Infographic by Bridget Creel
By Bridget Creel
The aftermath of the terror attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has sparked a deliberation between the American values of free expression and religious tolerance. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, “about three-in-four Americans (76%) have heard at least a little about the attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.” After speaking to several locals living in the Burlington, North Carolina area, people seemed to know more about the attack than the percentage of people reflected in the poll.
The poll also stated that 60 percent of Americans said it was OK for Charlie Hebdo to publish the cartoons, but 28 percent said that the cartoons should not have been published.
“I definitely think the attack was wrong,” Kelly Foran said. “Without a doubt, violence is always wrong and never justified. Freedom of speech is a universal right but in Europe, there is a gray area for freedom of speech.”
The gray area for freedom of speech has also been referenced by Pope Francis, who admits that the attacks are wrong but that it was also wrong for the magazine to provoke the religious group in the first place. Pope Francis addressed that limits should be stated to eliminate any miscommunication or chance that a massacre like this could happen again.
Infographic by Bridget Creel. (center photo taken by Bridget Creel & head shots taken from elon.edu)
Gerry Waterman, associate chaplain for Catholic life at Elon University, agrees with the Pope that offensive words can provoke dangerous actions
“Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but when it affects and hurts someone on a very personal level, there is a natural aversion to hearing something that hurts us and maybe even some type of violent reaction,” Waterman said.
In this case, the natural aversion for the Jihadist Muslim group was to kill many of the people responsible for the publication of the offensive cartoon.
Based on the concept of freedom of speech, Charlie Hebdo had the right to publish the cartoons. However, there are people, similar to the 28 percent that believe the magazine was too offensive through the publication.
“I personally don’t think they should publish such cartoons, or at least consider if there are other ways to achieve their satirical ends,” said Joel Harter, associate chaplain for Protestant life at Elon University. “The best satire has a moral or political purpose; it doesn’t just make fun of others for comedic or shock value.”
According to an article by The Washington Post, there is a divide that currently exists between journalists who are torn between the right and ethics of publishing the cartoons.
“I don’t think you should attack religious things in books,” Philip Greene said. “There are so many variations of religion and no one will ever feel the same way.”
For those who responded to the poll that Pew Research Center conducted, the people who were against the publishing of the cartoons said it was strictly a matter of respect for other religions.
“The whole situation could have been prevented,” Virginia Greene said. “I think it could have been avoided but I also think that good Muslims need to stand up through other ways than killing.”
bcreel 