The tragic murders of many of the artists who produced the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo have revived debates around free speech and what’s considered acceptable to publish. Some critics have said that cartoons like the ones Charlie Hebdo published on Islam were offensive and merely fed into Islamophobia with crass insults. They support the refusal by certain media to re-publish the cartoons. Others say that the cartoons are an important example of free speech, and that a refusal to publish them is giving in to terrorist threats.
The Charlie Hebdo situation ties back into satire and its larger role in society. Satire like Animal Farm, Gulliver’s Travels and Huckleberry Finn have made important commentaries about society and contributed to its growth. Speaking truth to power is one of the most important roles art and artists can play in society, particularly when that power is tyrannical or violent, as it is with terrorism.
However, satire is like any other form of art, in that it can be ill informed, tacky or just plain bad. Too often, though, it seems like any criticism of satire or satirists is treated as an attack on free speech itself. Anybody who dares to say that satire like Charlie Hebdo’s work, or of commentators like Jon Stewart or Ezra Levant, is almost themselves set up for being attacked as opposing free speech, giving in to terrorism, or what have you.
This, in itself, is a subtle danger in that it makes criticism of the satirists and artists themselves almost off-limits. Just because something is satirical does not necessarily mean it is well-thought out, or that its producers should be immune to criticism because of who they’re directing their messages at. Nor does it necessarily mean that anyone else should feel pressured to reproduce satire or messages that they disagree with, particularly if they feel that it’s badly done.
Free speech is an important tool for satirists and artists to use in keeping the powerful accountable and informing people of social problems. Violence in response to it deserves to be punished, and the terrorists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got what they deserved.
However, free speech also serves another important role in society – namely that of keeping the artists and satirists themselves accountable. There is no reason why satirists cannot themselves be satirized or criticized if their work is badly done or is misinformed.
The best way to counter a use of free speech that you do not agree with is to use your own freedom of speech to counter it. Satirists are just as fair to criticize as any elected official, and can rightly be called out if their work is mistaken or bad. Another recourse, too, is just to ignore it. Just because someone produces a work of art does not mean you have to like it, much less that you have to watch or read it.
After all, the freedom to do something also includes the freedom not to do something.
Jared Milne is a St. Albert resident with a passion for Canadian history and politics.
