In light of the reprehensible attacks against the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the four Jewish customers in a Parisian supermarket earlier this month, many contentious ethical questions have re-entered public debate.
Of the many issues that have resurfaced, the principle of free speech is one of the most vexing and convoluted. The contrasting political philosophies of France and the United States regarding free speech highlight the balancing act between individual expression and equality and how offsetting this balance can harm a democracy.
Here in the U.S., due to our revolutionary history, the prevailing philosophy has valued individual liberty and limiting government interference in our lives. Because of that, the Supreme Court has tended to protect racist speech, suppressing local ordinances to stifle it, as in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
France’s policy couldn’t be more different. With the passing of the Pleven Law of 1972, which banned the instigation of racial hatred and racially pejorative speech, and the Gayssot Law of 1990, which punished those who publicly denied the Holocaust, the French government has taken steps to punish racists.
Recently, a French “comedian” named Dieudonné, whose stage name means “Godgiven,” was charged under the Pleven Law. Known for his anti-Semitic performances, he tweeted after the attack that he “feels Charlie Coulibaly,” combining the name Charlie Hebdo with one of the attackers’ names, Amedy Coulibaly.
Although Dieudonné’s jokes are vile and don’t register as funny, his jokes don’t bother me as much as the fact that many people enthusiastically attend his shows. Through the patronage of Dieudonné’s audience, his odious beliefs are legitimatized, giving him a platform on which he can spread hate.
Many have pointed out that France’s policy seems hypocritical, targeting Dieudonné while allowing Charlie Hebdo to publish an image of the prophet Muhammed. While Dieudonné’s content hardly qualifies him as a martyr for free speech, the French government has established a paradigm by prosecuting those who target individuals while allowing those who target institutions to escape prosecution.
Just because France has created this standard doesn’t mean it’s justifiable. Even though arguing that satire should have no bounds sounds fair, it’s far from moral in a society where many lack a voice. Satire should mock the ruling class and those who have power, not kick already marginalized people in the teeth. Keep in mind that more than 50 Islamophobic attacks have taken place since the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters.
In the end, striking a balance between protecting the rights of all citizens and not stifling dissent is complicated, but not impossible. Hate speech and discrimination prevent all members of society from having equal opportunities. Hate speech does not express dissent against the government — which is one of the central purposes of free speech — but instead targets the society’s most vulnerable populations, which deserve protection.