Junior history major
Several countries around the globe, the U.S. excluded, have criminalized “hate speech”, which is also known as “hate propaganda,” frequently with the justification that this action violates human rights. Should you cross the border with Canada, you would shed your First Amendment right to say virtually anything in a public place, entering a nation where plenty of restrictions would apply, especially one prohibiting advocating genocide.
This legal talk regarding freedom of speech leads us to a statement made by our beloved Pope Francis in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in France. In response to the shooting, the pope was quoted in a video as saying that one “cannot insult the faith of others” and that “there are limits” to freedom of speech.
Well, there you have it: The moment you hurt somebody’s sheet-thin skin, freedom of speech ends. It seems that in the 21st century, the act of making fun of somebody’s precious beliefs is a death wish, at least under some circumstances.
The saddest part of all of this is that the satirical magazine in question used its free speech to attack the far-right movements in France, especially the virulent anti-immigration National Front. It seems that Charlie Hebdo had little patience with fellow humans and their institutions and that no one was above mockery. At the same time, the magazine also defended those who were and continue to be vulnerable, at least in French society.
Where does this argument against the pope regarding Charlie lead us? It leads us to the conclusion that he, along with many others, does not understand freedom of speech, or at least the way this country constructs it.
We are one of the best at protecting free speech. In this country, we recognize very few limits to freedom of speech, and we, on average, are sensitive to what restrictions we put on it. No one who questions the Holocaust could possibly go to prison for it. Klansmen and neo-Nazis can march on cities chanting their hatred without repercussions — something which could be prosecuted in France, mind you.
The ability to freely express opinions that are either offensive or not is at the very core of our cherished First Amendment. The pope mentioned that a person who insulted his mother, for example, risked a punch to the face, an obvious analogy here. That sounds good; I suppose that in the real world, I have a right to commit assault (that’s what a punch to the face is, folks) when my feelings are sufficiently hurt.
In actuality, I cannot do that without risking my would-be victim pressing charges or the state prosecuting me with good reason: My fist ended where somebody’s nose begins.
The sooner people understand that taking offense is not an excuse for an attack, the better. In the meantime, the pope is free to punch some guy in the face and pretend he cares about freedom of speech.
Gonzalo Molinolo is a junior history major. He can be reached at gmolinolodbk@gmail.com.
