Defending free speech: nous sommes tous Charlie

Last Wednesday, two terrorists barbarically murdered 12 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that had previously published caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. The terrorists, professing to act in the name of their view of Islam, not only desired to silence Charlie Hebdo, but also to subjugate free speech more broadly through the threat of force against those that would dare to say anything contravening their radical Islamism. As free peoples, as firm believers in the fundamental, inalienable right of free speech and as fellow journalists, we are relieved to witness the defiant upwelling of global support for free speech and the heroic individuals at Charlie Hebdo in the aftermath of this heinous tragedy. While Charlie Hebdo’s magazines may not be our cup of tea, we stand abreast with them in re-affirming and asserting the right of all peoples to exercise their intrinsic right to speech.

While this was a dramatic and clear example of speech suppression by the terrorists, we must remain vigilant and aware that there are attempts at curtailing speech occurring everyday. Such restrictions occur even on college campuses like Duke, which are supposedly forums for the unencumbered exchange of ideas.

Obfuscators of free speech seek to diminish the ability to communicate one’s thoughts through the specter of retributive force. It matters neither what medium this suppression takes nor what form it takes. Literally silencing the speaker by killing them is as grave a threat to free speech as indirectly restricting the expression of ideas through institutional force such as the hand of government or even university speech codes that proscribe content-based limitations. We also note that it is equally grievous to use intimidation tactics to dissuade people from speaking out at all. Overt censorship and self-censorship through intimidation both offend free speech.

The common thread between different offenders of free speech is thus not their methods or tactics of suppression but rather their shared motivation to silence speakers. This may take many forms. Silencing through murder is a clear cut example, but using the fear of destroying one’s financial security such as what happened to the former CEO of Mozilla is also a form of silencing. The slew of commencement speaker dis-invitations last year also presents an example of silencing counter to our cherished principle of free speech.

Rather than attempting to silence a speaker one disagrees with, the legitimate way to register dissent is through counter expression. The beauty of free speech is that it provides the avenue for different viewpoints to face scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas. Disagreement with a message, such as Charlie Hebdo’s, can take the form of publishing materials arguing against its ideas or even more simply by convincing others to boycott the magazine, thereby delegitimizing its message. A belief in free speech necessitates a disapproval of attempts to silence.

Institutions like Duke or the U.S. government and, more generally, all free people must actively defend free speech against those that seek to silence in order to ensure the continued endurance of free speech. We owe it to those like Charlie Hebdo who have fallen in the line of duty.