Gary Trudeau's take on Charlie Hebdo

[Ms. Toad]

And now we are adrift in an even wider sea of pain. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo — which always maintained it was attacking Islamic fanatics, not the general population — has succeeded in provoking many Muslims throughout France to make common cause with its most violent outliers. This is a bitter harvest.


Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

. . .

What free-speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point, free-expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/04/14/doonesburys-garry-trudeau-on-free-speech-responsible-satire-and-charlie-hebdo/

[Throd]

1. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but don't tell me I can't.

[Ms. Toad]

4. No one did.

This responds, indirectly, to the shaming of anyone who rejected the "I am Charlie Hebdo" meme.

Rejecting the meme is not the same as telling you (or Charlie Hebdo) that you are not free to print offensive trash - it is encouragement to think - when you do - about the responsibilities which accompany free speech which ought not be taken lightly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Yes, they absolutely did.

When you say "no-one did", I suspect you mean "I didn't".

A very large number of people believe that insulting Islam should be punishable by death.

[jmowreader]

8. And there are a minority of Christians who believe the same thing

[Ms. Toad]

11. You live in the UK. The poster to whom I responded lives in the US

It is pretty safe to say that no one told you that you couldn't.

A belief that insulting Islam is punishable by death is not the same as saying, in France, the UK, or the US that you cannot insult Islam.

[Hissyspit]

2. Disappointed.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Good article. Thanks for posting.

Here's the last bit:

The White House took a lot of hits for not sending a high-level representative to the pro-Charlie solidarity march, but that oversight is now starting to look smart. The French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another. By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.

What free-speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point, free-expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

I’m aware that I make these observations from a special position, one of safety. In America, no one goes into cartooning for the adrenaline. As Jon Stewart said in the aftermath of the killings, comedy in a free society shouldn’t take courage.

Writing satire is a privilege I’ve never taken lightly. And I’m still trying to get it right. “Doonesbury” remains a work in progress, an imperfect chronicle of human imperfection. It is work, though, that only exists because of the remarkable license that commentators enjoy in this country. That license has been stretched beyond recognition in the digital age. It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it.
Writer/artist/visual storyteller Michael Cavna is creator of the "Comic Riffs" column and graphic-novel reviewer for The Post's Book World. He relishes sharp-eyed satire in most any form.

[melman]

5. He could not be wrong

He should be ashamed of himself for blaming cartoons for inciting violence. They are cartoons!

[Ms. Toad]

10. Words have consequences - that is part of the responsibility that goes along with free speech.

When you choose words that are intentionally designed to hurt or create anger, you should not be surprised when they actually do hurt or create anger - and people react out of those emotions.

That doesn't justify the murders, but it does place a responsibility on the cartoonist to consider the point of the cartoons they are creating: who is being targeted by it, does the target deserves it (is it comforting the afflicted - or afflicting the comfortable) or - as Trudeau suggests - is is it just being mean (or offensive) for the sake of being mean.

Charlie Hebdo created cartoons which afflicted everyone, not just the comfortable. From my perspective, intentionally targeting both the afflicted and the comfortable is not a responsible exercise of free speech.

[melman]

22. No

Religious fanatics kill because they are religious fanatics. Not because of cartoons!

[nomorenomore08]

19. I agree that the violent response in this case was ridiculous and appalling. To say the least.

But speech that is intended to incite and provoke sometimes has unforeseen consequences. The solution is not censorship, of course, but perhaps a bit of discretion. You can kick the hornet's nest if you want to, but be careful how hard you do it.

[aikoaiko]

6. Wow. Trudeau comes very close to blaming the attacks on Charlie Hebdo on Charlie Hebdo.

[Ms. Toad]

13. What I hear him saying is that if your goal is not to enlighten or challenge authority

but "specifically to provoke," then you should not be surprised when the response to that intentional provocation is hurt and anger.

We all know that violence is not an appropriate response provocation - but imperfect human beings do not always act perfectly. That is why those who most effectively use the right to free speech for good take seriously the responsibility to use it wisely. That doesn't necessarily mean there will not be a violent response (as there often was during the Civil Rights movement), but if violence is a likely response then it is even more important to choose when to speak and what to say responsibly.

[aikoaiko]

14. Ok, but there is something horribly elitist about saying...

...if your speech is high-minded then there is no excuse for violence, but if your not you are to blame for people shooting you and the policeman outside your building.

Likewise, there is something horribly elitist about saying that some people are not civilized enough to not gather their AK47s, don ski masks, and shoot people to death as a response to provocative cartoons. Why would violence be "likely" from French Muslims in response to profane images of the prophet?

[Ms. Toad]

16. That is not what I said.

I said speech has consequences, and because it has consequences it needs to be exercised responsibly. That is not the same as excusing or blaming violent behavior on being provoked.

A consequences of speech during the Civil Rights movement was violence - and anyone who was alive during that time knows that the organizers and participants were well aware of the possibility of a violent reaction to their speech and made the decision that the message was important enough to continue speaking, even though anyone with a brain knew there might well be violent consequences.

I am suggesting that when you engage in speech that is likely to (or, as is the case here, intended to) provoke strong, or even violent, reactions, the freedom to speak provocatively carries with it the responsibility to evaluate the potential consequences and make wise choices about whether the message being conveyed is important enough to proceed even though the consequences of continuing to speak may include violence.

I'm not blaming them for the violence - or excusing violent behavior. Regardless of the violent consequences, I agree with the choice during the civil rights era to continue speaking because the message needed to be heard. Charlie Hebdo's speech on the other hand served no such purpose, and I disagree with their choice.

As to why violence would be likely - that is a pretty insincere question, given that a quick search would have told you that their office was firebombed and they had received death threats prior to the attack.

[aikoaiko]

17. It sounds like Trudeau blames CH. He said Charlie Hebdo incited the violence.

Charlie Hebdo thought their speech was worth the risk. They thought it was worth it to say "we can print silly, profane cartoons and not be under the thumb of a religion".

My question about why you and Trudeau think violence was likely was not insincere. It was to point out that one would have to think of Muslims as violent and uncivilized in order to think the massacre was likely.

[Ms. Toad]

21. I didn't say the massacre was likely

I said that the speech might have violent consequences. A pretty realistic assessment,

given that a quick search would have told you that their office was firebombed and they had received death threats prior to the attack.

Paying attention to what has already happened in response to how this particular entity chooses to use its speech says nothing about how Muslims, in general, act in the world.

[Hekate]

9. I have followed Trudeau's work since the beginning. He is a wise man. nt

[riderinthestorm]

12. Blame the victims.

Revolting

[philosslayer]

15. Bravo Mr. Trudeau!

He states it very well. Just because you CAN offend someone doesn't mean you should. And if you do, don't be surprised if someone reacts in a way you don't like.

Freedom of speech isn't just a right. Its a responsibility.

[Jesus Malverde]

18. Gary who?...nt

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Moliere's most popular work mocked the ever living stuffing out of religion, religious hypocrisy and

made a comic foil and villain out of a holy man, many of the exact same things that so offend the religious hypocrites of today. Tartuffe was suppressed by the Archbishop of Paris who threatened to excommunicate anyone who so much as glanced at it. So it is a bit ironic to portray Moliere as being kindly to the pious class...