The Freedom to be Infringed Upon

Developing opinions is a paramount aspect of human nature, one that under no circumstances should be infringed upon in any way. But raising that point also presents a troubling situation: at what point does an individual’s use of freedom of expression infringe upon someone else’s freedom to express and defend his or her own personal beliefs? Recent events such as the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France committed by Islamic extremists in response to a cartoon mocking the Muslim prophet Muhammad further question that notion. The extremists conducted the attack in protest of the ad, simply because the magazine’s freedom of speech infringed upon their religious views. Simply because the satirists hurt somebody’s feelings. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Karl Sharro quotes Kenan Malik: “’The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence’” (Sharro, “Charlie Hebdo and the Right to be Offended”). Malik argues that the fear of upsetting someone’s feelings might indirectly infringe on a writer’s (or cartoonist’s) freedom of speech. Additionally, succumbing to bullying that directly attacks freedom of speech makes the target that much more vulnerable. Since there is too much grey area to draw an outright line between critical and blatantly offensive, the only possible solution is to allow for absolute and unrestricted freedom of speech. Along with that comes for the need for universal acceptance and tolerance. Cartoonists shouldn’t have to fear for their lives in order to write about what they believe in, regardless of the topic. Political analyst and comedian Bill Maher chimed in on the Charlie Hebdo incident, and in a segment called “Self Censorship vs Free Speech,” he made the following remarks: “Opinions shouldn’t be illegal. Everyone can always come up with a reason why the thing that bugs you should get a waiver. But free speech only works if there are no waivers” (Maher, “Real Time with Bill Maher”). There can’t be a society that believes in freedom of speech unless you hurt someone’s feelings. That society can’t justify an attack or any violent response just because someone was offended. Free speech can’t have restrictions placed on it. Doing so contradicts the very thing that freedom of speech and expression is supposed to stand for and protect. The rest of Bill Maher’s segment on free speech and its recent opponents can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipu0ifyC-Xc. WARNING: It does use some choice language and makes controversial points, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that anyway.