POINT: Freedom of expression needs to be defended


On Jan. 7, 12 people who worked for Paris-based satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were shot dead by Islamic extremists, with others sustaining brutal injuries. According to Los Angeles Times, the two gunmen aimed to “avenge the prophet Mohammed,” as Charlie Hebdo had released publications over the years sardonically critiquing the religion. In their attack that shocked the world, the terrorists have also stunted the freedom of expression, which includes intellectual criticism exemplified by the French magazine.

Freedom of expression is a core value in Western societies. It is a concept on which the United States was founded and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said was a “key component of our free democratic culture” in her address about the massacre. Though it cannot be prescribed to all countries due to the basis of their governments, it is essential to inspire people, no matter their origin, to challenge oppressive, conventional ideas, and speech is the most effective way to inspire this necessary change.

In a setting where free speech is afforded to all citizens, opinions flow among many people. Discriminatory remarks can be said to attack certain groups of peoples — racist or anti-religious remarks, for example. That is generally viewed as the most negative consequence of the freedom of speech. Free speech is important in this scenario, however, because derogatory remarks can be inhibited through outcries demanding minority support. Dichotomous opposition is a balanced, yin-yang force. In turn, education silences the ignorance that is inevitable in any community.

This goes for the Charlie Hebdo published works as well. The magazine has been known for its offensive illustrations of not just Muslims, but people of other cultures as well. Their offense does not represent the stagnation of acceptance. On the contrary, it symbolizes the preservation of the free world, the one that Merkel touts. Charlie Hebdo supports the cycle of a two-sided discussion that will eventually spur a flourishing of different ideas.

Furthermore, it is our social responsibility to strike passive attitudes and speak our thoughts. No institution should be exempt from scorn, as they contain artificial, man-made aspects. People belong to these institutions, ones like a government that decrees laws to follow, or religion, which outlines a follower’s conduct. Unless we critique these institutions, they will never change. Religion is centuries-old for a reason and is embedded into the very fiber of people’s identities, yet it produces sects that are startlingly radical, as exemplified by these recent terrorist attacks. By speaking out on the blasphemy, people are taking a stance on how to improve other people’s lives. And the people of Charlie Hebdo were tragically sacrificed for their weapon to effect change: speech.

Ignoring these conflicts is not the answer, but silencing opinions will not eliminate social injustice either. The best, most productive conversations are ones that have opposing views, ones that, in the end, promote social welfare for all people.

Hopefully, what will happen will look something like what the artist Lucille Clerc drew in response to the incident. Yesterday, our pencils, or our ability to freely express ourselves, were unscathed. Today, that right has been snapped in half, severely crippled. Tomorrow, our temporary defeat might catalyze more expressions, new pencils that arise from the broken ones. But before we can grow from this tragedy, we must realize that issues of free speech impact us all, and that we are all Charlie.

Danni Wang is a sophomore majoring in psychology. She is also the editorial director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.