D.J. Webb
It was fascinating to see the Western leaders throw their weight behind the idea that freedom of speech is core to Western values. Of course Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish cartoons that mock Islam and Muslims.
But libertarians have long been aware that commitment to free speech has been very patchy in the West for quite some time. Today we read that a French comedian, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, has been arrested for a Facebook comment in support of some of the recent killings.
The particular focus of M’bala M’bala’s comments was (apparent but vaguely expressed) support for the killings of the people in the kosher supermarket that followed the Charlie Hebdo killings. This is anti-Jewish, and presses all the relevant buttons.
I have to say that no libertarian could support any of these killings. Support for killing Jewish people in a supermarket has to be condemned. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Our commitment to free speech seems to have lasted all of five minutes.
M’bala M’bala’s comments were not a vicious diatribe calling for racial murder. They weren’t even clearly anti-Semitic. The BBC reported that he had written “Know that this evening, as far as I’m concerned, I’m feeling Charlie Coulibaly”. This combines Charlie from Charlie Hebdo with Coulibaly, the surname of the killer who killed the Jews in the kosher supermarket.
“I’m feeling Charlie Coulibaly” does not really have a clear meaning. Yet theoretically he could get up to seven years in jail for this. (I should add that this case is unlikely to go anywhere due to the unclear nature of the remarks; a seven-year sentence would be more likely for clearer “hate speech”.) Time for the next issue of Charlie Hebdo to satirise our hypocritical lack of real commitment to free speech, I feel.
The BBC states the reaction of the French prime minister:
Dieudonne’s comment drew an angry response on Monday, with Prime Minister Manuel Valls saying that freedom of speech should not be confused with anti-Semitism, racism and Holocaust denial.
Er… where do I begin? Freedom of speech is freedom to say whatever you like — and yes, it does include all of those things, or at least potentially. If someone says something “offensive”, that is not an abuse of free speech, but rather a genuine exercise of free speech that can only be countered by argument (or satire or ridicule), and not a prison sentence.
The BBC continues:
But French daily Le Monde pointed out that freedom of speech was limited by French law, and did not extend to incitement to hatred or racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.
Er… it is true to say that French law does claim the right to limit free speech along those lines, but then why shouldn’t Islamic radicals argue that free speech should also be limited to prevent offence to Islam? If we are already in the business of preventing offensive free speech, the Muslims only wish to add a further detail to the types of speech proscribed.
All speech should be free, “Incitement” is a weasel concept and is only valid in the context of a direct incitement to an immediate action (e.g. “kill this person now”) and should not refer to generally offensive speech.
