Heroes and Villains: 'Charlie Hebdo' and 'The Sun'

A week ago, the French magazine, ‘Charlie Hebdo’ was widely lauded in Western democracies for its decision to print copies containing further cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. One week later, the British newspaper, ‘The Sun’ was roundly castigated for its continued policy of posting photos of topless young women on its infamous/famous ‘Page Three’ after it had earlier appeared that it had brought this forty five year old practice to a halt.

I am in favour neither of Charlie Hebdo’s approach to religion nor of The Sun’s approach to women, but I support both papers’ rights to freedom of expression, which includes their right to offend. I wish that neither paper would use their freedom in the ways that they do, but I do not want their freedoms to be curtailed. Censorship is a death-knell to liberty.

This begs the question: how far should freedom of expression go? Jurisdictions take widely varying approaches to this issue. At one end of the spectrum, countries like the USA set freedom of expression as an almost absolute principle while at the other end, states such as Saudi Arabia flog bloggers who dare to question prevalent social norms. The UK sits somewhat uncomfortably in the middle, agonising over how to strike the balance between respecting freedom of expression and penalising hate-crime.

It is tempting to think that ‘our’ country has got it right, but a greater danger than simply following our particular state’s laws and social norms is the temptation to promote freedom of expression when we agree with what is being said, but to oppose it when we find words or images objectionable. This, of course, is not something to which we are readily going to admit. I suspect, however, that many people agreed with Charlie Hebdo’s stance because they wanted to give religion a bloody nose while some of the same people want ‘Page Three’ to be outlawed because they find objectification of women abhorrent.

Such feelings are understandable (and, in part, I agree with them) but they ought to be pushed firmly to one side.  We need to decide what criteria we establish for determining when, if at all, freedom of expression ought to be curtailed and then adhere to those criteria, regardless of our personal opinions on a given topic.

My view is that as long as participants are acting consensually, freedom of expression ought not to be curtailed, subject to potential audiences being made aware of the possible content of the magazine, film, book or play in question. Those who object to what is being said or portrayed are free to express their objections with equal liberty. Vive la liberté.