OP-ED: Freedom to Offend


By Jordan DEPPIESSE

If freedom of expression can cross a line then are we truly free to express ourselves? It is commonly accepted that mocking someone’s religious beliefs is unfair and cruel. It is considered an act of bigotry and hate to use a person’s religion against them. There is a sect of the population, generally secular, who counter this with a zero-compassion approach. If you feel uncomfortable with that cleavage, too bad! If you feel uncomfortable when someone says there is no God, too bad! If you think this article is offensive, too bad. Don’t look at the cleavage, don’t listen to the atheist, and don’t read this article. Freedom of expression is not a one way self-defined street. You also have the freedom to listen or not to listen and to dispute or not to dispute another person’s opinion. Condemning one form of expression in favor of another is not freedom, it is censorship. Religion has the benefit of flourishing in a censored society. Religion is so powerful in our world today that it has become a catalyst to some of the most violent outbursts of the 21st century.

Pope Francis made the grand declaration that freedom of speech is fine unless of course it offends a person’s faith.[1] If I were at the Vatican right now and encountered Pope Francis at St. Peters Basilica, the conversation would go a little something like this: “So, Franny let’s say I’m a secular lesbian and a scientist to boot. I’m a gay, evolution-loving atheist. When you say evolution is wrong and “gay marriage” is evil and that offends me, are you not being a total jerk of a hypocrite?” Maybe I wouldn’t refer to the Holy Father as a jerk but you get the point. Of all the people in the world who have faith, shouldn’t the Grand Pontiff of the Catholic Church understand the many facets of faith? I put a lot of faith into my theories and concepts and yet criticizing my empirical evidence is not only allowed, it is celebrated. What about my feelings? Maybe I feel very strongly towards Darwin. Maybe Darwin is my Jesus. If I told a catholic Jesus was a fake and a liar, they’d tell me I was going to hell. When a catholic tells me Darwin was a fake and a liar, what am I supposed to say to them? I’ll tell you what I’ll say: A human with superior traits is eventually going to drown out your inferior gene pool. Both the catholic and I spoke freely, but what I said would be considered especially offensive by today’s norms since religion is protected from such ridicule.

I digress back to my original thought on freedom of expression. If we truly believe in free thought and speech then we must drop the impenetrable guards we have put up. If religion is off the table when it comes to mockery, then my precious science needs to be too along with government, big oil companies, and mass media. We may as well stop speaking freely until we live in an oil spill-laden, Fox News-driven, global dictatorship. That sounds almost as awful as allowing religious dogma to dictate our public policy – oh wait…

I realize what I am saying is teetering on the offensive but I’m only trying to drive my point home. You have the right to be offended and I have the right to offend you. You have the right to dispute what I say and I have the right to ignore you! This is the beauty of living in a global and civilised world. A world where we don’t live in fear to open our mouths. Sadly, not everyone lives in that world. People are born into toxic, violent and ultimately religious environments where violence is a justifiable action. Freedom of expression should never, ever result in a murderous rampage. Dialogue needs to stay dialogue. This isn’t the Wild West.

freedomofspeech

Getting back to our original dilemma, how can we assess the times freedom of expression goes too far? John Stuart Mill coined the “Harm Principle”, that says actions should only be limited if it is to prevent direct harm to an individual.[2] The underlying idea of the principle is that acts of one person or group should not hinder the free acts of others.[2] Essentially, you can say and act however you want as long as you doing so does not prevent another person from acting or speaking freely. Slavery is an obvious example of a violation of the harm principle, since a slave is not free to act how they choose. Drawing a cartoon of a prophet in the nude however, is not a violation since it does not prevent anyone from doing anything directly. It doesn’t matter if the cartoon isn’t funny, creative or even remotely intelligent. No one should have to die for that.

We have created this global, civilised world through our inability to be satisfied with the status quo. Humans have persevered by questioning ideas and beliefs. If we had abandoned that perseverance in favour of a zero tolerance freedom of speech centuries ago I don’t think women would be able to vote and slavery would still be a booming industry. We are where we are today because we questioned religion, governments and the social norms. We exercised our freedom of speech to reinvent the world. Dialogue, not violence, created our social sphere.

Here’s my challenge to you, dear reader: Next time someone says something you don’t agree with, don’t be afraid to open a dialogue. Stand up for your beliefs and opinions no matter how crazy people might think you are. There’s plenty of apathy to go around already.

Questions:

  1. Is a world where everyone speaks freely and no one retaliates with violence realistic?
  2. Is the freedom to offend a necessary concept for freedom of expression to exist?
  3. Do you find this article offensive? Why or why not?

 

References

  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/15/charlie-hebdo-pope_n_6477928.html
  2. Freedom of Speech. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 April 2008.
Advertisements

3 comments

  • Pingback: how to get a free iphone 6s

  • After several centuries of mass murders because of christian religions, we became secular in France. It should be pointed that with religions we didn’t reach the respect of Mankind. The solution was find with the light of intelligence in a secular way against religions. Religions draw borders in societies and in spirits. I totally ignore the religion speaks, even about blasphemy that is a religion rule. This rule is not mine. I prefer debate in secular way with freedom without any “but”: “L’esprit ne doit jamais obéissance” Alain, a french Philosopher (in Propos, 12 juillet 1930). I propose a personal translation: “The spirit should never obedience”. Benoît

  • Challenge accepted! In reading your article I did indeed agree with many points. For me, the most important point of this article was your statement “We exercised our freedom of speech to reinvent the world. Dialogue, not violence, created our social sphere.” In the past month France, and much of the world, were shocked by the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. It was an attack on freedom of speech and our rights to hold controversial opinions. I chose to attend the Charlie Hebdo march for the sake of taking a stand on freedom of speech. But I reiterate your thoughts; freedom of speech is not a one-way street.

    The terrorists were undoubtedly trying to stifle opinions against their beliefs with their violent and merciless attacks, but if anything their attacks enflamed a passion for free thought and its expression. However, I would caution that these attacks might have also stirred a passion for the censorship of the religious voice – also equally entitled to hold an opinion. In the week that followed the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, sixty islamophobic incidences were reported in France, including firebombs, grenades, launched pig heads and gunfire [1]. I say with you dialogue, not violence. Only last week police questioned an 8-year-old boy for being a terrorism sympathizer. The boy had refused to identify himself with ‘je suis Charlie’ because of the magazine’s depictions of the prophet Mohammed, but rather stated he was on the side of the terrorists. The boy is said to have diabetes and it was alleged that the school withheld his insulin after the incident. The police later discovered that boy was not even sure what terrorism means [2]. Again I say with you dialogue, not violence. Many times the problem is not so much religion, but equally intolerant sides unabated in their determination to have the last word.

    Moreover, I don’t agree that religion is protected from ridicule, at least not currently in any westernized country. Case-in-point, the Huffington Post’s article on the Pope comments after the attacks. The article depicts the Pope as an unsympathetic, victim blamer, who supports restrictions on free speech [3]. I guess it depends on whether or not you read his full discourse, which I think paints his words less harshly. He said in that same briefing, “I believe that both are fundamental human rights, religious liberty and liberty of expression… But one cannot kill in the name of God. This is an aberration” [4]. I do think he agrees with you on freedom of expression, but his agreement clearly stops at the freedom to offend.

    I don’t understand all point of views- who could- but I also think its important to try to understand what one intends to critique. Certainly some misconceptions about Catholic teaching were evident in your discourse with Franny ☺ For example, were you aware that the Church’s first official statement on evolution was in 1950, when Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical titled, Humani Generis, that beliefs on the origins of the human body should be formed freely based on the evidence [5]. Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have also publicly stated their belief in the evolutionary process in the development of the human body [6]. People don’t really know what the other thinks because there is no dialogue, just assumptions.

    In your article you stated, “You have the right to dispute what I say and I have the right to ignore you!” I don’t dispute you there, but is this the dialogue you speak of that reinvented the world?

    1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/firebombs-and-pigs-heads-thrown-into-mosques-as-antimuslim-attacks-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html
    2. http://www.ibtimes.com/french-police-question-8-year-old-boy-allegedly-praising-charlie-hebdo-attackers-1798770
    3. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/15/charlie-hebdo-pope_n_6477928.html
    4. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396462/pope-francis-free-speech-and-responsibility-kathryn-jean-lopez
    5. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
    6. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s