are too frequently denied the opportunity to speak at college graduations, or are shouted off podiums at universities that claim to be incubators of open dialogue merely because some don’t like their beliefs, or their nationality, or their religion or the prospect that they will put forth a disagreeable point of view. Some colleges go so far as to regard ideas to be as harmful as cigarettes and restrict speech everywhere except in “free speech zones,” or, better still, publish “Language Guides” which lists the words you dare not use. There are legislators who regularly advance the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” in order to muffle “talk radio” and the annoying views they sometimes advance. And, most recently, when a Yale faculty member called out the contradictions of a University Committee’s pre-Halloween email to the Yale student body advising them to “avoid wearing costumes that could offend some students,” her husband, also a member of the faculty, was confronted by cursing and spitting students demanding an apology for his wife’s comments about free speech as well as his resignation.
Finally, and maybe most conspicuously, too many Americans have accepted the arbitrary notion that there is “politically correct” speech that, of course, is all about the things that an ideological minority have decided we should not say.
I am startled that no one recognizes the irony in the room! These are all shades of censorship.
Ju suis Paris . . . Ju suis Charlie, but, if we really are Charlie then we cannot and should not decry extremism abroad only to look away from extremism at home.
If we continue to ignore our own hypocrisy then we will slowly fall prey to a less violent version of the intolerance we claim to abhor, and a central feature of America’s unique democracy – freedom of expression – will too quickly become something we used to have, but lost along the way.
Greg Lebedev is Chairman of the Center for International Private Enterprise, one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy, and Editorial Board Member of Diplomatic Courier.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Charlie Hebdo Goes to Yale
November 16, 2015
Democratic societies are all about ideas, but ideas only flourish when people are free to express themselves in all kinds of ways.
Friday’s military-style slaughter of civilians across Paris, and the killings at a free speech forum in Copenhagen and the horrifying Charlie Hebdo murders earlier this year are brutal reminders of the profound vulnerability of the freedoms that we take for granted.
In truth, these incidents highlight a number of tragedies, the first of which are the events themselves, graphically captured on now ubiquitous public surveillance cameras and citizen cell phones and broadcast on television screens and social media around the world.
Fortunately, we are not yet immune to the impact of such behavior because the Islamic extremists continue to outdo themselves. So, their senseless barbarism has hopefully inspired governmental leaders to finally respond.
Although the most recent targets were cultural – a concert, cafes, and a soccer game – all three massacres came with a slightly different twist. They were not just grisly performances to confront Western values and sensibilities. They had a specific purpose; and the purpose was to punish the French Government, the Hebdo editors, and the Danish cartoonists for the audacity to say and do things they didn’t like. And, it was also intended to intimidate you and me and to suppress freedom of expression on every occasion.
Syndicated journalist Peggy Noonan, in a column some months ago, reminded us that our founders recognized that freedom of speech is a central feature of democratic behavior. It’s the reason that it is the “first” amendment, because without unfettered speech the remaining amendments and rights could never be fully realized. And, without unfettered speech the creative juices, the innovative spirit, the flirtation with risk, and the collaborative behavior that are the DNA of a prosperous and democratic society would be sadly absent.
The Center for International Private Enterprise regularly preaches – freely, I might add – about the critical relationship between free speech and free societies. We advocate for advocacy in places where the people have no voice. And, we passionately argue that democratic governance – the real measure of democracy – is all about the transparency and accountability of governmental institutions that can only be achieved in societies where open communication is permitted and protected.
This leads me to the second tragedy of the Paris and Copenhagen incidents.
There are already some in this country – and probably elsewhere – that are actually debating if there should be limits on speech. “Maybe we should be more careful," they plead, “or more respectful of the feelings of others.” This is an amazing rush to intellectual appeasement.
As one trained in the law, I’m the first to recognize the reasonableness of the constraints around obscenity and “crying fire in a theater,” but I’m also quick to point out the slippery slope of public censorship and the differences between the two.
The third tragedy unfolded shortly after the Charlie Hebdo killings when some forty world leaders, representing a magnificent mix of geographies, religions and cultures, stood together in a Paris street to express their collective outrage at what had just occurred. We all saw it. It was a one-of-a-kind front-page picture in every major paper of what might have been the most poignant moment in the fight against religious extremism – and the United State was missing. America was AWOL.
We’re the country that considers itself – and is considered by others – to be the model society where individual rights, freedom of expression and an intolerance of intolerance are taken for granted, and that country – our country – was nowhere to be seen. The excuses were many and frail, but the unwillingness to participate, let alone lead, was both conspicuous and unfortunate, and a lost opportunity that will not be regained any time soon.
The events in Paris and Copenhagen are all about intolerance and the suppression of ideas, and there is a fourth and final tragedy that is an un-acknowledged shadow that lingers near America’s outrage in the wake of these slaughters.
Many U.S. politicians, thought leaders, media personalities and other so-called influencers properly trumpeted what we regard as a universal right to free speech and proudly pointed out how the intimidation of opinion is so alien to American society; and they’re right. Yet they failed to see the trees in our own backyard for the forests of Denmark and France.
In the United States today, thoughtful men and women are too frequently denied the opportunity to speak at college graduations, or are shouted off podiums at universities that claim to be incubators of open dialogue merely because some don’t like their beliefs, or their nationality, or their religion or the prospect that they will put forth a disagreeable point of view. Some colleges go so far as to regard ideas to be as harmful as cigarettes and restrict speech everywhere except in “free speech zones,” or, better still, publish “Language Guides” which lists the words you dare not use. There are legislators who regularly advance the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” in order to muffle “talk radio” and the annoying views they sometimes advance. And, most recently, when a Yale faculty member called out the contradictions of a University Committee’s pre-Halloween email to the Yale student body advising them to “avoid wearing costumes that could offend some students,” her husband, also a member of the faculty, was confronted by cursing and spitting students demanding an apology for his wife’s comments about free speech as well as his resignation.
Finally, and maybe most conspicuously, too many Americans have accepted the arbitrary notion that there is “politically correct” speech that, of course, is all about the things that an ideological minority have decided we should not say.
I am startled that no one recognizes the irony in the room! These are all shades of censorship.
Ju suis Paris . . . Ju suis Charlie, but, if we really are Charlie then we cannot and should not decry extremism abroad only to look away from extremism at home.
If we continue to ignore our own hypocrisy then we will slowly fall prey to a less violent version of the intolerance we claim to abhor, and a central feature of America’s unique democracy – freedom of expression – will too quickly become something we used to have, but lost along the way.
Greg Lebedev is Chairman of the Center for International Private Enterprise, one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy, and Editorial Board Member of Diplomatic Courier.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
