defrog | THE KILLING JOKE

Okay, so I was wrong about that post being my only post about Charlie Hebdo.

One angle I considered touching upon – but opted not to, in the interest of time – is the one about free speech and the right to offend. But in light of the current discussions I've seen in the media, I thought I might as well get this off my chest.

Let me be clear up front about two things: (1) On an ideological level, I acknowledge the right of Charlie Hebdo to say what it wants, even if it involves insulting someone’s religion, and (2) insulting someone’s religion does not justify violence and murder as a response. At all. (And I say this as someone whose religious beliefs get insulted all the time.)

But listening to the free-speech discussion following the attacks (which is the same discussion we had back in 2005), it seems to me that everyone is focused on the ideology of free speech (Free Speech All The Time Motherfuckers) and not its practical real-world application.

The general argument is that we shouldn’t censor ourselves out of fear of offending people, especially when it comes to satire. Technically this is true. On the other hand, we do it all the time. There is always such a thing as going too far, and most editors and writers have a line they will not cross, and will not thank you for exercising yr 1A rights if you ever cross it yrself. When that line gets crossed, yr going to get a response, and there’s always the risk that the response is going to be something lethal. The fact that it’s unjustified (which it is) doesn’t mean it won’t happen. For example, I have a right to call (say) Sean Hannity a shit-eating pederast who learned to fuck women by practicing on his mom. Sean doesn’t have the right to punch me in the face for calling him that, but odds are he’s going to do it anyway. (Or at least hire someone to do it for him.)

It’s easy to say that satirists must be fearless in the face of possible violent retribution – and again, there’s truth in that – but there’s fearless, and there’s stupid. And every editor (including the ones in the US that elected not to republish the Charlie Hedbo art that started all this) has to decide if the real-world consequences (no matter how unjustified they may be) are worth the risk of being offensive.

Also, the thing about offending people on purpose is this: just because you have a right to do so doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea, whether in the name of self-preservation or just common decency.

And as has been pointed out here, the argument that everyone is fair game in satire doesn't mean all targets of satire are affected equally. Maybe you have a right to make fun of (say) Muslims, but given how many are already treated like second-class citizens in many parts of the world (including France, incidentally, where burqas and headscarves are actually illegal to wear in public, ironically in the name of promoting unity), you can’t realistically expect them to take it in the same stride as, say, an American televangelist or a Wall Street banker.

Which, again – and I can’t say this enough because a lot of people tend to assume that being critical of Charlie Hebdo means you support the shootings – does not justify violence. Ever.

I guess what I’m saying is that if anything productive is ever going to come out this senseless tragedy, we should be focused less on the simple idealistic right of free speech and more focused on a broader discussion on how to use that right more responsibly.

By that I don't mean passing laws governing satire or enforcing political correctness benchmarks dictating what’s taboo, or anything that generally tells people what they can and cannot say. I’m thinking more along the lines of a greater awareness of the purpose and impact of satire, and the understanding that there’s a fine line between lampooning authority and institutional sacred cows to make a point (which is the traditional role of satire) and just being a dick for the sake of a cheap joke.

Anyway.

You can read this piece from John Scalzi that covers this ground better than me.

Meanwhile, you can also read this debate at the NYT for a little extra insight on how far satire can (or should) go.

Also, while we’re at it, here’s an interesting interview with Robert Crumb, who lives in France, and who points out that French satire is expected to be ruthless and mean.

That joke isn’t funny anymore,

This is dF