EDITORIAL
2 Obiter Dicta
Some Thoughts on Some Thoughts on
Charlie Hebdo
T
h e r ec e n t t e r ror attacks in France
have, apparently, opened the floodgates
for opinions from both sides of the political spectrum on the values and risks of freedom of speech. Across countries and continents,
Twitter trolls and Facebook stalkers alike have
begun to self-identify as either a French cartoonist,
or not-a-French-cartoonist. I find the whole exercise extremely unnerving given the timing, which is
why I’m writing this to present a third option to this
debate, though admittedly, one which lacks the jene-sais-quoi of a trendy hashtag.
Many publications seem to be suggesting that
freedom of speech should have some limits when
the offence or harm done to individuals so strongly
outweighs the validity or purpose of the written
or spoken material. The argument is that when an
image or statement is inherently hurtful to a particular group, it shouldn’t be allowed only because
freedom of speech exists. Without some additional
purpose or validity to the offending material, perhaps it is preferable to not antagonize a population
by publishing it. This argument has a lot of validity,
especially when we consider that many materials
that do offend in such a matter are already banned
under the label of “hate speech.”
Other publications offer a different point of view,
that freedom of speech is an established right which
must be rigorously upheld and defended. The view
is that this freedom is a fundamental element of
democracy, since it allows us to publicly contest
opinions we oppose, and promote the opinions for
which we stand. The argument of the “jesuischarlie” crowd is, essentially, that an attack on a controversial publication strikes at the most fundamental
protections of freedom of speech, the protection of
objectionable speech, and cannot be tolerated. The
outpouring of support for this perspective likely
stems from more general attitudes regarding the
importance of liberty and freedom which are pervasive in Western cultures. An attack so directly
linked to the destruction of these values can only be
expected to result in such an intense pushback.
In reviewing both these arguments, I find them
both extremely dissatisfying. In terms of the argument in favour of limiting free speech, my issue is
that, if something has not already been labelled
as “hate speech,” then that means the democratic
society in which the material is disseminated
has already accepted the validity of the material.
Anyone who opposes the material can launch a court
a. Osgoode Hall Law School, 0014g
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, on m3j 1p3
e. [email protected]
w. obiter-dicta.ca
t. @obiterdictaoz
“In law school, time is meaningless; But in time,
law school is meaningless.”
restroom graffiti
ê Photo credit: wallonews.com
challenge and argue that the material is hateful. To
stand up and cry out against the unfairness of offensive material the day after a mass murder is simply
taking an opportunistic leap to stand on the supposed moral high ground. Anyone truly opposed to
freedom of speech legislation can act on their opinion at any time, but specifically choosing to come
forward after a terrorist attack feels inappropriate. If
this was an important issue yesterday, it will still be
important in a week, so perhaps its best to pay the
families of th e deceased the respect of waiting a few
days before launching into a hashtag frenzy.
As for the other faithful hashtaggers, the “jesuischarlie” crowd, I am equally dissatisfied with the
idea that freedom of speech is a blanket in which
we should all be constantly wrapped. Freedom of
speech has been limited before, and there is no
reason to believe that it would be purely detrimental
to limit it in the future. I can understand the value
of showing support for the families of those who
were viciously murdered by Islamic radicals, but
that support should not be a front for the promotion of a specific view regarding the reach of a civil
liberty. It is possible to show solidarity against terrorism without being a crusader for unlimited free
speech, and I firmly believe that the message would
actually come across better without the context in
editorial board
editor-in-chief | Karolina Wisniewski
managing editor | Sam Michaels
layout editor | Heather Pringle
editorial staff
business managers | Alvin Qian,
Adam Cepler
communications manager | Angie Sheep
copy editor | Subban Jama
news editor | Mike Capitano
opinions editor | Carla Marti
arts & culture editor | Marie Park
sports editor | Evan Ivkovic
website editor | Asad Akhtar
which it currently is being disseminated. Saying free
speech shouldn’t be limited after the brutal murder
of an editorial team is almost too easy to be truly
impactful. Those who wish to promote an unlimited
view of free speech are choosing the easiest possible example to push forward their view. Promoting
the viewpoint outside last week’s context is a much
more difficult task, but one that would likely lead to
far more substantial results.
The debate over free speech is not playing out in
a courtroom or legislative chamber, but rather, on
Facebook walls and Twitter feeds. Yes, it is nice that
technology allows us to interact and share opinions on a global scale, but the problem is that too
often those opinions can be easily labeled. Informed
debate requires acknowledgment and analysis of
all the points that contribute to a debate. By camping out under a specific opinion (or hashtag), one
inevitably discounts the validity of other opinions.
For this reason I would like to offer a third, somewhat-of-a-cop-out, opinion on the debate over free
speech: that this isn’t the time.
Simply put, whatever end of the free speech spectrum you are on, you should not allow terrorism to
staff writers
Kate Henley, Gleb Matushansky, Erin Garbett,
Hannah de Jong, Kenneth Cheak Kwan
Lam, Kendall Grant, Rob Hamilton, Esther
Mendelsohn, Parmbir Singh Gill, Michael
Silver
contributors
Sachin Seth, Sabrina Delhon, Tracey Leigh
Dowdeswell, Quinlin Gilbert-Walters, Liane
Langstaff
Submissions for the February 2 issue are
due at 5pm on January 24, and should be
submitted to: [email protected]
» see editorial, page 13
The Obiter Dicta is published biweekly
during the school year, and is printed by
Weller Publishing Co. Ltd.
Obiter Dicta is the official student newspaper
of Osgoode Hall Law School. The opinions
expressed in the articles contained herein are
not necessarily those of the Obiter staff. The
Obiter reserves the right to refuse any submission that is judged to be libelous or defamatory,
contains personal attacks, or is discriminatory
on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Submissions may be edited for length
and/or content.