Sunday, February 1, 2015
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Freedom to, Freedom from, and the Freedom to be Offensive
Hello, Internet! Hope you're all having a lovely day in some non war-torn country right now. If you are in fact in some war-torn country then congratulations on getting a stable connection. Today, we're going to talk about freedom, specifically that of the press, something that the recent attacks on Charlie Hebdo and some of the responses suggest people don't really understand.
In the wake of the attack, there has been a surge of support for Hebdo. Personally, I say this is a sign that as a global culture we're doing well. Some of my colleagues disagree. According to them, Charlie Hebdo should have been more culturally sensitive and not published the image of the prophet in the first place. This seems harmless enough; we can all agree that being offensive is generally to be avoided as a matter of common courtesy. However, that isn't their point. Their point is that it shouldn't be allowed. And that, my friends, is how the Orwellian nightmare state starts. You see, part of the importance of satire is making people think about things that they otherwise took as a given or never even noticed. You know what the fastest way to do that is? Offend them. Call attention to the issue by making it a point of contention. You're always going to offend someone with everything you say, so use that. Freedom of the press is the freedom to say things knowing that you won't be prosecuted for offending someone powerful, and freedom from reprisal by angry mobs. It is, in short, the freedom to be offensive without fearing for your life. It is not possible to have a free press without the freedom to offend. As to the people who say that it's about cultural sensitivity: Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line about how many people have to be offended before it becomes out of bounds? The answer will always be one, specifically the one who's writing the laws. Political correctness is a lovely idea in theory, but in practice it turns into a way to shackle ourselves. Enforced censorship chafes and draws resistance. It breeds resentment, underground back-channel media, and eventually rebellion. But how much easier is it for "them" to get us to put the chains on ourselves? How much easier would it be to put in place legislation we cry out for to make us safe than to ram it down the throats of an unwilling populace? How much more enforceable does state-sponsored politically correct thought become when the culture as a whole does the enforcement, when those who refuse to follow the rules are not celebrated underdogs but socially scorned for not keeping up with the times? We won't lose our freedom when it gets stripped away at gunpoint. We'll lose it when through a thousand petty little nanny laws and politically correct edits we merrily sign it over of our own accord. You see, the greatest challenge of determining political correctness is in figuring out how offensive is too offensive, and what would cause that offense. Then you get committees or agencies who set what is or is not offensive, and they rule the world forever. After all, what's more offensive to the king than the suggestion that he is unfit to rule?
In the wake of the attack, there has been a surge of support for Hebdo. Personally, I say this is a sign that as a global culture we're doing well. Some of my colleagues disagree. According to them, Charlie Hebdo should have been more culturally sensitive and not published the image of the prophet in the first place. This seems harmless enough; we can all agree that being offensive is generally to be avoided as a matter of common courtesy. However, that isn't their point. Their point is that it shouldn't be allowed. And that, my friends, is how the Orwellian nightmare state starts. You see, part of the importance of satire is making people think about things that they otherwise took as a given or never even noticed. You know what the fastest way to do that is? Offend them. Call attention to the issue by making it a point of contention. You're always going to offend someone with everything you say, so use that. Freedom of the press is the freedom to say things knowing that you won't be prosecuted for offending someone powerful, and freedom from reprisal by angry mobs. It is, in short, the freedom to be offensive without fearing for your life. It is not possible to have a free press without the freedom to offend. As to the people who say that it's about cultural sensitivity: Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line about how many people have to be offended before it becomes out of bounds? The answer will always be one, specifically the one who's writing the laws. Political correctness is a lovely idea in theory, but in practice it turns into a way to shackle ourselves. Enforced censorship chafes and draws resistance. It breeds resentment, underground back-channel media, and eventually rebellion. But how much easier is it for "them" to get us to put the chains on ourselves? How much easier would it be to put in place legislation we cry out for to make us safe than to ram it down the throats of an unwilling populace? How much more enforceable does state-sponsored politically correct thought become when the culture as a whole does the enforcement, when those who refuse to follow the rules are not celebrated underdogs but socially scorned for not keeping up with the times? We won't lose our freedom when it gets stripped away at gunpoint. We'll lose it when through a thousand petty little nanny laws and politically correct edits we merrily sign it over of our own accord. You see, the greatest challenge of determining political correctness is in figuring out how offensive is too offensive, and what would cause that offense. Then you get committees or agencies who set what is or is not offensive, and they rule the world forever. After all, what's more offensive to the king than the suggestion that he is unfit to rule?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)