The Freedom Not to Speak

Sometimes you just can’t win.

Let’s start by saying that the fatal attack on the Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo for publishing satirical cartoons targeting fundamental Islam was an unpardonable act of terrorism. Nobody should have to die for simply saying something offensive.

Unfortunately, free speech isn’t really “free.” The editor of the magazine knew that all too well, and hired security to protect him and the publication’s staff. It just wasn’t quite good enough.

But now, major news outlets that have declined, for one reason or another, to re-publish the cartoons are being castigated for “caving” to terrorism. Some say their policy is not to publish provocative images, but critics say these outlets can’t serve their readers or audiences by failing to tell the full story, which they argue requires republication of the offensive material.

The implication is the non-publishing news outlets are cowards for choosing not to spread the offensive stuff around. But doesn’t freedom of speech include the freedom NOT to do so, for whatever reason? Maybe such outlets fear an attack; maybe they just don’t want to cause offense to readers or viewers, even those who won’t be inspired to commit retaliatory murder. The truth is, the reason isn’t even the public’s business, unless the newspaper, TV network or other medium chooses to make it so.

I’ve always said that if you tickle a rattlesnake, you can’t be all that surprised if it chooses to bite you. If you insist on publishing jokes about the beliefs of maybe a billion or so people, you can’t be too surprised if some of them don’t feel quite as strongly about freedom of speech as you.

Clearly, both speech and silence have a price, but it’s up to the speakers as to whether or not they feel like paying it. That said, it does distress me to hear this being couched in terms of bravery and cowardice. I just can't help thinking there's a little more to it than that.