“Being offended by freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for violence,” -Alan Dershowitz
Charlie Hebdo is a weekly news magazine in Paris, France. Popular for their cartoons, publications and humor on different political, religious, cultural topics and others around the country. They speak on many controversial topics, and with that they’ve had many attacks on their company. As one BBC News article states, “Charlie Hebdo’s past is full of splits and ideological betrayals.”
On January 7, 2015, two armed Islamic terrorist made their way into the weekly newspaper company. That morning, fifty shots were fired, killing 12 people and injuring 11 more. The two gunman were later killed. Over three days, three separate attacks occurred. In total killing 17 people. This incident was reportedly brought on by a cover image, showing a cartoon of the religious figure Muhammad, which in Islam tradition should never be depicted.
This attack on such a known publication leads some to wonder what effect, if any, this has on the future of journalists, which leads to several amendments. Those amendments give us the rights and freedom we have, The First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech. Without it, we would be restricted to what we could and could not say. For example, if the The North High Oracle wanted to write a story on a religion we may not able to publish it due to being so restricted. The First Amendment gives us that right of press.
Not only did this event alter the future for Charlie Hebdo, it alters events for all other journalistic views as well. Every article a journalist writes is a risky one, not just opinions either. Anyone who has ever written anything in his or her life can tell you, not everyone will always agree with you.
“Speaking your truth always has had risks, and the risks continue today. Maybe the greatest risk to journalists is going forward, though, is the risk of self-censorship related to fear of the government or powerful monied interests. This is not the Charlie Hebdo kind of intimidation, but it’s as serious,” Said well-known First Amendment activist, Mary Beth Tinker.
Tinker is very familiar with the First Amendment, while she was attending Harding Middle School in 1969 she fought to be able to use her right for the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. That being said, you can’t just take a huge gun into a store just to say you have it. You have to take the needed steps in order to have those privileges. It’s a right to earn not just to be given.
When you put those two amendments together, that’s a whole lot of power. Charlie Hebdo has had prior attacks on them, even causing one of the editors to be under police protection due to death threats, this January attack has just been the worst yet. Questions arise whether this publication should have all the power that it does, although what was published was published, should it have been? If it wasn’t would these lives that were lost, still be here?
This attack has altered lives. Co-workers, families, friends and even strangers across the globe are left wondering about what if’s, and questions that may never be answered. It’s hard to imagine something so drastic actually happening, but was it expected? It had to have been thought of, in the very back of minds but the shock of it happening is what’s at large. How can one go back to a job they fell in love with, after such a tragedy? Nobody wants to hear of an attack so tragic happening, but the truth is, is that it does.
“My reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attack was, and is, extreme sorrow. It’s a frequent feeling, living in this violent era, when it’s common to express oneself and navigate the complications of life through violence. Pervasive violence is a great tragedy of our time, but I believe we will evolve eventually toward a more peaceful way, so I have hope,” Tinker said.
The reasoning, regardless of the real meaning behind this tragedy was nothing more than a set of individuals who found it necessary to take action for opinions they didn’t agree with.
This event cannot be taken back, it cannot be redone, and lives cannot be brought back. But, it can be learned from. Not in the sense in which we don’t speak our minds or say what we believe, but instead we take into consideration how others will react, although everyone has the choice to filter what they read, not everyone will do that.
In the generation we live in, we’ve got everything in the palm of our hands, one wrong move and things will go down just as quickly as it was said. As a society, it’s important to set the standard high – we’re lucky to have the freedom we have with words, to be able to process and publish the things we can and to overuse that privilege may mean losing that privilege.
Tony Leys, a reporter for the Des Moines Register has firsthand experience with being in the journalism world. Since 1988 he has worked as a copy editor, state editor, politics editor and night city editor. Since 2000, he’s been a reporter, mainly covering health care issues. Leys said this event surely will add some intimidation to the journalistic side of things, but that’s just a small part of the problem.
“The intimidation of journalists in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Russia and Mexico. Government authorities, religious zealots and criminal cartels routinely threaten, beat or kill journalists in many countries. Too often, those actions silence critics on the ground in those places. That’s a bigger threat than occasional attacks in a place like France, as horrific as the Paris attacks were,” Leys said.
There is never justification for taking away lives for giving the world information, no matter how they’re giving it to us, whether as a person they’re being insensitive or overly sensitive. They’re doing their job. As readers, you’ve got the choice to pick what you want to know, and what you don’t. In some of these countries, publishing isn’t even an option, it’s life or death. Here, we have the opportunity to post and publish things that other countries will never be able to even consider talking about.
Leys doesn’t think we have too much freedom in America. Under the First Amendment, a person can publish just about anything, as long as it’s true. People need to know the truth.
So is it true? Do we overuse our authority to push the minds of others, or are some too sensitive and need to learn to leave things alone that they don’t agree with? It’s hard to say. Everyone has their own opinion, and you can’t just change that because you don’t agree with their mindset.
The truth is hard to handle and think about, but whether you like or not – it’s always going to be around, published or not.