I'm all for freedom of speech - even if it sometimes offends. But what sane person would step into the lair of a wild and uncontrollable beast and taunt it . That's what "Charlie" did and discovered the brutal consequences! Reasoing is a human gift and those in the public eye should embrace it to the fullest...curb your enthusiam and use you head.
19
Part I (I've just sent you Part 2)
I quite often spend time and pleasure reading Mr. Brooks' columns. As a teacher I even used and studied one of them with one of my classes ("no, it's not about race") years ago. This column was efficent and revealing.
January 8 column ("I'm not Charlie Hebdo") was utter disgust ans misplaced analysis.
David Brooks surely has a clear view of his own nation but can't imagine having a sharp eye as to other cultures in the world. The USA has the Bill of Rights and within this treasure chest, Amendment I. This same amendment which protects journalists in their statements; this same one which allows an American politician to call the general public for murdering any opposite physical political reality.
I quite often spend time and pleasure reading Mr. Brooks' columns. As a teacher I even used and studied one of them with one of my classes ("no, it's not about race") years ago. This column was efficent and revealing.
January 8 column ("I'm not Charlie Hebdo") was utter disgust ans misplaced analysis.
David Brooks surely has a clear view of his own nation but can't imagine having a sharp eye as to other cultures in the world. The USA has the Bill of Rights and within this treasure chest, Amendment I. This same amendment which protects journalists in their statements; this same one which allows an American politician to call the general public for murdering any opposite physical political reality.
14
Yeah, you're right David, this whole freedom-of-speech thing is WAY overblown.
48
To survive the onslaught of evil it is often necessary to destroy the evil before becoming destroyed. We know evil. We know the enemy. And the enemy is evil..
19
Did this have a point? Seems like the author wants it both ways: He asks people to tolerate offensive speech, which I believe is important because too many folks I encounter particularly in intellectual/academic circles try to use their delicate sensibilities to avoid dealing with difficult truths, but also to not credit the message because of its style. Is this some new kind of political correctness I haven't run into yet? Or is it traditionalist dogma writ gently? Or does it mean we should give grudging respect to the cartoonists AND the folks who shot them down? I'm not sure.
47
Charlie Hebdo's offices were previously fire bombed & their web site hacked as a result of their content, but they continued to operate.
Sony pulled a comedy movie based on threats and The New York Times won't even *show* these cartoons: not with a disclaimer, not in (their obvious) context.
So who sits at the grown-up table, David?
Sony pulled a comedy movie based on threats and The New York Times won't even *show* these cartoons: not with a disclaimer, not in (their obvious) context.
So who sits at the grown-up table, David?
151
One of the murderers took hostages in a kosher supermarket. You know, a supermarket where Jews shop. Would Mr. Brooks write a piece about this outrage titled I Am Not A Jew and then proceed to compare anti-Semitism in France and Europe to Antisemitism in the United States and point out the differences and who can sit at the adult table and who can sit at the children's table? Probably not -- too many false equivalencies just like his comparison of US universities, comedians and political hacks with a small batch French newspaper which gleefully skewers everyone and everything.
125
Mr. Brooks seems to overlook the fact that if the terrorists had not attacked Charlie Hebdo, they would have attacked another target. As they did today. To say that "Je suis Charlie" is just about freedom of expression misses the point.
53
Do you think being humorless qualifies you to sit at the adult table? And do you think being humorless somehow indicates your grasp of subtleties?
90
Best thing you've printed in quite a while. Exactly spot on.
74
I am Charlie Hebdo.
Satyre is the salt of any free society, and the life support of totalitarian countries.
It has nothing to do with professors speaking from university podiums; it has nothing at all to do with student hate speach.
Are you tone deaf, David?
Charly Hebdo made fun of everyone: Christians, Jews, Islamists, Atheists, men, women, etheros, gays, pols, you name them.
Ever read any of it, David? I bet you did not, at least before yesterday.
Great dictators could not kill underground satyre: not Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, not the Inquisition -- for Centuries there has been a place in Rome for people to post satyre of Popes.
You are out of luck with your article.
And, what with the Sony attack? Is it your opinion that not-politically-correct comedies should not be shown in US? That the attack was well deserved?
Yes, I am Charlie Hebdo -- we all are, you too.
Satyre is the salt of any free society, and the life support of totalitarian countries.
It has nothing to do with professors speaking from university podiums; it has nothing at all to do with student hate speach.
Are you tone deaf, David?
Charly Hebdo made fun of everyone: Christians, Jews, Islamists, Atheists, men, women, etheros, gays, pols, you name them.
Ever read any of it, David? I bet you did not, at least before yesterday.
Great dictators could not kill underground satyre: not Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, not the Inquisition -- for Centuries there has been a place in Rome for people to post satyre of Popes.
You are out of luck with your article.
And, what with the Sony attack? Is it your opinion that not-politically-correct comedies should not be shown in US? That the attack was well deserved?
Yes, I am Charlie Hebdo -- we all are, you too.
54
Mr. Brooks' argument misses a key point. Reading or subscribing to Charlie Hebdo is voluntary. The expectation in attending university lectures is to hear a variety of points of view and to make up one's own mind. Therefore, when an employee of a university espouses a personal view as fact they are undermining the agreement. One can choose to attend a focused school that openly espouses a perspective but if one chooses to attend a non-affiliated school, one must expect to hear and understand points of view one both agrees with and disagrees with. Where I agree with Mr. Brooks is that it is, therefore, inappropriate for universities to censor speakers with points of view that are controversial. One can always choose to attend a lecture or not but it is the responsibility of a university to provide many opportunities to hear strongly held and carefully reasoned ideas. I am a fan of both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Maher because both express well thought out and strongly held points of view. I often agree with both of them and sometimes don't. Along with many others, they are my continuing university education!
5
Political satire has a long history, a respected one, and best represented in our country by the raging popularity of Stephen Colbert, not mentioned by Mr. Brooks. One way said that Colbert's alter ego as a conservative was life-saving during the Bush presidency and the Republican congress know/do nothings! And his beautiful delivery at the annual White House Press Corps dinner where even the audience didn't get what he was doing as his satirical show, apart from Jon Stewart, had only been on the air for a years, and offended the president as truth will any politician who doesn't practice telling it. No, we get Brooks decrying the Ann Coulters of FOX NEWS and Bill Mahre, a left-wing but confused comic. But the Republicans fully understand freedom of speech as their right-wing SCOTUS justices passed the Citizens United law, equating money with speech, perhaps the biggest reach in all of history, semantic and legislative. And yet he is able to make the connection between the Christian right-wing fundamentalists who mirror Islamic radicals in their inability to tolerate satire about their beliefs and practices that mainly honor free speech for their ideology but condemn it for those who disagree or find it intolerant or simply giving too much time and space to religion in a country that separates church and state---and now we see why that is so necessary to democracy. The Islamic world finds any other belief system threatening. Insecure?
24
The lamentable David Brooks strikes again but this time, his narrow mindedness exceeds the limits of what is tolerable. Until yesterday, he had never heard of Charlie Hebdo yet he pontificates that the Charlie Hebdo team got what they deserved...Probably not aware of who Kurt Westergaard is either...My heart bled when I heard of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. I am Swiss French and have read le Canard Enchaîné and Hara Kiri before Charlie Hebdo for many years. There is a proud tradition of satyre in the French speaking world and they were the leaders. Equating them to a juvenile college paper is insulting. Cabu, Wolinski and their colleagues were not immature teenagers going through an awkward phase, they were bold and courageous flag bearers of independent thinking with humour. I love them and I will miss them badly...but Charlie Hebdo will go on..despite people like David Brooks
I am Charlie but I am also Ahmed...
I am Charlie but I am also Ahmed...
95
I condemn the murders of the cartoonists. I defend the right to free speech.
But, after seeing the crass, racist, demeaning form of satire churned out at Hebdo, then, Je Suis Charlie I am not. If that is what Mr. Brooks is trying to say, then I agree.
But, after seeing the crass, racist, demeaning form of satire churned out at Hebdo, then, Je Suis Charlie I am not. If that is what Mr. Brooks is trying to say, then I agree.
30
These people bluntly shot in Paris were intellectuals and artists: Bernard Maris was an esteemed economist in the highest university and political spheres (as well as Maurice Genevoix's son-in-law - does this ring the bell, Mr. Brooks? - read his stories in Sologne, his pages on WWI in the trenches) - Cabu (Jean Cabut) was a poet, a sensible broad-minded (yes, he was.) peaceful man (watch him in the French TV archives in "Récré A2" childrens' programmes - read his last book: Cabu, New York - a NYC vision which is as light as a feather poetic and so sharp in getting the American towny mind). Cabu had the ability to understand a foreign culture; sadly, you have proved you don't.
So sad, so disappointing of you.
Keep your work to the USA; or take time to spend time abroad, in France beyond the hackneyed stereotypes or narrow-minded prism.
Unbutton the collar of your shirt; go work to the office without a tie from time to time. Breathe. Get enlightened.
So sad, so disappointing of you.
Keep your work to the USA; or take time to spend time abroad, in France beyond the hackneyed stereotypes or narrow-minded prism.
Unbutton the collar of your shirt; go work to the office without a tie from time to time. Breathe. Get enlightened.
87
Even though I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Brooks wrote, he touches on an important point. We are hypocrites. By "we", I mean us as Americans. Though we love to pay lip-service to the notion of "free speech", we often make exceptions for speech that we deem excessively offensive or vile.
Case in point, recall the response to Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". The appropriate response would have been to use our freedom of expression to vehemently condemn his actions. Many people did this and it was wonderful. However, others took it a step further and tried to force him off the air. They successfully launched attacks on the businesses that broadcast their ads on his radio show, claiming that their ads were an endorsement of Rush's statements. With his ad revenue taking a nose-dive, Rush was forced to retract his statements and issue a half-baked apology. That is censorship and I don't recall anyone here crying foul over what took place.
Let me be clear, I despise Rush Limbaugh and just about everything he stands for. However, as the often quoted saying goes, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I just wish we as a society fully subscribed to this philosophy, rather than doing so at our convenience.
Case in point, recall the response to Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". The appropriate response would have been to use our freedom of expression to vehemently condemn his actions. Many people did this and it was wonderful. However, others took it a step further and tried to force him off the air. They successfully launched attacks on the businesses that broadcast their ads on his radio show, claiming that their ads were an endorsement of Rush's statements. With his ad revenue taking a nose-dive, Rush was forced to retract his statements and issue a half-baked apology. That is censorship and I don't recall anyone here crying foul over what took place.
Let me be clear, I despise Rush Limbaugh and just about everything he stands for. However, as the often quoted saying goes, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I just wish we as a society fully subscribed to this philosophy, rather than doing so at our convenience.
8
Charlie Hebdo wouldn't exist in the U.S. because there is no more freedom of speech here. France has more freedom of speech than we do.
16
Sorry I did a sort of mistake I cannot explain why in my last comment; I mentioned David Barroux, I do not even know that guy, I meant David Brooks of course; please Mr Barroux excuse me...I cannot agree with David Brooks; he stands to be the supreme judge deciding what is to be expressed the correct way ,what is acceptable, or not acceptable;in french we say to be " l'arbitre des élégances".Everybody chooses his way of speaking , or writing, according to circumstances; those from Charlie Hebdo had their way
, you can like or not.It is not a reason to kill them when you do not agree.
, you can like or not.It is not a reason to kill them when you do not agree.
9
Let's remember the positive value of satire. The point is not to just mock other people, or make other people feel bad.
People who satirize religion usually have noticed the harm religion does. Satire of religion offers a lifeline to others who have suffered or are currently suffering under religious dogmas or restrictions. For instance, gays, or women, or "infidels." That is its positive function. Satire reaches a hand out to those downtrodden by powerful interests - it says, "Not everyone is impressed by these jerks. You're not the only one who has noticed they're hypocritical and violent and stupid. You could leave, you know. There are people and places where you would be among friends despite renouncing your religion."
You may disagree, but then, the point of free speech is that all views are heard and people decide for themselves.
I take this to be what is summed up in, "Je suis Charlie."
People who satirize religion usually have noticed the harm religion does. Satire of religion offers a lifeline to others who have suffered or are currently suffering under religious dogmas or restrictions. For instance, gays, or women, or "infidels." That is its positive function. Satire reaches a hand out to those downtrodden by powerful interests - it says, "Not everyone is impressed by these jerks. You're not the only one who has noticed they're hypocritical and violent and stupid. You could leave, you know. There are people and places where you would be among friends despite renouncing your religion."
You may disagree, but then, the point of free speech is that all views are heard and people decide for themselves.
I take this to be what is summed up in, "Je suis Charlie."
25
Mr Brooks is totally off base. Charlie Hebdo is not a campus newspaper so comparing what they publish with what would happen on a college campus is ridiculous. Charlie Hebdo is published by a company. Its product can be bought or ignored by the people of France and the world. In fact Charlie Hebdo has been criticized in France. The French have at least as strong protection of freedom of speech and print as the United States does. Why would anyone compare Charlie Hebdo's publication of offensive cartoons to students of an American educational institution protesting events or people with whom they disagree. They are exercising their rights just like Charlie Hebdo does.
31
The point of #JeSuisCharlie is not about their bravery or the puerility or on-the-noseness of their humor; it's exactly about how free speech is being suppressed, including by terrorist acts. Those who adopted this hashtag are showing solidarity on free speech and journalism, whether they agree with the content or not. It's a Voltaire moment, not a devil's advocate moment.
41
Mr. Brooks either is unable to grasp the meaning of "Je suis Charlie Hedbo" or he had an old column on political correctness sitting around. This is disjointed, lazy work from a columnist I usually admire.
29
Nicely written but you totally missed the point. First it happened in France and you probably do know the saying : 'If you are in Rome, do as the Romans do'. France isn't God's own country, but the country of Voltaire. It's not about adult vs childish communication, but the free speech as Voltaire did fight for. Voltaire is well known for his quote 'I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.'
The terrorists did attack the free speech in France and the quite fragile heterogeneous society (Black blanc beur). So against all what represents the modern France. Being Charly is standing behind Voltaire’s ideals. Crayon contre kalash'. That’s the point. That's why you are Charly if you like it or not.
And à propos Charly Hebdo : It is part of a very old and important culture of satire in France and probably more profound that your text that might make feel comfortable some NY intellectuals. Just as a small sidekick: Charly Hebdo did analyze the problems that the Iraq war was bringing while government paid journalists at the NYT were communicating false CIA information in nicely written articles for adult people.
The terrorists did attack the free speech in France and the quite fragile heterogeneous society (Black blanc beur). So against all what represents the modern France. Being Charly is standing behind Voltaire’s ideals. Crayon contre kalash'. That’s the point. That's why you are Charly if you like it or not.
And à propos Charly Hebdo : It is part of a very old and important culture of satire in France and probably more profound that your text that might make feel comfortable some NY intellectuals. Just as a small sidekick: Charly Hebdo did analyze the problems that the Iraq war was bringing while government paid journalists at the NYT were communicating false CIA information in nicely written articles for adult people.
48
My first comment from this morning either got censored or lost somewhere else in the system. So let me say it again: Political correctness, as it is currently practiced at our universities, differs only in shades from the intolerance of religious fanatics. Whether it is your life that is being threatened by religious fanatics, or your livelihood, because of exercising free speech that does not conform to the increasingly constrained political views of the university leadership and then your job suddenly vanishes, the effect on the individual threatened by either sanction can be similarly devastating.
David Brooks has hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for this column.
David Brooks has hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for this column.
18
I would not put Bill Maher at the kids table.
35
David, you are wrong. We all are Charlie Hebdo. You are Charlie Hebdo, the conservative, right-wing version. You publicize your conservative point of view from at least two respected pulpits. Views which I may or may not agree with, but will vigorously defend your right to say and to print and to make available to the rest of the world.
This is not just about freedom of speech. It is about power, oppression and about inflicting death on someone who does not have the same beliefs. If we, all of us, including Muslims, do not have the courage to stand up to those terrorists, then oppression will become our way of life.
Clearly you can't publish libel, and there is legal recourse for those who are victimized by libel. But political, social, religious views and behaviors are fair game and should be subject to examination. You engage in those discussions. I don't know if you have been threatened as a consequence of any of your writings. If you have been threatened and have modified anything you wanted to say, no matter how slightly, then you have succumbed to oppression. As have the universities you cite, whose actions were deplorable and cowardly.
Ridiculing religious or political beliefs is probably not polite, but it's not illegal. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons point focused on religious and political hypocrisy. If they made anyone think differently as a consequence of seeing them, they did what they were designed to do.
This is not just about freedom of speech. It is about power, oppression and about inflicting death on someone who does not have the same beliefs. If we, all of us, including Muslims, do not have the courage to stand up to those terrorists, then oppression will become our way of life.
Clearly you can't publish libel, and there is legal recourse for those who are victimized by libel. But political, social, religious views and behaviors are fair game and should be subject to examination. You engage in those discussions. I don't know if you have been threatened as a consequence of any of your writings. If you have been threatened and have modified anything you wanted to say, no matter how slightly, then you have succumbed to oppression. As have the universities you cite, whose actions were deplorable and cowardly.
Ridiculing religious or political beliefs is probably not polite, but it's not illegal. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons point focused on religious and political hypocrisy. If they made anyone think differently as a consequence of seeing them, they did what they were designed to do.
48
Imagine if this had happened here in Chicago at the Onion offices.
If we joined voices to say "I am the Onion" we would have been telling the perpetrators that we stand together and will not be intimidated by violence.
Terror only works when people become fearful.
If we joined voices to say "I am the Onion" we would have been telling the perpetrators that we stand together and will not be intimidated by violence.
Terror only works when people become fearful.
37
"Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech"
Unless we are talking about Sony or the major news outlets refusal to show the cartoons, even in context or with disclaimers. With voices like Brooks, we get the kind of democracy we deserve.
Fetishists who want to parse "which kind" of free speech we should engage in are part of the problem. I'm going to save my blood pressure and not Google what sort of nonsense he had to say re Sony, but feel free.
Unless we are talking about Sony or the major news outlets refusal to show the cartoons, even in context or with disclaimers. With voices like Brooks, we get the kind of democracy we deserve.
Fetishists who want to parse "which kind" of free speech we should engage in are part of the problem. I'm going to save my blood pressure and not Google what sort of nonsense he had to say re Sony, but feel free.
16
I think, both western and oriental societies dont know well each other. it s a common perception that the defamation of sacreds even verbally is a very big sin to be punished for a muslim. annually dozens are being killed just because they verbally insulted others. on the contrary a cristian can draw a comic about Jesus Criest claiming that it is just a joke, and the society doesnt care about it. A muslim cannot do that. all in all, I strictly condemn the brutality that killing innocents, but oriental societies have long way to go for understanding of freedom of expression.
4
Mr. Brooks,
How can you be so obtuse?
People who were inspired to write: "I am Charlie" were never under any delusion about their style of humor; nor were they having senior moments about the source of their paychecks.
They were aligning themselves -- at a critical moment in time -- with those who were practicing a form of difficult, rude, perhaps politically incorrect speech. In other words, THE MINORITY! That minority was viciously attacked and murdered. It was and remains very important to defend that minority, whose weapons were wit and speech -- NOT bullets!
Certainly, we should have engagement between those harboring different points of view; but either both sides use bullets or both sides use words! Moreover, even when you use words, sometimes, you have to launch arguments based on the facts, and this can be insulting. If you look at today's NYTimes "Watching" scroll of stories, you'll find an item about an individual (in Saudi Arabia, as I recall) who was being administered 1000 lashes (in kind increments of 50 at a time) for insulting the prophet. When speech is punished with a whip, we need many more Charlies.
I live without reference to any god or goddess. I understand religious freedom as freedom to worship your fiction of choice. It is not a license to tear down the country in which you have pitched your tent. Practices that are uncivil and smack of barbarism are not deserving of respectful treatment: that merely grants them a false legitimacy.
How can you be so obtuse?
People who were inspired to write: "I am Charlie" were never under any delusion about their style of humor; nor were they having senior moments about the source of their paychecks.
They were aligning themselves -- at a critical moment in time -- with those who were practicing a form of difficult, rude, perhaps politically incorrect speech. In other words, THE MINORITY! That minority was viciously attacked and murdered. It was and remains very important to defend that minority, whose weapons were wit and speech -- NOT bullets!
Certainly, we should have engagement between those harboring different points of view; but either both sides use bullets or both sides use words! Moreover, even when you use words, sometimes, you have to launch arguments based on the facts, and this can be insulting. If you look at today's NYTimes "Watching" scroll of stories, you'll find an item about an individual (in Saudi Arabia, as I recall) who was being administered 1000 lashes (in kind increments of 50 at a time) for insulting the prophet. When speech is punished with a whip, we need many more Charlies.
I live without reference to any god or goddess. I understand religious freedom as freedom to worship your fiction of choice. It is not a license to tear down the country in which you have pitched your tent. Practices that are uncivil and smack of barbarism are not deserving of respectful treatment: that merely grants them a false legitimacy.
42
I never thought I would have to thank Brooks for acknowledging that France has a broader exercise of freedom of expression than the United States.
While Charlie Hebdo spares no religion from its satire, in America we tiptoe around fundamentalist christianity to the extreme of not rejecting outright the attempts of teaching religion masqueraded as science.
While Charlie Hebdo spares no religion from its satire, in America we tiptoe around fundamentalist christianity to the extreme of not rejecting outright the attempts of teaching religion masqueraded as science.
30
Brooks: "Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect."
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but the level of respect that is earned should be determined by the content of the "speech", and not by its format.
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but the level of respect that is earned should be determined by the content of the "speech", and not by its format.
14
In my opinion, the terrible event that took place in Paris two days ago could be compared to the multiple shooting events that took place in US high schools in the past couple of years and maybe this comparison can help the readers understand a little bit better Mr. Brook's point of view. Imagine that the terrorists were the two troubled kids that went on a shooting spree at the Columbine High School (http://www.history.com/topics/columbine-high-school-shootings) and the authors of the magazine were the students that constantly bullied the two and brought them to the the point where producing a huge massacre seemed like the only option. We constantly seem to forget that although, we live on the same planet and behave similarly to one another, it does not mean that we think the same and that we react the same when confronted with a difficult situation and thus we forget to consider each other's opinion before acting in a certain way. To me, the French magazine was the "cool kid" that bullied and pushed too far the buttons of the "fat, already troubled kid" in the cafeteria. I believe that more respect for another people's religion would not have prevented all the terrorist attacks from happening, it would be naive to think this, but it would take us a little bit further in our search for world peace.
7
"Indeed Freedom of Expression cannot be divided. On January the 7th several French Tv outlets rebroadcasted snippets of an interview of the assassinated satirist and head of Charlie Hebdo, Charb. An essential interview in which Charb rightly put in the same bag physical violence and prosecution. The gag waved in an ever more aggressive and hysterical manner by people who hates freedom and dream of silencing free minds, is a unique gag. The one of terrorists is bloody, the one of puritans is padded wadding, but their purpose is the same: muzzle folks and silence them."
Gabriel Matzneff, "Le Point", 09-01-2015
Isn't it Mr. Brooks?
Gabriel Matzneff, "Le Point", 09-01-2015
Isn't it Mr. Brooks?
4
Mr. Brooks,
I typically enjoy your editorials, I've read this one twice over and I fail to see the point you're trying to make. You seem to equate the Je Suis Charlie movement with a tacit approval and encouragement of deliberately offensive comics. I would guess that a vast percentage actually state it as message of empathy for those killed, and as an endorsement of freedom of expression everywhere. I agree that college campus often react inappropriately to speaker or events that may offend, but you incorrectly assume that Public Universities and private companies are judged by the same standards. It is true, a school paper would not likely be able to print a Hebdo-esque cartoon, but I've never heard of a school banning South Park, which in my opinion occupies a similar satirical position in America as Charlie Hebdo does in France. The points you try to make are very scattered and relate very little to the title of your editorial. Call it "Musings on a Massacre" and I might buy it. That being said, you are entitled to express yourself how you want, say what you want to say, and title your articles how you wish. Fortunately for you, you have not been killed for doing just that - so I guess you most certainly are not Charlie Hebdo.
I typically enjoy your editorials, I've read this one twice over and I fail to see the point you're trying to make. You seem to equate the Je Suis Charlie movement with a tacit approval and encouragement of deliberately offensive comics. I would guess that a vast percentage actually state it as message of empathy for those killed, and as an endorsement of freedom of expression everywhere. I agree that college campus often react inappropriately to speaker or events that may offend, but you incorrectly assume that Public Universities and private companies are judged by the same standards. It is true, a school paper would not likely be able to print a Hebdo-esque cartoon, but I've never heard of a school banning South Park, which in my opinion occupies a similar satirical position in America as Charlie Hebdo does in France. The points you try to make are very scattered and relate very little to the title of your editorial. Call it "Musings on a Massacre" and I might buy it. That being said, you are entitled to express yourself how you want, say what you want to say, and title your articles how you wish. Fortunately for you, you have not been killed for doing just that - so I guess you most certainly are not Charlie Hebdo.
14
I agree one hundred percent with David. We have PC int his country that brands you as being "bad" when you don't go along with the culturally approved opinions. Some freedom of expression.
6
in other words just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean you should to say it
12
It's all so juvenile....sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me...we used to say in grade school....On another note, I was talking with the creator the other day and he assured me that he is not without a sense of humor.....
4
Satirists are at the kid's table? Really? So "A Modest Proposal" was only heard as a jest by a holy fool and not to be taken seriously? Isn't it the case that satirists and satire always have a serious moral purpose? Why wouldn't we want to invite them to sit at the big cultural table with the rest of us? Why would we want to circumscribe the most powerful tool that writers have: the pen that can cause a moral rehabilitation?
24
In general, I think Mr. Brooks gets it right in this commentary. I do agree, though, that he weakens his argument by drawing a comparison with the university campus, a vastly different world than the one inhabited by the journalists at Charlie Hebdo. Rather than "Je suis Charlie," I believe that a more apt and nuanced expression of solidarity comes in the form of a pen held aloft, as was done by many French in the last two days. Perhaps Voltaire expressed these sentiments best of all when he said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
11
A few short years ago, a Missouri rodeo clown wore a mask depicting the current president much to the amusement of many in attendance, but to the displeasure of some. The ensuing outcry from the media resulted in the banishment of the poor clown from clowning - forever! That is the way we treat clowning around in America.
8
Satire has been used for the longest time to poke at political and religious leaders who took themselves too seriously - see the works of Ragnvald Blix, Spitting Image in the UK and the German Satire Magazine Simplicissimus. Both poked the Nazis enough that they were exiled. Obviously satire has an effect and while the humour is not always to my liking. Life Of Brian was the ultimate satire making fun of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Back then no Christian or Jew was offended enough to hunt down Terry Jones or John Cleese. Given what happened in Paris we may never see a Life Of Mohammed and that is a sad thing and that is way we must stand with Charlie.
16
No, Mr. Brooks, there is no "sameness" between people who refuse to listen to some speech they don't want to listen to, and those who kill those who make speech they find offensive. You may not understand this, but I have the freedom not to have to sit and listen to someone I find offensive, or boring or stupid or anything. I also have the freedom to boycott the speaker if I find reason to.
What I do not have the right to do, nor does anyone, is physically harm or kill those with whom I disagree.
There is a LOAD of difference between the two, Mr. Brooks, and I suggest you learn it. What it appears you are advocating is that people should be forced to listen to speech they don't agree with. No. My freedom of expression includes NOT LISTENING.
If you are "for freedom of expression" Mr. Brooks, you are for the whole messy lot of it. Really, you would think a conservative would know better.
What I do not have the right to do, nor does anyone, is physically harm or kill those with whom I disagree.
There is a LOAD of difference between the two, Mr. Brooks, and I suggest you learn it. What it appears you are advocating is that people should be forced to listen to speech they don't agree with. No. My freedom of expression includes NOT LISTENING.
If you are "for freedom of expression" Mr. Brooks, you are for the whole messy lot of it. Really, you would think a conservative would know better.
20
Mr. Brooks, you lost me the second you juxtaposed this tragedy with universities declining a speaker to speak. You infuriated me when you group Coulter, a white supremacist in disguise, and Maher (who FACT CHECKS) together. Mr. Maher tailors his comedy to actual facts, much like Daily Show and the Colbert Report. I suspect you'll wait for the next elevator if you see Mr. Blow or Mr. Sorkin next time, both of whom would easily refute your lazy comparison.
23
This column is infuriating; Brooks uses the slender reed of the
massacre to thunder to the subject of American campus disagreements, disagreements are in great part regarding criticism of Israelis and Jews,
and Gaza. And BDS.
This horrors in France are not more than an excuse to rail once more on that
subject? It's not all about Israel.
massacre to thunder to the subject of American campus disagreements, disagreements are in great part regarding criticism of Israelis and Jews,
and Gaza. And BDS.
This horrors in France are not more than an excuse to rail once more on that
subject? It's not all about Israel.
8
I disagree with you on 2 levels: It seems like you would prefer if all the people in this world say the same thing and act in the same way. Being sarcastic, satirical or offensive is just not allowed, it seems. Unfortunately, that makes for a mind-numbingly boring world. Secondly, you seem to condone the killings under the pretext that the words were offensive. I strongly believe that there are better ways to sort out a conflict, for instance, dialogue. To take a safe route in this situation is simply disgraceful.
7
Another reason I love reading David Brooks. His insights and clarity of vision are unequaled.
When you equate Ann Coulter and Bill Maher, you show a lack of "social discrimination" and lose some of your credibility with me. Maher may sometimes go too far, but Coulter is a profoundly idiotic spokesperson for the far Right. There is little intelligence in anything she says.
22
OK, sorry I'm parroting fellow commenters, but it's a huge false equivalency to compare an independent satiric publication with a satirical university newspaper (you'd get an F in high school freshman English), and then on Brooks goes into the realm of academia to illustrate his "teachable moment" without a scholarly construct. I'm struck by the many media discussions taking place today regarding hate speech that don't have the intellectual gravitas to analyze the difference between satire and hate speech. Talk about a ball of confusion. There's too much blame the victim taking place today, on what should be a day of mourning.
9
I don't think you could level a worse insult on Bill Maher than to compare him to Rush Limbaugh. Talk about false equivalencies.
11
Offensive satire is not hate speech. I would applaud American universities that limit hate speech.
10
A belief system that sanctifies the murder of innocent people should be ridiculed.
16
What false equivalence! Charlie Hebdo is not a university-based periodical but an independent magazine. Universities are organizations that have the right and obligation to regulate the behavior of their members.
Independent magazines and newspapers are subject only to the laws in the jurisdictions where they publish. Mr. Brooks, you attended U. Chicago. Do you think students there should be supported in publishing periodicals like Hustler, Screw, National Review or The American Conservative?
Independent magazines and newspapers are subject only to the laws in the jurisdictions where they publish. Mr. Brooks, you attended U. Chicago. Do you think students there should be supported in publishing periodicals like Hustler, Screw, National Review or The American Conservative?
8
It is misguided to compare an independent publication with a college newspaper. Colleges are concerned with maintaining a nonoffensive, safe and all inclusive environment for students - so to attract students - and typically in their rights to restrict, as a business they can choose to run it as they see fit (business is a dictatorship). (Some fired for or disallowed from issuing expressions in question may have had cause to pursue free speech challenges in court.) And, to think one is not Charlie because one would not do what he did is out of context with the intent of the phrase; as a matter of fact, saying you're not Charlie based on not agreeing with or would not do what he did is the whole point of freedom of expression. Saying, "I am Charlie", means ultimately one supports freedom of expression and the preservation of the right, even if you disagree or offended by with any expression. Of course, Mr. Brooks and others saying they are not Charlie are within their rights, freely, to express it. I am Charlie. Liberte' !!
9
May I suggest that it's neither social opprobrium nor acceptance that should determine hierarchies of societal respect (who is at the kids' table and who is at the adults'); rather, it is should be the approaches that get nearest to truth that should do so. When Bill Maher makes the claim that there are no "great religions," and that religion is itself stupid and dangerous, he is nearer to truth than the claims for indulgence by practitioners of those religions. It is impossible, due to the proselytizing nature of religion and the cultures that permeate them, for its practitioners to coexist without enmity and friction. It has ever been so and always will be.
3
Most of this column has been thoroughly rebutted.
No poster has provided an instance of a campus cartoonist demobilized because of political "incorrectness". Brooks did not.
"The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality" - I don't know the details, the person seems to have been rehired. However, the teaching of the RC on homosexuality is that it is an "intrinsic evil", "a psychopathology", "a mortal sin". Most parents would not like their sons or daughters, homosexual or otherwise exposed in the classroom to this teaching while paying handsomely for it.
Ayaan Hirsi raises separate questions well addressed in the posts.
Let me three instances of relevance to the column:
1. Condi Rice believed by many to have lied us into the catastrophic Iraq invasion holds fort at Stanford University
2. John Woo considered the principal author of the torture memos and still outspoken in the defense of torture remains a tenured professor at UC Berkeley
3. Alan Dershowitz who has a soft spot for torture remained uncensored as a professor at Harvard University
I won't discuss neocon economists who monopolize our business schools!
The whole notion of alternative views being suppressed at our universities is just too silly for words.
It's gratifying that most people posting affirm: Je Suis Charlie!
No poster has provided an instance of a campus cartoonist demobilized because of political "incorrectness". Brooks did not.
"The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality" - I don't know the details, the person seems to have been rehired. However, the teaching of the RC on homosexuality is that it is an "intrinsic evil", "a psychopathology", "a mortal sin". Most parents would not like their sons or daughters, homosexual or otherwise exposed in the classroom to this teaching while paying handsomely for it.
Ayaan Hirsi raises separate questions well addressed in the posts.
Let me three instances of relevance to the column:
1. Condi Rice believed by many to have lied us into the catastrophic Iraq invasion holds fort at Stanford University
2. John Woo considered the principal author of the torture memos and still outspoken in the defense of torture remains a tenured professor at UC Berkeley
3. Alan Dershowitz who has a soft spot for torture remained uncensored as a professor at Harvard University
I won't discuss neocon economists who monopolize our business schools!
The whole notion of alternative views being suppressed at our universities is just too silly for words.
It's gratifying that most people posting affirm: Je Suis Charlie!
11
Brooks has abandoned d his water-cooler philosophical misunderstandings for the opportunity to become truly tasteless.
Using the deaths of journalists at the hands of mohamidite fanatics as a pretext to denounce satire as 'puerile' will not only fail to get him to the adult's table; it will fail to get him invited into the house.
Using the deaths of journalists at the hands of mohamidite fanatics as a pretext to denounce satire as 'puerile' will not only fail to get him to the adult's table; it will fail to get him invited into the house.
21
You had me in your corner right up until you tried to classify Ann Coulter as a satirist. Satirists caricature their subjects; they are not caricatures themselves.
13
It was announced today that the French located and killed in a shootout the two brothers who apparently committed the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo in Paris. This is an appropriate ending to a tragic event and rightfully denies a courtroom podium to the killers.
The re-examination of our inconsistent views about hateful verbal and graphic attacks on religions and religious embodiments, done with an intention to provoke, also is appropriate, as suggested by David Brooks.
In assessing what happened in Paris and how it compares with American attitudes about inflammatory speech, one must recall that the French have a history of baiting Muslims by taking steps to restrict their actions and dress. It seems to have nothing to do with a Muslim feeling towards Jews, as France has never been a strong friend either of Jews or of Israel. It may be an old Algeria legacy, but it is palpable.
Whether or not any of this was a factor behind the editorial decisions at Charlie Hebdo, two things are clear: (1) no journalist deserved to die or be injured, even though the staff (2) had to know that many Muslims would view the published cartoons as part of a long-standing French animus towards Muslims.
The re-examination of our inconsistent views about hateful verbal and graphic attacks on religions and religious embodiments, done with an intention to provoke, also is appropriate, as suggested by David Brooks.
In assessing what happened in Paris and how it compares with American attitudes about inflammatory speech, one must recall that the French have a history of baiting Muslims by taking steps to restrict their actions and dress. It seems to have nothing to do with a Muslim feeling towards Jews, as France has never been a strong friend either of Jews or of Israel. It may be an old Algeria legacy, but it is palpable.
Whether or not any of this was a factor behind the editorial decisions at Charlie Hebdo, two things are clear: (1) no journalist deserved to die or be injured, even though the staff (2) had to know that many Muslims would view the published cartoons as part of a long-standing French animus towards Muslims.
In 2009, Charlie Hebdo demanded cartoonist Maurice Sinet apologize for anti-Semitic satire. Sinet refused to apologize, so Charlie Hebdo fired him. Now who here defending freedom of speech is still "Je Suis Charlie"? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-c...
3
Mr Brooks thoughts are interesting but not to the point. Charlie Hebdo represent an age old satirical tradition in France starting back from the french revolution. In a US current day context this type of language textual/graphical is completely off the mark but it's not in France nor most of Europe because we have a different historical contect. So to compare France/Europe with a US campus is rediculous and a bit insulting. You can do better, Mr Brooks
10
To equate Ann Coulter and Bill Maher is the height of absurdity. It makes anything you said in your column that might have had some validity, hollow and vacuous.
17
While I am no fan of David Brooks, I have to agree with him on this point. If "we are all Charlie Hebdo", I suggest we individually and collectively go into Bedford Stuyvesant and sing out loud, "N....s are all on welfare". What about Besonhurst and shout WOPS, or Bay Ridge and sing out loud...Paddy or drunks, or Williamsburg and shout "bagel dogs". And while we are at it we can make fun of all the Southern Whites and call them Crackers and Jim Crow on a daily basis and laugh enthusiastically .....Get the point?
Yes, we are all Charlie Hebdo, until we are the ones that are being made fun of.
Yes, we are all Charlie Hebdo, until we are the ones that are being made fun of.
6
So Mr. Brooks speaks out on the tragedy in France, not to condemn the terrorists or express his condolences to the victims, but to compare the cold-blooded terrorist assassins to those (presumably including some fellow Times people) who peacefully condemn hate speech.
A "teachable moment" indeed! But the lesson will not be learned unless this column, a new low even for one whose ear is as tinny as Mr. Brooks', is followed by a prompt apology and (if there is any justice) a firing.
Far from being an encroachment on free speech, such an event would be a celebration of it, as Mr. Brooks would then be free to peddle his mendacious wares on Breitbart or some other similarly slack-jawed outlet.
A "teachable moment" indeed! But the lesson will not be learned unless this column, a new low even for one whose ear is as tinny as Mr. Brooks', is followed by a prompt apology and (if there is any justice) a firing.
Far from being an encroachment on free speech, such an event would be a celebration of it, as Mr. Brooks would then be free to peddle his mendacious wares on Breitbart or some other similarly slack-jawed outlet.
13
This piece is indicative of what keeps "intellectual conservatives" around as subscribers and Brooks readers. Good job. Well stated. Now, in furthering a point, if all campuses were to invite, say, a Bill McRaven to a commencement speech [or even better, to be a Chancellor] then the plethora of rabid abortionists or American hating radicals would be a lot easier to take, if we must have that to be "cool" and accepted. Nonetheless, David reminds us "to be to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating". Debating these "decisions" will keep the cable news networks going in perpetuity.
1
I think this argument's rather weak. As I see it, Brooks's saying that people who use the tag 'I am Charlie' are hypocrites because they champion free speech when it concerns far away issues like radical Islam, but dismiss it when it comes to close-to-home issues that they care most about. On this surface, this argument sounds persuasive, but Brooke's comparison isn't balanced. Those who protest the murder of journalists in Paris are not murdering American journalists back home. Nor are they muzzling free-speech here either. Notice that all of Brooke's examples come from universities who have issues with the views of particular individuals. The university is not the state, nor is it the individuals who post 'Je suis Charlie.' Were you to ask most of the people who are using these tags -- 'Do you support the constitutional right of people to say hateful, offensive things ?' I suspect that most of us would say yes. In short, I think he's creating a straw man to knock down in order to make his own point about civil discourse.
9
So just to get this right:
The well-mannered, well-educated folks that brought us Vietnam, job exportation, the banking collapse - all these guys get to eat at the "Adults Table"?
The well-mannered, well-educated folks that brought us Vietnam, job exportation, the banking collapse - all these guys get to eat at the "Adults Table"?
29
I see enough hate speech on Fox News to make me wonder just what planet you live on. "When Helms stepped into the elevator, "he saw me standing there, and he started to sing, 'I wish I was in the land of cotton . . . ' And he looked at Sen. Hatch and said, 'I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries.'" Jesse Helms was the singer, the father of an illegitimate bi racial child which he then shamefully hid for pretty much his entire life. Some Patriot. You want to tone down the offensive hate speech? We have a Republican whip in the Senate now who said, "I'm David Duke without the baggage." This terrorist attack on a bunch of cartoonists has nothing to do with the problems we face here, yet. And where is the news about the possible domestic terrorist attack on an NAACP office in Boulder. To finish, I'll stop sticking it to authority when authority acts with a conscience. Start with chastising your own. Until then I'm calling Republicans the racist, rich lap dogs that they act like, whether you like it or not.
17
I think you have it wrong but I defend your right to say it.
11
I loathe Playboy, and other forms of pornography. As a 50-something-year-old feminist, I find it all incredibly offensive. Shall I go out and do away with those who create and distribute it?
16
"If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds."
Yes, and Universities are very different than private businesses, David. Jeez. That is a really mushy analogy.
Re Maher: I would like to see you address his arguments rather than just putting him down. He is saying many of the despicable beliefs that are espoused by the terrorists are not necessarily fringe, or even minority beliefs in many Muslim countries, according to respectable polls. If true, this is a very big deal. If you disagree with his assessment, please tell us why.
Yes, and Universities are very different than private businesses, David. Jeez. That is a really mushy analogy.
Re Maher: I would like to see you address his arguments rather than just putting him down. He is saying many of the despicable beliefs that are espoused by the terrorists are not necessarily fringe, or even minority beliefs in many Muslim countries, according to respectable polls. If true, this is a very big deal. If you disagree with his assessment, please tell us why.
16
Well said, Mr. Brooks. Though occasionally hate hides behind the shield of satire. I believe we're seeing this in cartoons blaming President Obama for the French massacre.
3
You can't say that satirical cartoonists belong at the "kid's table" (with Ann Coulter, Bill Maher -- and other insult comics like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly) and then call them "journalists," as you do in your first sentence. Journalists belong at the adult table -- even if disappointingly few in today's professional newsgathering organizations live up to adult standards.
The real problem, though, is not in distinguishing crude, nonsensical name-calling from well-honed, pointed satire (take the leadership of the US Congress as an example of the former and The Daily Show with John Stewart as an example of the latter), but in understanding how the principle of first amendment "freedom of speech" works in a country whose most revolutionary founding idea (appreciated most of all by the French!) was a separation between church and state.
And, as George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
The real problem, though, is not in distinguishing crude, nonsensical name-calling from well-honed, pointed satire (take the leadership of the US Congress as an example of the former and The Daily Show with John Stewart as an example of the latter), but in understanding how the principle of first amendment "freedom of speech" works in a country whose most revolutionary founding idea (appreciated most of all by the French!) was a separation between church and state.
And, as George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
6
Thank you so much for this article. I am pretty sure I am also not Charlie. The thing is that we insist that saying or depicting people of different gender, ethnicity, race, color, or religion can be construed as hate speech and bullying. We work hard at educating our children and others about what is or is not offensive. We have intense discussion about why it is offensive to make comments about people as they walk down the street. We discuss why sexual orientation, gender or race-related "jokes" are offensive. We have laws about hate crimes. I support freedom of expression and I have enjoyed political satire, but I note that in psychological circles, there are those who say that jokes and sarcasm, even satire, are forms of hostility and aggression that may not otherwise be expressed. I just can't wrap my head around how it is ok to attack a religion or religious figure through cartoons, and say it is really meant to address extremism. Or that is is meant as a joke. Judge me if you will, and I don't condone the violence and killings and do not think the killers are representative of Islam, but I also don't condone the actions of or even identify with Charlie. Others are saying the same at: https://twitter.com/hashtag/jenesuispascharlie
3
I suppose Charlie Hebdo has a right to be as unfunny and juvenile as anyone else. The rule of thumb is the more feathers you ruffle, the funnier your joke better be. It’s hard for people to be that offended through their own laughter.
3
It's a bad free speech comparison. Universities are not satirical media. I would not want my local university to host a learned speaker who is known to call African Americans the N word, but I would not want any limits on Jon Stewart on campus or elsewhere. It's the context, David, that is important here.
12
Most college campuses have the same diversity of thought and freedom of expression as the average Pakistani madrassa.
7
Good lord! Adult and children's tables? Guess we know where David's sitting. FYI Dave, They're killing the children. In France and Bali and lots of places, they're killing the children. The innocents, as well as the miscreants. What I liked about Charlie was their very childlike delight in poking their fingers into eyes and light sockets, making the arrogant blink and shorting the circuits once in a while. Humorists, even the juvenile and pretentious often are out there on the pointy end of the spear telling everyone who will listen that the ox needs to be gored, and the self righteous need someone to lead them to some forbearance and tolerance. Puerile? I have two words for you: Jonathan Swift.
13
I find this column to be very ironic today. Often in the comments section of the NYT I am accused of being racist, bigoted, offensive, inbred and ignorant on the sole criteria that I am white and I live in the Deep South. It doesn't matter that I am secular, liberal and well-educated; I am condemned proportionately to my distance from the Mason-Dixon Line, so show me where those "standards of civility and respect" are in this instance. Pardon me if I ignore your admonishment and continue to state proudly: Je Suis Charlie.
4
I agree. In the land of the Free, we have become far too squeamish about offending, far too quick to censor. Thank God we have the First Amendment, which restrains out government better than all other western democracies (see the unfortunate European laws against "defaming" religions. Ugh.)... but we Americans have not yet figured out how to tolerate and laugh off offensive speech in the private sphere.
1
Hooray!
Finally, someone is saying what so many of us have been thinking.
I just sent this to my three teenage grandchildren .
Mr. Brooks, here's hoping that your on target opinion piece will be read and discussed in classrooms across this country and elsewhere in the English speaking world.
Finally, someone is saying what so many of us have been thinking.
I just sent this to my three teenage grandchildren .
Mr. Brooks, here's hoping that your on target opinion piece will be read and discussed in classrooms across this country and elsewhere in the English speaking world.
1
Mr. Brooks, you got it wrong, sir. " I am Charlie Hebdo" in no way means "I am a satirist". It means "I am equally at risk for voicing my opinions, which may offend Muslims, or others, to die from terrorism."
I don't like Nazis marching and chanting outside the homes of Holocaust survivers in Skokie, IL, but I defend their right to do it. Speech is either free, with very wide margins, or it isn't.
I don't like Nazis marching and chanting outside the homes of Holocaust survivers in Skokie, IL, but I defend their right to do it. Speech is either free, with very wide margins, or it isn't.
4
Political correctness has all but killed open and free expression on American campuses, particularly in campus newspapers.
And as for challenging the merits of edgy satire in society: didn't David read MAD in his formative years?? Personally, I'd rather sit at the kids' table.
And as for challenging the merits of edgy satire in society: didn't David read MAD in his formative years?? Personally, I'd rather sit at the kids' table.
8
A false premise used in the service of a Conservative trope.
Charlie Hebdo was not a collegiate publication. Neither was Spy.
I doubt that Charlie Hebdo would be permitted at the Sorbonne, where concerns regarding safety and education of the student population exist, as they do here.
We are publish such publications here freely, publicly, and, as with Charlie Hebdo, for profit--characteristics of which Brooks would surely approve.
Charlie Hebdo was not a collegiate publication. Neither was Spy.
I doubt that Charlie Hebdo would be permitted at the Sorbonne, where concerns regarding safety and education of the student population exist, as they do here.
We are publish such publications here freely, publicly, and, as with Charlie Hebdo, for profit--characteristics of which Brooks would surely approve.
5
The problem for me with this column was that it is simply filled with false equivalencies. The process in Western Culture that goes all the way back to the middle ages is the process of the court jester, the sacred fool who can tweak the nose of the king as a social pressure valve. He must be discreet enough to escape, lest he become the Coyote trickster who dies but who is always reborn. We don't understand a lot about Islam, and its relationship to music and humor much less graphic art. That's a culture flaw for us and for Israel who is thoroughly aligned with Western Culture and values. But to equate a comic, Bill Maher with a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" Ann Coulter is simply delusional. The purpose of satire in the West is a long tradition. It would be good if Islam would understand that we won't give our Jesters up anymore than we will give up music and visual images. But I found your examples of "free speech" to be ludicrous. Or would you defend the rights of the executed Nazi propagandist Rudolf Streicher who killed no one and never fired a gun or put anyone in an oven to say what he did that set the atmosphere for those things to happen. Fee speech is a difficult concept but you didn't help it much with this column. That's my opinion. Ray Evans Harrell, NYCity Performing Arts Teacher
8
...indeed, you are not — too sanctimonious, bordering on boredom!
"In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table" — please, spare us your humorless pedagogy.
If I want culture and laughter at the table, that fare is more frequently served at The New Yorker. Quoting Anthony Lane's 'Shooting the Jesters':
"And why? Because our earnestness and our vanity beg for nothing less; only comedy can dissolve them. What Bergson deplores is encrustation—the way in which we dry and stiffen up, taking ourselves, our poses, and our beliefs so seriously that they sap us of pliability, poise, and goodwill. "
"In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table" — please, spare us your humorless pedagogy.
If I want culture and laughter at the table, that fare is more frequently served at The New Yorker. Quoting Anthony Lane's 'Shooting the Jesters':
"And why? Because our earnestness and our vanity beg for nothing less; only comedy can dissolve them. What Bergson deplores is encrustation—the way in which we dry and stiffen up, taking ourselves, our poses, and our beliefs so seriously that they sap us of pliability, poise, and goodwill. "
7
It can't be said too often: David Brooks, king of false equivalences. Somehow it's "conservative" to equate murder with denying commencement speakers a podium (and, usually, significant money). How is this not--to use a favorite Brooksism--"puerile"?
Coming up in Sunday's Times, Ross Douthat's shot at the Dance of False Equivalences. Bet on it.
Coming up in Sunday's Times, Ross Douthat's shot at the Dance of False Equivalences. Bet on it.
9
Mr. Brooks,
I find what you wrote offensive, sophistic, and just plain wrong. But I fully defend your right to say so and I will never barge into your office with a gun.
I just wish you had the same level of respect toward the freedom of speech of journalists you don't agree with.
I find what you wrote offensive, sophistic, and just plain wrong. But I fully defend your right to say so and I will never barge into your office with a gun.
I just wish you had the same level of respect toward the freedom of speech of journalists you don't agree with.
13
Bill Maher at the kids table? That's one of the very few funny things David Brooks has ever written. He should spend some time listening to Bill Maher instead of feeding us his always safe conventional pablum.
9
Self-censorship
is the worst censorship
is the worst censorship
1
This isn't about speech. It's about murder. David Brooks takes Charlie sympathisers in the US for hypocrites. They lionize offensive speech in France but suppress it at home. So he complains. His evidence is obscure. The best I could see was "the kind of people who think x are the sort of folk who think y". Worse, he blurs a moral difference between two ways to silence speech. One is not asking people to speak at your college. The other is killing them. Campaigns of disinvitation leave speakers free to talk elsewhere. I'd be Charlie if Wednesday's victims had run a bank or a bakery.
4
Great article. I make sure to mind my Ps and Qs going forward.
2
So many comments here defending free speech; however, I find it hard to believe any, like so many here, who express their views behind a pseudonym.
Phew! Welcome back to Planet Earth Mr Brooks after last week's rather disconcerting lunar orbit around Bibi!
This seems like a very fair evaluation of both the over-arching importance and the self-indulgent incontinence of satire that can at times border on hate speech. It's clearly essential that it be allowed to provide a commentary on any and all aspects of our lives, however offensive and discomforting that might be, but let's please not have diatribes and jeremiads be the sum total of the dialogue… WHAT AM I SAYING?!?!…… of the monologue, as is too often the case with the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and yes…. to a lesser extent… Maher, whom I generally agree with but really don't like, smug and vain as he is. So yes, by all means have those two at a table by themselves!
But I still like the Ich-Bin-Ein-Berliner-inspired support of the French People and of unfettered free speech; though, with a nod to what you write about respecting others' feeling and beliefs in our day-to-day dealings with each other, I think I prefer "Je suis Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". Because without an inclusive sense of community in addition to 'Liberty' and 'Equality' things tend to go downhill fast, as we so tragically just saw in Paris -- and before that in Madrid, London, and Boston.
This seems like a very fair evaluation of both the over-arching importance and the self-indulgent incontinence of satire that can at times border on hate speech. It's clearly essential that it be allowed to provide a commentary on any and all aspects of our lives, however offensive and discomforting that might be, but let's please not have diatribes and jeremiads be the sum total of the dialogue… WHAT AM I SAYING?!?!…… of the monologue, as is too often the case with the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and yes…. to a lesser extent… Maher, whom I generally agree with but really don't like, smug and vain as he is. So yes, by all means have those two at a table by themselves!
But I still like the Ich-Bin-Ein-Berliner-inspired support of the French People and of unfettered free speech; though, with a nod to what you write about respecting others' feeling and beliefs in our day-to-day dealings with each other, I think I prefer "Je suis Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". Because without an inclusive sense of community in addition to 'Liberty' and 'Equality' things tend to go downhill fast, as we so tragically just saw in Paris -- and before that in Madrid, London, and Boston.
save your sanctimonious lecture for fox news, david.
15
Political correctness is a blunt instrument. It can, and often does, prevent an honest dialog necessary to address and resolve festering issues.
Jesters provide the only possible outlet. But they alone are not enough to deal with the issues.
Jesters provide the only possible outlet. But they alone are not enough to deal with the issues.
3
"The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying."
What has Ann Counter ever said that was rationale let alone "necessary?"
What has Ann Counter ever said that was rationale let alone "necessary?"
6
These Islamist's are intolerant, therefore undeserving of any tolerance from the civilized world. they should be called out for what they are, bigots. What did they did is the equivalent of going to Mad magazine here & killing the cartoonists. What did they accomplish? Most of these guys are misfits who are incapable of navigating society. So they cling to other misfits looking for a porpoise and they find it in radical islam. Fundamentalism has no place in the 21st century by any religion. Much more can be accomplished in the world if it weren't constantly dragged down by these zero's.
5
"I am Charlie" is not about the cartoons or cartoonist who were killed. It is about free speech, the same free speech that allows Mr. Brooks to say "I'm not Charlie." This is worth defending. Last I checked, no one was killed for The Book of Mormon (unless getting a Tony kills you!). It's called art and free speech.
7
Mr. Brooks, you may not be Charlie Hebdo - but I am no 13-year old, either.
3
Brooks, your column is too clever by half. We don't split this baby. We fight for it or give it up. You would live in a society where free speech is oppressed, I will not.
I knew a doctor in a small town in Europe, respectable man about town, a regular Dr Bovary. In his home his bookshelf had a lot of interesting literature and on the bottom shelf, next to his pipe and lounge chair, I spied a stack of magazines a foot high. Looking closer I discerned the face of Alfred E Neumann and Mad Magazine. We had a good laugh and nobody talked about grades of respectability that were to be observed because we didn't have to. You should not either. Free yourself, man. Free yourself from the constipated American conservatism and become a flaming liberal like me.
I knew a doctor in a small town in Europe, respectable man about town, a regular Dr Bovary. In his home his bookshelf had a lot of interesting literature and on the bottom shelf, next to his pipe and lounge chair, I spied a stack of magazines a foot high. Looking closer I discerned the face of Alfred E Neumann and Mad Magazine. We had a good laugh and nobody talked about grades of respectability that were to be observed because we didn't have to. You should not either. Free yourself, man. Free yourself from the constipated American conservatism and become a flaming liberal like me.
13
Mr. Brooks, is there no limit to your intellectual dishonesty? Your attempt to use this very brutal, very tragic crime as an occasion to pander to American neocons' narrative of perpetual victimhood is meretricious. How dare you compare a campus group being "derecognized" (whatever that means) with mass murder? And what on earth does Ayan Hirsi Ali have to do with it? If 90's culture-war rhetoric is all you have to contribute, please consider stuffing a sock in it, at least until the victims are buried.
72
Actually, it is clearly hypocritical to say that you stand for free speech but refuse to permit it. You don't have to be a neocon to think that people on all sides of the political spectrum in this country seem to have lost the ability to hear and understand someone else's perspective without feeling the need to cut it off if they disagree. It's at the root of many of our current problems, from our inability to find our way out of racial divides to the inability of Congress to compromise in a functional way to the inability of just about anyone to think through all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. It isn't murder, but it is a terrible problem that will get worse if we pretend it doesn't exist.
1
Hey MrLoaf, didn't you just use this very brutal, very tragic crime as an occasion to spout your liberal nonsense? I hear socks come in pairs. Maybe you should consider using one too.
1
He didn't compare the terrorist murders to campus speech codes or anything of the kind.
He simply pointed out that few Americans would stand up in support of a publication like Charlie Hebdo. Which is the simple truth. Given a choice between free, unbridled expression and the banning or muting of offensive speech, most Americans today would favor the latter, especially on campus.
He simply pointed out that few Americans would stand up in support of a publication like Charlie Hebdo. Which is the simple truth. Given a choice between free, unbridled expression and the banning or muting of offensive speech, most Americans today would favor the latter, especially on campus.
2
At last a thoughtful, courageous, and above all, necessary comment on the events in Paris. The dichotomy of coldblooded terrorist brutality and (what on any other day would pass as) chauvinist, Orientalist vulgarity of many Charlie Hebdo cartoons is a false one. It follows the logic that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is a way to condemn terrorism AND racist, xenophobic content.
Please write a piece on the Muslim policeman killed in the attack, Ahmed Merabet. The drama of a French Muslim cop shooting at and being shot by a radical Islamist represents the success and failure of immigrant integration in France. For the German anti-Islamisation protests, and for European anxieties in general, Merabet is essential.
He is the reason multicultural European societies are not, and should not be Charlie Hebdo.
Please write a piece on the Muslim policeman killed in the attack, Ahmed Merabet. The drama of a French Muslim cop shooting at and being shot by a radical Islamist represents the success and failure of immigrant integration in France. For the German anti-Islamisation protests, and for European anxieties in general, Merabet is essential.
He is the reason multicultural European societies are not, and should not be Charlie Hebdo.
13
Governments should not ridicule religion nor should governments start their day with incarnations to magical beings. However, it is completely ridiculous that in the 21st century that their are adults with imaginary friends who feel it is their duty to kill people because of some book full of magical creatures and magical events. Sometimes ridicule is the only appropriate response to the ridiculous.
35
An efficient market of ideas will sort out which can or should be consigned to the ash-heap of history; we do not need Kalashnikovs to do it. I have the same tolerance for politically correct suppression of speech (including self-censorship) as Mr. Brooks does – namely, zero – but it is disingenuous to compare snivelling 'microaggression victims' or the rest of the professionally-aggrieved crowd with armed bigots shooting elderly cartoonists. Some differences are obvious, and this is one. If Charlie Hebdo is puerile and spins its wheels shocking the bourgeoisie, let them – they will stand or fold on their own. There is a place for the sophisticated, well-intentioned, and brilliant Mr. Brooks (or Mr. Will) on the right just as there is for Fox news blowhards. The price of sitting at the kids' table (to use Mr. Brooks' wonderful metaphor) must not be a bullet. The shooters will come after the adults next.
7
David, if you were throwing an imaginary dinner party for your favorite authors, would you place Thomas Hobbes at the adult's table or at the children's table?
Although he was writing about the poet Lucretius, I see Hobbes as someone who understood, in Stephen Greenblatt's words, that "the greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it is delusion. The principal enemies of human happiness are inordinate desire—the fantasy of attaining something that exceeds what the finite mortal world allows—and gnawing fear."
Hobbes saw martyrs as people who confused their dreams with reality, and it's this flaw -- one in which "the secret thoughts of a man run over all things, holy, profane, clean, obscene, grave, and light, without shame, or blame..."-- that leads people to make up religions that gratify their desires.
Hobbes denounced prophets as madmen and described the papacy as a sort of ghost show that had set itself up in the haunted ruins of the Roman Empire. Hobbes also denounced priestly power and argued that clerical authority flowed from earlier beliefs in elves and fairies, "the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the traditions of old wives or old poets."
I Am Lucretius.
I Am Thomas Hobbes.
I Am Charlie Hebdo.
Although he was writing about the poet Lucretius, I see Hobbes as someone who understood, in Stephen Greenblatt's words, that "the greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it is delusion. The principal enemies of human happiness are inordinate desire—the fantasy of attaining something that exceeds what the finite mortal world allows—and gnawing fear."
Hobbes saw martyrs as people who confused their dreams with reality, and it's this flaw -- one in which "the secret thoughts of a man run over all things, holy, profane, clean, obscene, grave, and light, without shame, or blame..."-- that leads people to make up religions that gratify their desires.
Hobbes denounced prophets as madmen and described the papacy as a sort of ghost show that had set itself up in the haunted ruins of the Roman Empire. Hobbes also denounced priestly power and argued that clerical authority flowed from earlier beliefs in elves and fairies, "the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the traditions of old wives or old poets."
I Am Lucretius.
I Am Thomas Hobbes.
I Am Charlie Hebdo.
24
It is Mr. Brooks who is being puerile -- as well as blinkered about Charlie Hebdo. Moreover, he seems to be grasping for a way to make a relevant point. First, the magazine is an equal opportunity offender -- with a target of all religions, not just Isalm. It has been sued many times by Catholic organizations. Take a look at its kissy-faced sendoff when Pope Benedict stepped down. Second, Mr. Brooks fails to make relevant comparisons. A magazine in the marketplace of ideas and its writers/cartoonists is an altogether different animal than a public university and its employees. And children's and adult tables? Really, Mr. Brooks. Multiple demerits for trotting out that worn analogy to make a point. While few publications have the courage of Charlie Hebdo, many of us remain admirers because -- while the content can be offensive or worse -- their courage in facing up to terrorists is boundless. So je repete: Je suis Charlie.
23
What does a college newspaper have to do with a privately owned, public newspaper? Not even in the same league. That is what college people do. They don't like something, they protest.
15
"Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect." Maybe in France.
11
And WHO makes the judgemens about whether a scholar is heard
with "high respect" or deserves it? Brooks?
HE is rather sure about his wisdom and facility in placing guests at
tables, is he not. And for the record, I'd put him well below the salt.
If at all.
1
If Voltaire had read this piece he might have said, mai oui,
"anyone who can convince you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities"
That about covers the subject.
"anyone who can convince you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities"
That about covers the subject.
27
To equate murder with outspoken criticism is conflate the First and Second Amendments and make shooting others a form of free speech (surely an odd result). Mr. Brooks' absurd equation dishonors those killed in Paris even as it trivializes the American ideal of free speech, which traditionally had less to do being grown-ups (a patronizing idea) than engaging in expressive activities, however unseemly. Which isn't to say that Brooks' criticism of those who shout down opposing views is misplaced. To rely the tragedy in Paris as an excuse to raise it, however, is simply callow.
8
Thank you David for having the courage to point out the sad fact that narrow-mindedness and bigotry are rampant here at home in both conservative and so called liberal environments. Being "offended" has become a laughable national pastime and one can only hope that this vile tragedy will cause more people to reflect upon what is or isn't truly offensive whether it be irrational hyper-sensitivity to hearing the least criticism of Israel's oppressive policies or the near obsession on campuses with suppressing points of view deemed too "Christian". The pall of hypocracy that hangs over America and the west in general has become suffocating.
7
"Hypocracy"? The pall of illiteracy hangs heavier still. Sorry for laughing. Hope you're not offended.
2
We state "We are Charlie Hebdo" in that we support the satirical magazine's right to freedom of speech. The monstrous murders of their journalists encroaches severely on that freedom. Execution for what is considered blasphemous is intolerable, in Muslim countries as well as the West. It is the worst sort of human rights violation.
10
You lost me in the first paragraph. Something published by a university student organization or even distributed by students might be viewed as being sanctioned by the university, even if it is not officially a university publication. That is a lot different than say, The Onion.
14
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.
That's what the "I am Charlie Hebdo" are saying. No more, no less. But, Mr. Brooks knew that.
That's what the "I am Charlie Hebdo" are saying. No more, no less. But, Mr. Brooks knew that.
13
Where to begin?
First line: 'The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression'
Really? Martyr: a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. Why use a religious term to envelop the sacrafice of murdered individuals who defied religious censorship and ideological thinking?
Charlie Hebdo artists and writers, and Stephane C (the editor) in particular, lived under the threat of death and endured a fire bombing while defending free speech and challenging those who would silence all who oppose their views.
They were, and are, brave defenders on the front lines of freedom. Real world guardians of free speech with real world consequences.
David puts them at the 'kids table'...and, I suppose, he puts himself at the adult table with 'wise scholars'. Sad.
Perhaps he should put them at the 'courage' table and ponder if there's a sit for him.
First line: 'The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression'
Really? Martyr: a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. Why use a religious term to envelop the sacrafice of murdered individuals who defied religious censorship and ideological thinking?
Charlie Hebdo artists and writers, and Stephane C (the editor) in particular, lived under the threat of death and endured a fire bombing while defending free speech and challenging those who would silence all who oppose their views.
They were, and are, brave defenders on the front lines of freedom. Real world guardians of free speech with real world consequences.
David puts them at the 'kids table'...and, I suppose, he puts himself at the adult table with 'wise scholars'. Sad.
Perhaps he should put them at the 'courage' table and ponder if there's a sit for him.
21
I disagree. This is a time to be respectful of others. More fraternite and less liberte!
2
With college campuses, there's the fact that the students aren't really putting their money where their mouth is, that their forays into free speech are subsidized. Charlie Hebdo Officiel was a real business that had to sell subscriptions, etc. So, Brooks' concept doesn't hold water. Also, if he ever went into an alternative bookstore, he'd see young peoples' 'zines that are way more shocking. Maybe not as commercially successful as Charlie Hebdo Officiel in this longtail economy/US, but they exist. Brooks comes off like the WWII generation confused at the Boomers during the '60's; old-man harrumphing. #generationgap
3
Only the puerile would announce that the Emperor is naked, just because he is. My own puerility has advanced steadily with age. I Am Not David Brooks.
19
I don't think a cartoon, however offensive or offending, is cause for violence or censorship. What is unfolding in Paris right now is way beyond a reasoned response. It is barbaric and deeply saddening.
11
So Mr Brooks, what is more valuable than freedom of speech or expression - your readers must ask?
The answer is; freedom of mind. The really great artists possess it. It is what that give us our Picassos and Van Goths.
It is a quiet possession.
The answer is; freedom of mind. The really great artists possess it. It is what that give us our Picassos and Van Goths.
It is a quiet possession.
4
Religion itself is ugly and meaningless, it has always been about the control of other peoples minds. Religion and politics deserve ridicule and it's a sad reality that there is far too little satire directed at both in the USA. The deference to order and power, and it's backside personal gain, has brought us the failures of the Baby Boom generation. Failures from the SnL crisis to the Iraq war and Bernie Madoff. It is no surprise that Brooks is not Charlie, he never could be.
8
If one has legitimate criticism about a policy or organization and can present this in a reasonable and in a manner that is provocative but not demeaning or ridicule of anthers belief then fine, lets have this debate, lets have free speech. But when you know that you are indeed "poking a finger in the eye' then it is not acceptable and should be condemned. It has been well known that Muslims do not accept the ridicule of the prophet, that is their belief and this has to be honored just as other religions have their beliefs that many others do not understand. There is a limit as to what can be hidden under the idea of "Free Speech".
2
Is that true? It is well-known that Christian fundamentalists find historical biology and geology offensive. When education writers include information about the Jurassic and Cretaceous in their books are they "asking for it"? Some of us are worried that publishers, afraid of offending extremists, will dumb down important works. For too long we have considered the arts a "frill" when, in fact, they are the basis of civilization. They are powerful. That is why despots kill artists first. Je suis Charlie.
5
I'm usually a fan of David Brooks, and I agree with the basic thesis of this piece. However, I would note that freedom of speech includes the freedom to protest speech you disagree with. I do think most colleges are less tolerant of conservative speakers than they are of liberal speakers, but that's their right. Free speech does not mean I'm required to subsidize your speech (or art) nor am I required to listen to it. Boycotts (unless government enforced) are not censorship.
6
Seriously, where to begin? To paraphrase, although I disagree completely with your morally cavalier and despicable equating of committing murder with somebody else's desire to disassociate their organization from hosting a speaker or publishing a view they don't like, I will defend your right to say it. I have to wonder, just how detached and removed from morality are you to say it?
19
You are sidestepping the obvious to make your well-reasoned point. It's a good point, but it misses the moment. Je suis Charlie because people who believe in bigotry, absolutism, intolerance, and their right to deal out death have murdered people who are witty, sarcastic, a little puerile, and perfectly harmless. It is as if someone murdered your teenage son for being rude. If that happened, would you respond with well-reasoned arguments about restraint of speech? I hope not, and your family hopes not. Je suis plus que Charlie, mais je suis Charlie aussi.
9
But you are Charlie Hebdo in one sense. Martyrdom. You manage to allude to the conservative chimera of conservative persecution at the hands of university administrators. (No liberal examples?)
Do some universities go too far? Of course. Still, how can you gratuitously conflate the mission of the university with that of a satirical magazine?
To use the senseless violence that occurred in Paris as a springboard to hop on this conservative hobby horse is sad. Still free speech is free speech and I will defend to the death your right to make irrelevant and ill-conceived comparisons.
Do some universities go too far? Of course. Still, how can you gratuitously conflate the mission of the university with that of a satirical magazine?
To use the senseless violence that occurred in Paris as a springboard to hop on this conservative hobby horse is sad. Still free speech is free speech and I will defend to the death your right to make irrelevant and ill-conceived comparisons.
7
Children's table? I remind Mr. Brooks that it was a child to pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
13
For you, there must be a special place on the kid's table reserved for those who think they are better and smarter than everyone.
15
The actions of the murderers is reprehensible and I can't wait for them to be caught or killed. However, anyone should know that religions are sacred to the people that follow them. They should not be open to ridicule, not by law, but by common decency. I wouldn't buy publications that open everyone and everything to ridicule. If more people could empathize with those being ridiculed and the people that follow them, therewould be less violence.
3
Mr. Brooks gave a meandering view of free speech in this essay. I'm not sure, but in the end his conclusion might be that we should,
"Celebrate and defend the soapbox."
"Celebrate and defend the soapbox."
2
Equating Ann Coulter with Bill Maher is nonsense. Ann Coulter writes and says things that are demonstrably false. She is the political commentator equivalent of a radio shock jock, and as such deserves (at best) the sighing condescension and lofty dismissal Brooks demonstrates toward her. I happen to think she is a poisonous source of cruelty,a dealer in stereotypes and, thus, a propagator of ignorance, but your mileage may vary.
Maher is entirely different: You can disagree with his position on, say, religion, but nothing he says is provocative-for-provocation's sake, as is everything Coulter says. Also, Maher is smart enough to work with a staff of writers who know that a political joke isn't funny if it isn't based on a true observation. Brooks's equating of the two is typical of his penchant for right-wing apologetics disguised as even-handed centrism.
Maher is entirely different: You can disagree with his position on, say, religion, but nothing he says is provocative-for-provocation's sake, as is everything Coulter says. Also, Maher is smart enough to work with a staff of writers who know that a political joke isn't funny if it isn't based on a true observation. Brooks's equating of the two is typical of his penchant for right-wing apologetics disguised as even-handed centrism.
32
For just this one moment in time, David, you were on a bit of a roll until you employed the tired old right wing false equivalency ploy; equating Ann Coulter to Bill Maher is much like comparing fish to bicycles. (The former is a bottom feeder whilst the latter may transport us to another place.)
My suspicion is that you didn't gain admission to U of Chicago via the Miller's Analogy Exam.
My suspicion is that you didn't gain admission to U of Chicago via the Miller's Analogy Exam.
13
So Mr Brooks, what is more valuable than freedom of speech or expression - your reader must ask?
The answer is; freedom of mind. The stuff the really5 artists
The answer is; freedom of mind. The stuff the really5 artists
Since Mr. Brooks is in the process of distinguishing those seating at the grown up table and those relegated to the "kids table", and since we are after all speaking of a French satirical magazine, he may want to remember that the French say that "la verite sort de la bouche des enfants", meaning "Truth comes out of children's mouths".
May be if Anne Coulter and Bill Maher are seating at the "kids table", they may in fact be the only ones speaking the truth, each of course within his or her own frame of reference.
Mr. Brooks should do well to learn from them, instead of regurgitating half truths disguised as "intellectual discourse".
May be if Anne Coulter and Bill Maher are seating at the "kids table", they may in fact be the only ones speaking the truth, each of course within his or her own frame of reference.
Mr. Brooks should do well to learn from them, instead of regurgitating half truths disguised as "intellectual discourse".
1
Lets get something straight about Charlie Hebdo. While its journalists satirize Muslims they also skewer French politicians of all persuasions and French culture. To become fixated on what or who they ridicule is wrong.
And Mr. Brooks is wrong about free speech in this country. We probably have greater access to free speech now than anytime in the past because of the internet. You do not have to be in an auditorium or on a soap box in a city center to be heard anymore.
And Mr. Brooks is wrong about free speech in this country. We probably have greater access to free speech now than anytime in the past because of the internet. You do not have to be in an auditorium or on a soap box in a city center to be heard anymore.
6
Why make college campuses the standard bearers for "intolerance" I've worked in both the private and public sectors and I can assure you that intolerance is far greater in the workplace.
Some would argue that it's necessary in the workplace. Perhaps so. But then couldn't a case be made that perhaps there are valid reasons why college campuses should be intolerant?
Some would argue that it's necessary in the workplace. Perhaps so. But then couldn't a case be made that perhaps there are valid reasons why college campuses should be intolerant?
2
Dear New York Times:
Hard to believe you let Mr. Brooks publish this "editorial."
Talk about missing the point. If he were capable of irony, then it might be considered ironic he confused Charlie Hedbo with a college newspaper and then went off on a tangent that missed the point that no matter how devastating or in bad taste the joke it should never be punished with bloodshed and murder.
Have a talk with him, please. He really missed the point on a serious issue. That he opines the "massacre at Charlie Hedbo should be an occasion to end speech codes," misses condemnation of the cowardice of the murderers and salutations for the heroics of the clowns.
Hard to believe you let Mr. Brooks publish this "editorial."
Talk about missing the point. If he were capable of irony, then it might be considered ironic he confused Charlie Hedbo with a college newspaper and then went off on a tangent that missed the point that no matter how devastating or in bad taste the joke it should never be punished with bloodshed and murder.
Have a talk with him, please. He really missed the point on a serious issue. That he opines the "massacre at Charlie Hedbo should be an occasion to end speech codes," misses condemnation of the cowardice of the murderers and salutations for the heroics of the clowns.
15
You can't yell, "Fire"! is a theater -- as a prank -- and get away with it in this country. There are limits to so called free speech.
Then again, if a publication or an individual in the street is very offensive to you -- totally disrespectful -- your patience will be challenged. Some would react; others would dismiss it as a defect in the speaker and go on with life -- it's a practice in equanimity.
Most of the time the offense is most harsh when it comes form someone you respect. It's easier to ignore someone with whom you have little personal involvement.
The terrorists in this incidence were not normal.
Then again, if a publication or an individual in the street is very offensive to you -- totally disrespectful -- your patience will be challenged. Some would react; others would dismiss it as a defect in the speaker and go on with life -- it's a practice in equanimity.
Most of the time the offense is most harsh when it comes form someone you respect. It's easier to ignore someone with whom you have little personal involvement.
The terrorists in this incidence were not normal.
3
Mr Brooks,
There is a huge difference between a college classroom and a satirical newspaper; I understand what you are saying, but you sure picked a bad time to say it.
The people of the world (including myself) sharing #JesuisCharlie are showing that we understand and sympathize with a people who suffered an unforgivable act of aggression by terrorists trying to silence their voice. We may not agree with everything they published, but I believe we can all agree they did not deserve to be murdered for it.
There is a huge difference between a college classroom and a satirical newspaper; I understand what you are saying, but you sure picked a bad time to say it.
The people of the world (including myself) sharing #JesuisCharlie are showing that we understand and sympathize with a people who suffered an unforgivable act of aggression by terrorists trying to silence their voice. We may not agree with everything they published, but I believe we can all agree they did not deserve to be murdered for it.
11
Perhaps its true that we are not all Charlie Hebdo, but most of us are.We appreciate the presence of dissonant voices, satire, making fun of people in the world, and even if we disagree, or think its wrong, the person may be fired or denied some sort of accolade or position, but not mass murdered.
5
In the eighteenth century, as the use of printing presses expanded among the intellectuals of the middle class, printed political expression, often outrageously illustrated became common. British illustrators like Gillray and Cruikshank published grotesque political satire mocking the foibles of all classes - a kind of precursor to today's comic books - and certainly the underground comic. William Blake, poet, illustrator and painter was nearly imprisoned for 'insulting the King'. In France pamphleteers helped publicize revolutionary ideas. Charlie Hebdo is right in line with that tradition. Mr. Brooks, a Burkean, would stick to his establishment respectability. History, though, definitely seats the British cartoonists, Blake and the pamphleteers at the adults' table.
6
Mr. Brooks recalls for me the novel "The Autobiography of Henry VIII", wherein the Fool is tasked with advising Henry not to pursue the teenage Katherine Howard. He makes the king laugh by word play on the idea of "no fool like an old fool" as the Fool, himself, was old. Henry got the point, and, more to the point, didn't execute the Fool. Had the Fool been another adviser or a commoner or an unskilled Fool, he most certainly would have been sent to the Tower for his impertinence.
A bad satirist is a bore or worse, embarrassing to listen to, especially contemporary ones because all they do is curse, trying to be "edgy" or seem tough. A good one is a hoot because he or she cuts right to core. I don't think Steven Cobert has cursed once on TV but he makes his points better than just about anyone.
I feel terrible about the Charlie Hebdo assault: what a horrible act of cruelty and nihilism. But, honestly, I didn't think much of their cartoons. But that's just my taste and just as I had a chance to see them, so should you.
A bad satirist is a bore or worse, embarrassing to listen to, especially contemporary ones because all they do is curse, trying to be "edgy" or seem tough. A good one is a hoot because he or she cuts right to core. I don't think Steven Cobert has cursed once on TV but he makes his points better than just about anyone.
I feel terrible about the Charlie Hebdo assault: what a horrible act of cruelty and nihilism. But, honestly, I didn't think much of their cartoons. But that's just my taste and just as I had a chance to see them, so should you.
2
yes i agree, firing or suspending teachers is just like armed slaughter. I'm glad you opened my eyes. Lets always allow the most vicious to decide what can and cant be printed or said
In the united states, with the help of the last administration, terror has won. Americans media outlets (not news) wont even show us the images that set this off.
In the united states, with the help of the last administration, terror has won. Americans media outlets (not news) wont even show us the images that set this off.
7
David,
Yes, as you say, perhaps we should be more aware of our own intolerance - firing a professor for unpopular view. But I think you've missed the key issue - criticizing, even firing, those you disagree with is quite different than killing them.
Yes, as you say, perhaps we should be more aware of our own intolerance - firing a professor for unpopular view. But I think you've missed the key issue - criticizing, even firing, those you disagree with is quite different than killing them.
4
Great piece by Mr. Brooks. This one reminds me of his column on Joe Paterno titled (something like) "Let's all feel superior."
On some level though, it is sad that Bill Maher has descended to the level of Ann Coulter. Two years ago, I would have been outraged at the comparison, since Maher is a comedian and Coulter sells absurdity as truth, but at this point I cannot really argue. The beautiful thing about loathsome TV personalities is that you can just change the channel or turn off the TV all together, a much better alternative to spraying bullets and taking hostages.
On some level though, it is sad that Bill Maher has descended to the level of Ann Coulter. Two years ago, I would have been outraged at the comparison, since Maher is a comedian and Coulter sells absurdity as truth, but at this point I cannot really argue. The beautiful thing about loathsome TV personalities is that you can just change the channel or turn off the TV all together, a much better alternative to spraying bullets and taking hostages.
2
Although I defend to the death Mr. Brooks' right to express his opinions so soon after these brutal murders, I find it rather insensitive that he should choose to express himself at such an inopportune time, in such an opportunistic manner. I am sorry, Mr. Brooks, but this is not a learning moment: This is a grieving moment. My condolences go to the families of the victims and to the French people, including French muslims, whose sense of civil equilibrium has been so severely shaken.
25
I sometimes wonder if commenters have read the same column I have. Nowhere does Brooks equate murder with disinviting a campus speaker. Nowhere does he call for the censorship of those who disagree with him or express their views, in a manner that is crude or offensive. “People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct” does not constitute an endorsement of speech codes. On the contrary, it means that in the free marketplace of ideas, those who want to be taken seriously need to do more than draw offensive cartoons. What’s sad is when people who are conducting themselves appropriately, and bringing reasoned debate to college campuses are either banned or shouted down in the name of solidarity with the oppressed.
Consider what the ACLU has to say about campus “hate speech” codes: “Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. “ It seems to me that all Brooks is saying is this: If you believe that people should not be shot because they produce cartoons that are crude and offensive, you should also believe that reasonable purveyors of unpopular ideas should not be muzzled on college campuses.
Consider what the ACLU has to say about campus “hate speech” codes: “Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. “ It seems to me that all Brooks is saying is this: If you believe that people should not be shot because they produce cartoons that are crude and offensive, you should also believe that reasonable purveyors of unpopular ideas should not be muzzled on college campuses.
9
Nowhere? Then what's it doing in the lede?
2
Dear Mr Brooks,
Writting you from France, I only have one thing to argue: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
Writting you from France, I only have one thing to argue: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
6
Charlie Hebdo exists in the free market and is a for profit business. Mr. Brooks, fails to connect the dots for me in his missive on free speech. Any institution can set rules and regulations as done in our institutions of higher learning.
Mr.Brooks tries mightily to fit a square peg in a round hole. Perhaps if you keep speaking an untruth in a shrill voice people may believe you untruth to be the truth.
As the kids on today's college campuses might say, "Booshwa!"
Mr.Brooks tries mightily to fit a square peg in a round hole. Perhaps if you keep speaking an untruth in a shrill voice people may believe you untruth to be the truth.
As the kids on today's college campuses might say, "Booshwa!"
3
Charlie Hebdo satirized extremist religious views--particularly extremist perspectives ascribed to important religious figures. I'd rather have extremist movements defeated by satire than by use of guns and bombs. It is far more effective and less lethal. The extreme violence of the attack indicates how effective Charlie Hebdo journalists/cartoonists have been in their weapon of choice--satire.
6
I want to thank the writer. I have criticized him in the past for taking a "cultural turn" on issues which I thought could be better explained via class and economics, but the capacity for fine-grained and nuanced cultural criticism is exactly what is necessary and indispensable for this subject, and this capacity is very much present in this column.
Standing up for free speech even when it is offensive does not mean I have to listen to it. Free speech does not guarantee the right to an audience or a forum.
1
"The administration would have cut financing and shut them down."
Freedom of Speech does not require that the government subsidize that speech.
Freedom of Speech does not require that the government subsidize that speech.
2
@David: When your "adult table" includes politicians such as Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan, and media figures such as Chuck Todd, who complains that he can not call out the lies of those who appear on "Meet the Press" because if he does, they will not come back on, and the "children's table" includes Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, all of whom use examples of rank mendacity or hypocrisy of those you seated among the adults, you have an insurmountable credibility problem. What kind of adults have no accountability, acquaintance with the truth? What kind of world does Brooks endorse where truth and accountability are relegated to the "children's table?"
9
Too angry to be able to read your paper to the end... Seems like many cannot even understand what satire means and the ideas behing those caricatures, that were meant to reflect the absurdity of islamism, and not to laugh about the prophet. The main one presents Mahomet "débordé par les integristes" ("overwhelmed by islamists") , saying it is hard to be loved by fools ("c'est dur d'être aimé par des cons"), aka by integrists. The author was careful that the word "integrists" be partially covering the head, so this drawing of the prophet not be used otherwise.
With all the bloodshed everywhere from the integrists, it is quite appalling to hear so many blaming the victims of a few drawings denouncing this violence as a form of provocation. What a distortion. Charlie hebdo journalists' main aim was to denounce violence, not to laugh about Mahomet, but about the utter stupidity and absurdity of all forms of violence, in all religious and political groups. Seeing this as too much provocation is the beginning of censorship. Which we saw in the NYT and many newspapers not even able to show these drawings, whereas here in Quebec, francophone newspapers showed solidarity for the freedom of expression, and published these drawings.
With all the bloodshed everywhere from the integrists, it is quite appalling to hear so many blaming the victims of a few drawings denouncing this violence as a form of provocation. What a distortion. Charlie hebdo journalists' main aim was to denounce violence, not to laugh about Mahomet, but about the utter stupidity and absurdity of all forms of violence, in all religious and political groups. Seeing this as too much provocation is the beginning of censorship. Which we saw in the NYT and many newspapers not even able to show these drawings, whereas here in Quebec, francophone newspapers showed solidarity for the freedom of expression, and published these drawings.
6
As a subscriber, I am saddened by the Times reticence to republish the cartoons in question here. This column also is a shame today, although any even occasional reader of Mr Brooks will see this as his usual method of right-wing justification. (Although he is being slightly more straightforward here than some of the more obscurely titled columns recently) Mr Brooks probably believes himself to have, and deserve, a place at that adult table- but a smart child can see the lies and misdirection he pedals. And the adults know why he does. No, he is not CH. Because he can't promote his positions without lying, and he does it for the money- not principles.
4
Brooks's comments really end up saying nothing. We can tolerate harsh words about religion. We cannot tolerate those who respond to such words with bullets. That is really what this incident is about, nothing more.
6
Mr. Brooks, I'm going to assume that because you write for the New York Times, you sit at the "adult table." Another journalist, say, someone who writes for "Mother Jones," where would he sit? If not at the children's table, then perhaps you'd place him somewhere a little further away from the adults, at a table where his voice might be heard, but just barely. What makes you qualified to be the arbiter of such matters? Because you eschew hyperbole in favor of reasonableness to make your points, because of your balanced perspective, we're supposed to take you more seriously than the journalists at Charlie Hebdo? Is that what you're saying? Is any publication that approaches and issue from a particular point of view less worthy of serious consideration than one that prides itself on giving serious consideration to all sides of an issue? Simply put, some issues can not be taken seriously. In the 21st century, religion is one of them. Charlie Hebdo made fun of all religions, because ALL religions are, in your words, " "kind of weird." Religions are weird precisely because they aren't reasonable. Killing journalists because they use satire to make a serious point is way beyond unreasonable. It's reprehensible. And it should be condemned. Unequivocally. As a journalist, you should understand this.
4
We have not become less tolerant, Mr. Brooks. I know it fits into your world-view to believe we have, but in fact the U.S. has always acquitted itself as one of the most conformist western cultures -- despite its own self-delusion.
I am reminded of the only satirical publication that ever saw any traction in this country: Mad Magazine. When I was a teenager, it was automatically thought of as dangerous and smutty by parents and adults everywhere, and it had to be hidden -- WELL-hidden -- by any teen who wanted to read it. Punishment -- or a sound verbal trashing -- ensued upon getting caught.
Remember how irrationally intolerant your precious American past used to be? No, I guess you don't. Now Mad Mag is thought of as silly. We don't have adult satirical magazines like Charlie Hebdo for the simple reason that we don't think satire has high social value. The French, God bless them, still do. Our stand-up comedy is shock-jock, not satirical. There is a world of sensibilities between the two. The only successful representations of political satire we've had within memory have been The Daily Show and The Colbert Report -- but even they stop short of being generators of controversy.
So, sadly, you are in a way correct. WE are not Charlie Hebdo. And we should be.
I am reminded of the only satirical publication that ever saw any traction in this country: Mad Magazine. When I was a teenager, it was automatically thought of as dangerous and smutty by parents and adults everywhere, and it had to be hidden -- WELL-hidden -- by any teen who wanted to read it. Punishment -- or a sound verbal trashing -- ensued upon getting caught.
Remember how irrationally intolerant your precious American past used to be? No, I guess you don't. Now Mad Mag is thought of as silly. We don't have adult satirical magazines like Charlie Hebdo for the simple reason that we don't think satire has high social value. The French, God bless them, still do. Our stand-up comedy is shock-jock, not satirical. There is a world of sensibilities between the two. The only successful representations of political satire we've had within memory have been The Daily Show and The Colbert Report -- but even they stop short of being generators of controversy.
So, sadly, you are in a way correct. WE are not Charlie Hebdo. And we should be.
15
I am not a Muslim nor a Catholic, nor a terrorist. I am just French; once upon a time, not so long ago, remember the nine eleven? I used to say:" I am American " I am glad now to hear some people,throughout the world , claiming they are Charlie; some, a great number in fact, except David Barroux; I do not appreciate that much Charlie Hebdo, it is my freedom not to buy it , not to like it; but I feel morally obliged to honour the courage of these journalists ; Some have the right, a full right ,to hate the Charlie editors, I refuse them the right to kill the journalists for the only reason they are making use of their right to be free. Even my ennemies have the right to be free , but feedom is not murdering. I love liberty, I am French, I am Charlie.
(Please excuse my english, it is somewhat rusted, I should practice it a little more)
(Please excuse my english, it is somewhat rusted, I should practice it a little more)
11
"If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds."
Same with French campuses -- if we're talking about magazines funded by colleges, which try to be welcoming to students of all backgrounds. However, privately funded magazines, newspapers, etc., on US campuses are free to be as offensive as Ann Coulter, who in my opinion has never said or written anything that was in the least "necessary."
Same with French campuses -- if we're talking about magazines funded by colleges, which try to be welcoming to students of all backgrounds. However, privately funded magazines, newspapers, etc., on US campuses are free to be as offensive as Ann Coulter, who in my opinion has never said or written anything that was in the least "necessary."
6
Thanks for making an important and well stated point. Jesters are essential for for reminding us of our own hypocrisy. That goes for people in high places and for commoners like ourselves. They should be given ample space and -if necessary- protection, all in the awareness that they remain what they are: jesters.
4
Thank you Mr. Brooks for your helpful contrast of wit vs ridicule. This will help me explain the difference to my 13 year old son who often falls to the ridicule side of the razor edge between the two. Other than that, what you have written disgusts me with its cowardice and insulting false comparisons. I've nothing eloquent to say but I am done reading your column for good.
3
The point of freedom of speech is to allow expression of opinions that may offend you. The marketplace of public opinion then will respond positively or not. I agree with your penultimate paragraph if my point is the guiding principle. What we should not do is give Islam a special status different from other religions as untouchable. That is political correctness taken too far, which is what I would say about some of the decisions made by US institutions cited in your column. Charlie Hebdo may be the political equivalent of Mad magazine, but they have a right to publish. It is craven to say that they should not, just as it was for Sony to cave to pressure from North Korea. We should not adopt a Neville Chamberlain stance regarding public discourse. GIving into terrorists only invites more demands and more terrorism.
1
There is a fine line here that you are straddling, David. While the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, nowhere does it guarantee a captive audience. Rejecting Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Brandeis) and Condoleezza Rice (Rutgers) as commencement speakers is not censorship but expressing a preference. Similarly your concluding this ode to tolerance with your implied distaste for Maher and Coulter is your right. While satire may be meant to draw blood as Harry Shearer said, drawing blood does not make it satire. That the line between the two exists is the easy part. That there are infinitely many places to draw that line makes it infinitely complex, which I think is the point you are trying to make.
The appropriate response to a publication one finds offensive is to not buy that publication. Mr. Brooks seems to see a moral equivalency between not supporting views we disagree with by not buying their magazines or not hiring their proponents to speak at our graduation ceremonies with gunning people down in cold blood if they offend us. No, David Brooks, you are not Charlie Heblo. Tante pis. (= too bad.) I have lost a lot of respect for you today, but I'm not going to shoot you. Je suis Charlie!
4
Absolute tolerance of the intolerant is just stupidity by another name, Mr. Brooks. The real "problem" is the degree of both that society will deem acceptable.
1
This may be the first David Brooks column I have agreed with in many years, despite its false equivalences. I cannot, however, agree that Ann Coulter has ever offered anything of value. Please correct me if you can dredge up anything.
There is a HUGE difference between tweeking someone's nose and standing before an audience preaching hatred and intolerance. Mr. Brooks is quite incorrect in conflating the two. The folks at Charlie were nose tweekers, not haters or killers. David is correct in saying that we in America have gone way too far in censoring speech, but I have to say it one more time.... there is a HUGE difference between irreverence and hatred.
3
You, Mr. Brooks, are most definitely not Charlie Hebdo, being much too earnest to be funny or sarcastic or outrageously outré, except perhaps by accident considering the "conservative" points of view you espouse. These are often good for a sardonic and dismissive snort, but fail to rise to the level of parody and satire that is simultaneously disgusting, amusing and revealing in the manner of a Charlie. MAD magazine does a creditable job for an American publication, but life in America is so filled with self-parody that even cutting commentary can't make it anymore. Too bad. We as Americans need more exposure to ideas that turn the usual point of view on its head.
2
While I also deplore murder as an answer to being offended, one point that is being missed is not simply that the cartoons are offensive because they depict the Prophet Mohammad but that they frequently depict him naked and, in one, exposing his genitals and anus to the reader. Why is this funny? What does it purport to satirize? How does it inform the readers' understanding or perspective? (Google "chalie hebdo mohammad cartoons" and you'll see what I mean.) When I think of satire, I think of The Onion or Doonesbury or Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert., or South Park. As far as I can tell, Charlie Hebdo is offensive simply to be offensive and the only value it ever added to public debate was getting its employees murdered.
2
David Brooks has not done any serious thinking about this topic. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was issued for the same reasons the Charlie Hebdo was targeted -- perceived "insults" against "the prophet." Most if not all Muslim majority countries, including "moderate" ones like Turkey, impose very harsh penalties for saying the least negative thing about Islam. It is not the style of the language that is perceived to "insult Islam," it is any kind of speech whatsoever that theocratic totalitarians deem to be insulting to Islam that results in the barbaric threats, torture and death of those perceived to have "insulted Islam." In the West, we happen to have the legal option to criticize Islam if we wish to do so. That's what people are talking about when they say "Je suis Charlie." David Brooks does not understand what people are talking about when they say "Je suis Charlie." The other people saying along with him "I am not Charlie Hebdo" are Islamofascists.
5
My position is that I am at the same time Charlie, but I am also not Charlie.
I am Charlie to the extent that I believe in the right to free speech, and that Charlie Hebdo had every right to publish those cartoons without being attacked, least of all murdered in cold blood.
But I am also not Charlie to the extent that, based on the examples I saw, Charlie Hebdo's brand of satire was very offensive to even fair-minded non-Muslims. My point being, by ridiculing the prophet Muhammad himself, rather than al Quaeda or Islamic terrorists, they were insulting 1.3 billion people who follow that religion, the vast majority of whom are not jihadists, but ordinary people just trying to get on with their lives.
To that degree, the people at Charlie Hebdo, though I condemn the cowardly attack on them, were operating from the position of elitist white Frenchmen, not necessarily that of enlightened commentary on their country's many problems, including that of the Muslim minority, which deserves more seriousness than facile satire.
I am Charlie to the extent that I believe in the right to free speech, and that Charlie Hebdo had every right to publish those cartoons without being attacked, least of all murdered in cold blood.
But I am also not Charlie to the extent that, based on the examples I saw, Charlie Hebdo's brand of satire was very offensive to even fair-minded non-Muslims. My point being, by ridiculing the prophet Muhammad himself, rather than al Quaeda or Islamic terrorists, they were insulting 1.3 billion people who follow that religion, the vast majority of whom are not jihadists, but ordinary people just trying to get on with their lives.
To that degree, the people at Charlie Hebdo, though I condemn the cowardly attack on them, were operating from the position of elitist white Frenchmen, not necessarily that of enlightened commentary on their country's many problems, including that of the Muslim minority, which deserves more seriousness than facile satire.
3
I don't believe that Charlie has been ridiculing Muhammad. What you see as denigrating and ridiculing is an attempt to show how the extremeist Muslims affect their own sence of what they do to Muhammad by murdering so many, oppressing women and education of children, beheading for what we consider non-capital crimes and not using courts, their press and the large voice of the great majority of Muslims opposed to such behavior remaining in silence to these autrocities. Charlie is showing how the extremists ridicule and denigrate their own Islam.
3
But what do we do when our society is unhealthy and the establishment organs cannot acknowledge this? Most of us, perhaps most especially the wise and considerate scholars, are caught up in a consensus trance that makes it nearly impossible to admit just how close to disaster our magical thinking has led us.
2
This is so misleading as to be insulting. There is no comparison between what goes on in a University and what goes on in a private newspaper in America. If there were a private newspaper that engaged in the sort of humor Charlie Hebdo did, the majority of Americans would simply ignore it - but none would suggest they don't have a right to do so.
Brooks - you have reached a new low Sir.
Brooks - you have reached a new low Sir.
9
"The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes."
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
4
Maybe it depends on whose ox is being gored. The lies and cruelty that all religions have inflicted on people throughout history are much worse than any satire, no matter how "puerile", vulgar or obscene that satire might be viewed by an offended target.
You can always avert your eyes if you see something offensive to you. I have to do that frequently, avoiding Fox-style icons frothing at the mouth, most republican commentary and all right-wing baloney, the overweighted, belligerent religious nonsense mandated by our "shared" heritage, and most of the trivial products of our adolescent culture.
Civilized, enlightened people simply avoid or ignore press and ideas that are offensive to them. They do not kill or seek to harm the offenders and they surely should never, ever damp down their ideas for fear of offense. If Mr. Brooks does that because it might appear puerile and thus put him in a negative light, then he should consider another line of work.
You can always avert your eyes if you see something offensive to you. I have to do that frequently, avoiding Fox-style icons frothing at the mouth, most republican commentary and all right-wing baloney, the overweighted, belligerent religious nonsense mandated by our "shared" heritage, and most of the trivial products of our adolescent culture.
Civilized, enlightened people simply avoid or ignore press and ideas that are offensive to them. They do not kill or seek to harm the offenders and they surely should never, ever damp down their ideas for fear of offense. If Mr. Brooks does that because it might appear puerile and thus put him in a negative light, then he should consider another line of work.
3
Yes, Bravo Brooks. I am so glad that I continue to read Brooks, to find when and where he strikes a truly insightful, reasonable note. (He so often is lost in an ideological forest) He has discovered the kernel of the issue here. Yes, tolerate fools in hopes that they may say something insightful. Speakers earn respect and outrageous fools clamber on (Coulter etc), but do not deserve to be censored. One need not identify with Charlie Hebdo to recognize that murder and censorship do not fit in a decent society. Let the Islamists speak to the extremes of Hebdo's ways and earn their place in the conversation, rather than being extremely socially inappropriate (in fact condemnable). Bravo Brooks. Goes to show why a mix of commenters at NYT is beneficial.
1
This is excellent piece, well-thought through, from which we can learn if we reflect upon what it says. Provocateurs, including those sharp-edged, indeed provide an essential benefit to the wholeness of our thinking. Political cartoonists speak in a way that is powerful and immediate with a visceral quality that ordinary editorials can't match. Brooks is not Charlie Hebdo because he doesn't indulge in deliberately offensive humor. However, freedom of expression, including offensive humor, remains more tolerated and vibrant in France. Here in America, we are talking about Charlie Hebdo through a veil: it is something we have not seen as it is withheld from us by major news organizations which are also not Charlie Hebdo. It is our loss.
4
David, a correction: Vanderbilt did not "derecognize a Christian group for insisting that it be led by Christians," the school withdrew its permission for that group to use university facilities for its meetings. They are perfectly free to continue meeting off-campus with their own rules (which the group does).
Moreover, the group precipitated this change by denying one of its members the right to run for a group office not based upon the fact that he was not a Christian, but rather because he is gay.
It is perfectly reasonable that groups wishing to utilize university facilities on campus should be willing to abide by the university's non-discrimiation policies. Or would you be happy to see any university sponsor all-white groups that refuse to admit black members, or permit them to run for group office?
Moreover, the group precipitated this change by denying one of its members the right to run for a group office not based upon the fact that he was not a Christian, but rather because he is gay.
It is perfectly reasonable that groups wishing to utilize university facilities on campus should be willing to abide by the university's non-discrimiation policies. Or would you be happy to see any university sponsor all-white groups that refuse to admit black members, or permit them to run for group office?
3
It's important to recognize that Charlie Hebdo wasn't satirizing "Islam." Rather, they were satirizing Islamic terrorists' use of their religion as justification for their murderous acts. The terrorists have crudely made religious rhetoric their rallying cry, with deadly results. The cartoonists, however crudely they responded, were merely pointing this out.
6
Brooks is exactly right and seems to be in line with what our "founding fathers" had in mind. This column reflects what "free speech" should be about.
1
David Brooks is missing the point. Even those may not agree with Charlie Hebdo are saying "I am Charlie " because they condemn the killing of a fearless journalist. Mr Brooks is suggesting that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it. This is a disturbing commentary from Mr Brooks. France is France and no point in comparing US situation with France.
If you on some level almost accept this as inevitable and suggest that cartoonists should abide by the insensivities of a select group where do you draw a line?
If you on some level almost accept this as inevitable and suggest that cartoonists should abide by the insensivities of a select group where do you draw a line?
5
While I am horrified by the murder of these journalist, I wonder what the reaction to such journalist exploits would be in our country if Jesus was substituted for Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. We need to show respect for all religions.
Mr Brooks should remember that Freedom of Speech is regulated in the French Law. If anyone finds a public declaration offensive or insulting - it being an article, cartoon, speech... -, judges and courts are there to establish whether the law has been respected or not.
It is fortunate that publications such as Charlie Hebdo or Le Canard Enchaîné exist in France, where "Adult's table" media have become so esconced in political correctness and conivence with the establishment that they they have lost all legitimacy - and maybe also willingness - to truly put their finger where it hurts, or at leas doing so in a direct and intelligible way.
If Charlie Hebdo's impertinence was not needed and deemed useful by the French, this publication would have ceased a long time ago...
It is fortunate that publications such as Charlie Hebdo or Le Canard Enchaîné exist in France, where "Adult's table" media have become so esconced in political correctness and conivence with the establishment that they they have lost all legitimacy - and maybe also willingness - to truly put their finger where it hurts, or at leas doing so in a direct and intelligible way.
If Charlie Hebdo's impertinence was not needed and deemed useful by the French, this publication would have ceased a long time ago...
2
Mr. Brooks, twelve people lost their lives because of an intolerance to those who do not subscribe to a rigid religious ideology. That is different than intolerance to subscribing to the Catholic Church's rigid stance on homosexuality at a graduation ceremony. The intent of denying a speaker at that event is to keep gay teens from committing suicide. Also no
guns were used.
guns were used.
1
Charlie Hebdo was not a college campus publication. Consequently Mr. Brooks' attempt to link this tragedy to free speech at American universities is rather pointless. And the title is offensive and disrespectful to those of us who are both grieving and refusing to be frightened or intimidated.
3
I have actually never agreed with a David Brookes article but I did agree with this one.
Coulter uses hate speech. Mahar uses satire. Coulter does not 'poke fun', she inflames. To lump these two in one group suggests that Mr. Brooks might not understand the difference, which is at the root of the problem faced by both the readers and writers of controversial prose,
4
It is not religion, but rather, adherence to an intractable, absolutist dogma, whether religious or political. Such fundamentalism ultimately licenses violence toward non-adherebts, because when one is in possession of The Absolute Moral Truth, all those who reject your Eternal Truth are the enemy--and they are Absolutely Evil on a cosmic scale. They must be eliminated, if not presently as they deserve, then at least ultimately in the End Times, as they deserve.
If Brooks is seated at the adult table, I'll take my chicken fingers and honey mustard with the kids.
5
To raise what even Brooks recognizes as "micro-aggressions" when discussing the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo is both idiotic and deeply offensive. This is conservative false-equivalency at its worst. Brooks is not even honest in his examples. The University of Illinois professor "fired" for his views on homosexuality was reinstated within a few months. Then again a job at an university is not a "right" in any case, and to raise the inconvenience suffered by this professor in the same breath as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter only demonstrate how clueless the column indeed is. Charlie Hebdo was offensive to many, by design, which no doubt was also the reason that it struggled financially. No one was forced to buy the paper. But the editors, cartoonists and writers had the right to publish it and to live peacefully. By whining about imagined offenses, Brooks completely misses the central issue.
6
Sometimes pulling the chain of others is not funny and occasionally it will get you jailed or killed. Examples of negative consequences of free speech include Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and most of the people in history that really mattered.
4
Current reports indicate that Charlie Hebdo's circulation each week was about"30,000". Hence, it was fringe, with an excitement by its staff that may not have been available elsewhere.
How could it stay in business?
What is the common informed person's view of it?
Since it has suffered an horrendous injustice, we should be given some elementary facts.
How could it stay in business?
What is the common informed person's view of it?
Since it has suffered an horrendous injustice, we should be given some elementary facts.
1
If Ann Coulter has ever said any "necessary things," I've missed them.
In fact, I don't recall her saying even any true things.
In fact, I don't recall her saying even any true things.
9
Sometimes, however, the tables are turned. Fox News, which proclaims itself as being at the adult table, is actually at the kids table (kindergarten, really), while satirists like John Stewart and Steven Colbert, whom Brooks would deride as puerile, are the much more serious commentators, in the vein of Mark Twain.
9
Apparently you believe that we need to cave to terrorists in certain ways, Mr Brooks. I'm glad to see that there are individuals left on this planet who will stand up and call terrorists out for what they are. These people are not heroes - they are journalists; maybe not journalists of the same stripe as you, but journalists just the same. And while 12 of them have fallen, many more will stand up to take their places. We need people like these in this world and they must be allowed to speak their minds, regardless of the risk.
5
What Charlie Hebdo did was in no way punishable by death. There was no reason or excuse for violence of any kind toward this publication. However, I sympathize with Brooks because I think that many (not all) of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were a form of vandalism, in terrible taste, immature, and gratuitously offensive.
On the plus side, Mr. Brooks, had one moment of clarity in his foggy article:
"it is also true that most religions are kind of weird."
Religions are weird because we look at religions through a modern scientific grid, combined with a virtual avalanche of scientific data, which is rapidly doubling every few years. In contrast to this, religion represents a stone / bronze age grid based on limited data and resistant to change. The two grids cannot be reconciled. Science is now normal and religion is now weird.
Nobody gets upset with David Brooks for saying religions are weird. Why can Mr. Brooks get away with this and Charlie Hebdo not? Is it because Brooks is sitting at the adult's table and the rest of us are at the kid's table? Really? Ignoring his elitist attitude, the fact remains that the reader is barraged by Mr. Brook's hypocrisy, wanting freedom-of-speech for himself but not everyone. "I am not Charlie Hebdo" Mr. Brooks declares. Yes you are Mr. Brooks. We are all Charlie Hebdo.
The clamoring religious crowds, i.e., the fundamentalists who take everything literally, should quit whining and come up to speed with science. And these freaks [the extremely weird] who resort to violence because they are offended by cartoons concerning their religion should realize that their values are weird and incompatible with freedom-of-speech.
"it is also true that most religions are kind of weird."
Religions are weird because we look at religions through a modern scientific grid, combined with a virtual avalanche of scientific data, which is rapidly doubling every few years. In contrast to this, religion represents a stone / bronze age grid based on limited data and resistant to change. The two grids cannot be reconciled. Science is now normal and religion is now weird.
Nobody gets upset with David Brooks for saying religions are weird. Why can Mr. Brooks get away with this and Charlie Hebdo not? Is it because Brooks is sitting at the adult's table and the rest of us are at the kid's table? Really? Ignoring his elitist attitude, the fact remains that the reader is barraged by Mr. Brook's hypocrisy, wanting freedom-of-speech for himself but not everyone. "I am not Charlie Hebdo" Mr. Brooks declares. Yes you are Mr. Brooks. We are all Charlie Hebdo.
The clamoring religious crowds, i.e., the fundamentalists who take everything literally, should quit whining and come up to speed with science. And these freaks [the extremely weird] who resort to violence because they are offended by cartoons concerning their religion should realize that their values are weird and incompatible with freedom-of-speech.
8
I may be mistaken but wasn't The Onion started at an American university? It certainly exploded in popularity in the last two decades and has published what many would consider "offensive" material (especially material ridiculing religion).
3
Anyone who equates the killing of 12 people as a reaction to hate speech with the disinviting of a hate speaker belongs at the kids' table.
5
There is no equating Charlie Hebdo with campus speech in America, or Ann Coulter. Charlie is a cherished (by some) institution born of the May 1968 events in France, and it carries with it the visceral fury of that societal turning point. You've badly misunderstood it's cultural significance in French society.
3
This op-ed by David Brooks doesn't surprise me but does disappoint. His linking of the massacre of 12 cartoonists/journalists with speakers being denied or groups disbanded at college campuses, to say the least, is a false analogy. To equate the pointed humor of Hebdo, it's critique of certain aspects of religious fanaticism, with adolescent behavior (thirteen year-olds drawing dirty pictures) is disturbing in someone who you would expect to understand the meaning and range of satire (which in his editorial he claims to know). His categorization of adults and kids, in terms of whose criticism he approves of and whose he does not, only creates a caricature of Mr. Brooks attempting to play "Father Knows Best" and lecture us about civility as Rome burns. This is not about Ann Coulter or Bill Maher--it's about a slaughter in the middle of Paris.
3
Wonderful commentary. What I find striking is the lens of beliefs through which we filter our views. Too often, we use the banner of freedom to disguise of desire to push a particular set of views. In the discussion of race most recently in the United States, racism is term often used to quell debate rather than facilitate discussion. We laud our supposed tolerance but stamp out competing voices. Your discussion of kids tables and adult tables is spot on.
1
So very civil David. Except possibly the part about the “stupidity of fundamentalists.”
The French do have their way, often quite direct -- even to the point of modest incivility.
Seems Americans have assumed a much more onerous mantel of political correctness.
In any case, the most basic point of the slaughter in Paris, is the slaughter in Paris. It tells us once again that there is something fundamentally out of whack when one religion is linked to so many wanton and brutal acts.
The French do have their way, often quite direct -- even to the point of modest incivility.
Seems Americans have assumed a much more onerous mantel of political correctness.
In any case, the most basic point of the slaughter in Paris, is the slaughter in Paris. It tells us once again that there is something fundamentally out of whack when one religion is linked to so many wanton and brutal acts.
1
On non-praise for ridicule. Ridicule is the resort of the unimaginative commentator. Put the adults at the adult table, and the children at the children's table, and have a separate table for Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh.
Interestingly, David Brooks mentioned the University of Illinois but failed to mention the most prominent case of censorship and contract violation there. Prof. Steven Salaita had his job offer revoked because of an organized pressure campaign over his harsh criticism of Israel's slaughter of 2,500 Palestinians. In the West freedom of expression and the right to offend is limited. When you harshly offend the sacred symbols of those in power you will be ostracized and marginalized-just ask Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. Revealingly, both the Jyllinden Post whose Neo-Conservative editor refused to run a cartoon about Jesus in the shopping season because it was to risqué had no such compunctions about doing so with the Prophet Muhammad. No newsstand Western publication for example would be allowed to run a cartoon with Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, a point an Iranian exhibition about the selective "freedom" of Western media expression made clear. Charlie Hebdo for its part fired a cartoonist for "anti-Semitic caricatures" and while offending politicians and generic clergy men would never run a cartoon with Jesus, or the Virgin Mary, or Joan of Arc in sexual poses as it did with Muhammad.
2
David hasn't noticed that all these 6 years, on most occasions, Mr Obama has behaved like the only adult in the room.
9
David Brooks once again writes as if he's speaking for everyone. He repeatedly uses the words "we", "us" and "our". He should stop. Speak for yourself Brooks. It's tiring that you pretend to speak for the plurality. You don't. And he, once again, completely misses the point. I am not sure how such a haughty person can miss the point so vividly but it happens. He isn't Charlie Hebdo because he doesn't get it.
6
The obvious difference between Charlie Hebdo and the examples here is the use of humor. Humor has a special place in human interaction and should be immune to criticism on the grounds of political correctness. Comedy has to take certain risks and there is a proud tradition of tolerance for it. Kings who would not hesitate to chop the head off of a courtier for the slightest offense laughed along with their subjects at the antics of the Fool, who was exempt from harsh justice. South Park, National Lampoon, Monty Python, the original writers of SNL-- all went out of their way to push the boundaries of taste in the name of satire. Professors and activists do not. Charlie Hebdo might not be your cup of tea but anyone who would boot them off of campus simply doesn't get it.
5
Mr. Brooks,
Why do you accept that society at large, but not universities, may make a distinction between "allowed here", and "not allowed here" speech?
Are "adult tables" and "kid tables" only a societal distinction, not one available to university campuses? Or are the tables to be separated only by style of speech an not by content? Or do you think that Universities are training people to sit perpetually at the "kids' tables"?
Second, despite your title, in your final paragraph, are you not concluding, for everyone who values freedom over tyrany, "We are Charlie Hebdo."
Sincerely and with great respect for your dangerousness (and stealing from a recent Hebdo cartoon) "Watch out! That man has a pen and he knows how to use it!"
Why do you accept that society at large, but not universities, may make a distinction between "allowed here", and "not allowed here" speech?
Are "adult tables" and "kid tables" only a societal distinction, not one available to university campuses? Or are the tables to be separated only by style of speech an not by content? Or do you think that Universities are training people to sit perpetually at the "kids' tables"?
Second, despite your title, in your final paragraph, are you not concluding, for everyone who values freedom over tyrany, "We are Charlie Hebdo."
Sincerely and with great respect for your dangerousness (and stealing from a recent Hebdo cartoon) "Watch out! That man has a pen and he knows how to use it!"
1
Similar thoughts occurred to me yestereday when a Canadian friend was posting about free speech and I realized that Charlie Hebdo might well run afound of Canadian hate speech laws. While I do not, in any way, condone the massacre in France, and I do believe in freedom of speech, many of their cartoons really are intentionally hateful.
1
David, time for a vacation and counseled reassessment; you are becoming smug in your opinions and I find that unpleasant at best. While this is op ed, there is a responsibility to be informed before spouting your ideological and what is oft considered misinformed concepts from the bully pulpit. Thank you for your consideration.
2
The biggest story out of this massacre was Egyptian president Al-Sisi's speech to imams calling for a "revolution" of Islam...meaning a "reformation". Islam is the only religion still stuck in the 6th century mindset in the 21st century. It must go through a reformation.
For some strange reason, Al-Sisi's very brave and important speech got very little play in the MSM. I urge everyone to hear or read it. Hopefully his words will have traction all over the world.
For some strange reason, Al-Sisi's very brave and important speech got very little play in the MSM. I urge everyone to hear or read it. Hopefully his words will have traction all over the world.
2
This entire column is based a Strang comparison: how Charlie Hebdo would be treated on a college campus.
But CH is not a student paper! Or a rag designed for distribution on campuses. It's a commercial enterprise devoted to provocation in a fashion so French--with its great history of sstire--that there really is no counterpart in America .
Oh I suppose you could compare to a more vicious and political version of Mad Magazine, the English Punch, or a few others. And if its wit offends, then people don't have to buy or read it.
But remove it from circulation? Kill over it? Kowtow to the views of a few terrorists who self identify as jihadists not Frenchmen??
The issue , David, is not how offensive speech would be treated at Harvard, Brandeis, Georgetown or Randolph Macon. It's how to react when freedom of speech results in murder.
Je suis Charlie, David. Sorry if I offend.
But CH is not a student paper! Or a rag designed for distribution on campuses. It's a commercial enterprise devoted to provocation in a fashion so French--with its great history of sstire--that there really is no counterpart in America .
Oh I suppose you could compare to a more vicious and political version of Mad Magazine, the English Punch, or a few others. And if its wit offends, then people don't have to buy or read it.
But remove it from circulation? Kill over it? Kowtow to the views of a few terrorists who self identify as jihadists not Frenchmen??
The issue , David, is not how offensive speech would be treated at Harvard, Brandeis, Georgetown or Randolph Macon. It's how to react when freedom of speech results in murder.
Je suis Charlie, David. Sorry if I offend.
David's larger point is right. The people taking the holier than thou attitude here on Charlie Hebdo are far less tolerant of views that they don't agree with. I mean, even around here, any comment moderately critical of liberals, Krugman, Obama etc is suppressed by the moderators, while Bush bashing or ridiculing conservatives is highlighted in the comments. And this, at a supposedly liberated media outlet. And as Brooks pointed out, Hris Ali and her ilk are routinely kept out on academic campuses, in the name of hate speech, but are being censored in reality.
Yes, Hebdo situation is horrible, and there is a difference between disagreement, censorship and killing, but his larger point that everyone indulges in censorship when it is a view point they disagree with, is valid.
Yes, Hebdo situation is horrible, and there is a difference between disagreement, censorship and killing, but his larger point that everyone indulges in censorship when it is a view point they disagree with, is valid.
1
This is, again, classic conservative false equivalency. The murders at Charlie Hebdo are not the same as the perceived "suppression" of criticisms of Krugman and other opinon writers. Not only that, but you must never read the comments section after a Krugman post where plenty of conservatives attempt to contradict Paul. Their views aren't "suppressed", they're factually incorrect and based on assertion rather than evidence. Yet they are posted.
You and Brooks need to take this thinned skin bias whine somewhere else. It isn't germaine to what is happening in Paris.
You and Brooks need to take this thinned skin bias whine somewhere else. It isn't germaine to what is happening in Paris.
3
You allegedly like to read, Mr. Brooks. Let me introduce you this obscure quote:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
A man named Voltaire wrote it. Although not actually in English. Voltaire was French, you see. In fact, part of the intellectual tradition of the people massing in Place de la Republique. Voltaire also figured prominently in the libraries of the American Founding Fathers.
Voltaire was in fact helping to define civility. Which encompasses the tolerance of fools. And children. Of all ages.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
A man named Voltaire wrote it. Although not actually in English. Voltaire was French, you see. In fact, part of the intellectual tradition of the people massing in Place de la Republique. Voltaire also figured prominently in the libraries of the American Founding Fathers.
Voltaire was in fact helping to define civility. Which encompasses the tolerance of fools. And children. Of all ages.
5
The near-hysterical media reaction in America to this event is fascinating. In March 2012, Mohammed Merah went on a jihadi-inspired shooting spree, killing 7 Jews and soldiers. It was almost as shocking to the French and their media as the Charlie Hebdo massacre, yet it was barely a blip in American media by comparison.
Why the difference? Because Merah didn't kill any journalists. Brooks has done us a service here; in his usual application of half-truths, fuzzy logic and false equivalencies, he unwittingly exposes the hypocrisy rife in todays' US media.
As the talking heads hyperventilate with righteous indignation about their precious freedoms and Charlie Hebdo's right to poke a stick in the eye of already-enraged fundamentalist lunatics, beneath the breathless mouthing of "je suis Charlie" you also hear "jeez, that could happen to me..." as they hypocritically decline to show the offending cartoons.
America's press has given away their freedom to heavy self-censorship. They've reduced everything to a binary battle of black vs white through a lack of courage and intellectual curiosity. Chuck Todd - bless him - confirmed as much to Lewis Black, saying that truth is never probed because if it were, no one would show up for questioning. And that's bad for ratings and circulation.
I'm not sure if Charlie Hebdo's provocations were responsible journalism or not. But at least they had the courage of their convictions. And THAT is the teachable moment here, Mr. Brooks.
Why the difference? Because Merah didn't kill any journalists. Brooks has done us a service here; in his usual application of half-truths, fuzzy logic and false equivalencies, he unwittingly exposes the hypocrisy rife in todays' US media.
As the talking heads hyperventilate with righteous indignation about their precious freedoms and Charlie Hebdo's right to poke a stick in the eye of already-enraged fundamentalist lunatics, beneath the breathless mouthing of "je suis Charlie" you also hear "jeez, that could happen to me..." as they hypocritically decline to show the offending cartoons.
America's press has given away their freedom to heavy self-censorship. They've reduced everything to a binary battle of black vs white through a lack of courage and intellectual curiosity. Chuck Todd - bless him - confirmed as much to Lewis Black, saying that truth is never probed because if it were, no one would show up for questioning. And that's bad for ratings and circulation.
I'm not sure if Charlie Hebdo's provocations were responsible journalism or not. But at least they had the courage of their convictions. And THAT is the teachable moment here, Mr. Brooks.
2
A better comparison would've been the cartoons of R.Crumb or the old National Lampoon. American stand up comedians often walk the razors edge as well. A French politician or university professor also has to hew to certain degrees of "political correctness" that a publisher of satirical cartoons in business for themselves does not have to.
Mr. Brooks inability to perceive the differences in context between Charlie Hebdo and the examples he cites is a blind spot that illuminates many of his earlier columns for me.
Mr. Brooks inability to perceive the differences in context between Charlie Hebdo and the examples he cites is a blind spot that illuminates many of his earlier columns for me.
3
Funny, I rather think of Ann Coulter as among the adults. Was she taken in, for example, by Barack Obama's inseams?
It's interesting how you cherry-pick your examples. I hope you also support Steven Salaita, who lost his university position because of a tweet.
I also think your entire essay is disingenuous because a student newspaper supported by tax funds (indirectly) or students' tuitions (which they must pay) is different from a newspaper that is paid for directly by people who choose to subscribe to it and businesses that choose to advertise in it.
I also think your entire essay is disingenuous because a student newspaper supported by tax funds (indirectly) or students' tuitions (which they must pay) is different from a newspaper that is paid for directly by people who choose to subscribe to it and businesses that choose to advertise in it.
1
No, they are not martyrs. The New York Times is not showing the cartoons because many are pornographic and intended only to insult Muslims, knowing full well that they put not only themselves but the entire neighborhood around them at risk of violence. In order to draw and publish dirty cartoons that are in no way clever.
1
Who is to say that satirists like Swift, Voltaire, and even Tom Lehrer deserve only bemused semirespect?
4
The power of freedom of speech is not protecting polite conversation but protecting obnoxious expression. Mr. Brooks implies that Charlie Hebdo's juvenile sense of humor is not worthy of protection or that they simply should grow up.
Sorry. I have no obligation to be polite to your prejudices.
Sorry. I have no obligation to be polite to your prejudices.
4
CH is many things: blasphemous, offensive, provocative, hilarious, humanistic and as courageous a defender of the rights of individuals as any newspaper on the planet. We are not required to admire all of these qualities in order to express solidarity with the ones that matter most. Je suis CH.
3
i would add that the french have shown themselves to be so refreshingly mature and adult about this whole tragedy. no wagging fingers blaming their prime minister. no television blame machine blaring that it is the fault of one political party. nope, it is just a tragedy committed by absolutely evil men who will be found, captured, if possible, and sentenced.
recently there was an editorial by another man named brooks claiming that europe was like a grandmother...... if that is so? please send her over here to show us how to behave.
recently there was an editorial by another man named brooks claiming that europe was like a grandmother...... if that is so? please send her over here to show us how to behave.
8
Brooks is taking the "I am Charlie Hebdo" phrase a bit too literally. It's about solidarity with those who died for their speech, not about agreeing with everything they said. And Brooks commentary shows less that we need a teachable moment here in the US than that we've basically got it right: We frequently challenge those whose speech we disagree with while still standing strong with them regarding their right to that speech.
1
Perhaps there is a distinction between your right to offend, which should be enshrined in the law, and a reluctance to offend. That reluctance does not necessarily have to be driven by fear.
Perfect, how to we understand the other guys point of view to debate it if we disagree unless we listen first.
And what exactly do campus publications have to do with Charlie Hebdo? What is the equivalence here? This is a dithering train of free association that ends in "Children read Ann Coulter, grownups read ME!!"
2
David Brooks is certainly not Charlie Hebdo, and more's the pity. If he can't even understand a terribly simple statement supporting those who were killed by depraved zealots merely for engaging in social commentary, why does he command a column in this paper?
3
False equivalencies abound in Brooks' piece.
3
Bravo! There is a huge wave of progressive actions to block the free speech of others' with differing views. It is truly appalling. The ends do not justify the means, and there is no excuse for stifling free speech. Let's all open our eyes to what is happening.
College campuses are a completely different ballgame -- that's the realm of education, where political or religious bias is not allowed. The fact that Americans are not as accepting of crude political or religious satire is besides the point here.
1
At least the massacre in Paris has given David Brooks another opportunity to lecture us on how we should think and behave.
2
Although a complexity of the concepts devised by man is eloquently stated, the killing would deprive of man to better him/her self. This is exactly the reason why we(?) are so sad and maddened.
Freedom of speech "particularly" protects the right to say things with which we may disagree. Now, we may choose not to say those words or draw the cartoons, but hiding behind "good taste" to explain freedom of speech or the attack does not make much sense, nor does it sound conceptually or morally accurate.
Mr. Brooks, a fine piece this morning, sir! Should be required reading for all. Especially those elites who write columns stuffed full with conclusions unwarranted by their absent or faulty premises. I could mention a few NYT pundits, but why bother?
I do remember a story told a couple thousand years ago by a young Jewish carpenter. He spoke not of poking your finger in someone else's eye, but of pointing out the mote in another's, while missing the stump in your own.
We live in a macrocosm today where all views are published, some over and over again, no matter how inflammatory, as long as they will sell more newspapers and talking-head time. So, you see, tolerance has nothing to do with it. Only the bottom line matters, where all the bottom-feeders grovel.
Reminds me of another aphorism He uttered: "As you sow, so also shall you reap."
I do remember a story told a couple thousand years ago by a young Jewish carpenter. He spoke not of poking your finger in someone else's eye, but of pointing out the mote in another's, while missing the stump in your own.
We live in a macrocosm today where all views are published, some over and over again, no matter how inflammatory, as long as they will sell more newspapers and talking-head time. So, you see, tolerance has nothing to do with it. Only the bottom line matters, where all the bottom-feeders grovel.
Reminds me of another aphorism He uttered: "As you sow, so also shall you reap."
1
In the US the law protects free speech from legal restrictions. It is not absolute since no right is. Now if you annoy say a gang member he might do something to you, he will be arrested for assault, battery etc. not for violating your free speech rights.
1
Mr. Brooks you're more provactive as a Republican giving power to authoritarians than any absurd French cartoonist. If fact you miss the entire point of what the actual role of a provactive symbol, idea or political statement might be. But of course you're a Time's scribe leaving the impression that the NYT's is "fair and balanced".
1
Thank you David. These people made a living causing pain to other people . They did NOT deserve to die for what they had done, but as journalist they were not people of good character. They knew it was offensive (to liberal or extremist Muslims) to draw Mohammad in a good manner; and they drew it in the most offensive manner possible. I am sure it was offensive to the Muslim police officer that died trying to protect people that day.
May God/Yahweh/Allah/Jesus go with the police and solders as they hunt for these murders. May they all come home safe to their families.
May God/Yahweh/Allah/Jesus go with the police and solders as they hunt for these murders. May they all come home safe to their families.
If we are protect the right of fundamentalists to criticize Western values we must also protect the right of others to ridicule them and their beliefs. Avant Charlie!
Charlie Hebdo was not a university campus publication, so the premise of this whole column is bizarre. The conservative right's demonization of universities and intellectualism as ultra liberal cradles of fascism continues, wrongly. Brooks doesn't even get that he is the very type of institutional thinker that Hebdo satirized.
3
I'm in agreement with this piece. I was thinking much the same before I read Brooks editorial. I even put together a rudimentary cartoon to express my opinion - and indeed it must have well, because the NYT censored my 'free speech'....which is exactly the point "I am Not Charlie Hebdo" is making. The hypocrisy and irony that surrounds this movement is typical mob mentality. whatever.
@pinchfork
@pinchfork
I'm old enough to remember the glory days of Mad Magazine and how they poked fun at just about everybody and every institution.
4
Satire as humor is not hate speech. Charlie Hebdo never incited violent crimes. The slaughter of its senior staff was a hate crime. David has not adequately understood this situation as a "teachable moment" about hypocrisy on freedom of speech, because the examples he adduces are not at all similar to the violent hatred of the jihadists. The difference is not of degree but of kind.
3
Very thoughtful article. Outrage is not a policy. The question is how we start a conversation where they feel safe and we feel safe. Otherwise, it will keep happening.
First of all, show some respect to the terrified citizens of France.
And if, god forbid, terrorists assassinated the heinous and hateful Ann Coulter, I would be the first to say, "I am Ann Coulter," and I hope you would do the same for any journalist blessed with the protections of freedom of expression, however strongly and morally you may disagree with their viewpoint.
And if, god forbid, terrorists assassinated the heinous and hateful Ann Coulter, I would be the first to say, "I am Ann Coulter," and I hope you would do the same for any journalist blessed with the protections of freedom of expression, however strongly and morally you may disagree with their viewpoint.
4
David Brooks is right on! Smart and thoughtful. Why? Because his comments touch at the heart and the complexity of the matter. Differences of opinion, culture, economic and financial standing, station, social and religious affiliation. These are the elements fueling wars raging between Muslims and Christians, rich and poor, socialites and deviants, gays and straights, young and old, insiders and those marginalized in cities and towns and around the world.
These are elements that fuel the battles in Ferguson yesterday, Paris streets this week, and in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria and yes, right in your own backyard.
Protecting and celebrating free speech and freedom of expression is one important way forward, to allow each and everyone to express their grievances, their difference of opinion and most important to protect each individual's right to live through their own personal freedom of expression.
These are elements that fuel the battles in Ferguson yesterday, Paris streets this week, and in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria and yes, right in your own backyard.
Protecting and celebrating free speech and freedom of expression is one important way forward, to allow each and everyone to express their grievances, their difference of opinion and most important to protect each individual's right to live through their own personal freedom of expression.
2
People seem to forget that Charlie Hebdo's satire wasn't just about Islam. They lampooned other religions and public figures also. Although I wouldn't make fun of people personally, I do enjoy good satire and don't think anyone should be off limits. Our own Christian fundamentalists make for easy satire as do our politicians. They are often lampooned on SouthPark, Colbert, The Daily Show and Saturday Noght Live, as well as the Onion. I thoroughly enjoy them all. That said, the NYT article about the murders has comments from many people criticizing Muslims for not standing against the violence. If they had read the article closely, they might have seen that one of France's leading Muslims spoke out against the violence and said the perpetrators should be prosecuted by the law.
2
No way are the colleges going to abolish speech codes, its their way of being in control of young minds that need liberal guidance. And we wonder why it producers stupid? So, best to now form 'Charlie Hebdo' clubs on each campus. Each year awards will be made for the most outrageous expression.
1
I still can't get over the reaction I got from a group of Mormons trying to proselytize my wife, who is a Buddhist. I was educated in Catholic grade school and high school and told them I was an atheist. If looks could kill, I would be dead. What goes on in these people minds? Sorry folks but there is no God but a lot of psychopaths ministering to neurotics. I wish there was a God to fix all the pervasive deceit I witnessed in my life. It's fantasy in your brain, not reality in the world.
3
I don't have sympathy for this view. While Muslims may have found the cartoons offensive, the reality is that the cartoons weren't, in the main, just poking fun at irrational beliefs. Neither does Bill Maher.
Islam - mainstream Islam - contains intolerant ideas, and therefore intolerable ideas. Keep women in a bag, no criticism or satire is permitted, and death to those who do so, or to those who decide not to believe. Females are inferior to males, anyone who does not believe is an enemy, and the goal is universal Islamic law.
These are not extreme views, these are VERY widely held, central tenets of Islam.
If we believe they are BAD ideas, we should have no hesitation in criticising them and mocking them loudly and clearly. That's the very point of the freedoms the West has been slowly fighting for ever since the Enlightenment (mainly against the Christian Establishment), and which have been paid for in blood.
If "moderate" Muslims wish to distance themselves from this kind of atrocity, they need to clearly and loudly distance themselves from the BELIEFS that lead to the actions. It's not enough to wring their hands and say they disagree with the actions or the methods. Adherents of a belief system with billions of followers must surely anticipate that some of their own number are likely to act on the teachings and traditions therein.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
Islam - mainstream Islam - contains intolerant ideas, and therefore intolerable ideas. Keep women in a bag, no criticism or satire is permitted, and death to those who do so, or to those who decide not to believe. Females are inferior to males, anyone who does not believe is an enemy, and the goal is universal Islamic law.
These are not extreme views, these are VERY widely held, central tenets of Islam.
If we believe they are BAD ideas, we should have no hesitation in criticising them and mocking them loudly and clearly. That's the very point of the freedoms the West has been slowly fighting for ever since the Enlightenment (mainly against the Christian Establishment), and which have been paid for in blood.
If "moderate" Muslims wish to distance themselves from this kind of atrocity, they need to clearly and loudly distance themselves from the BELIEFS that lead to the actions. It's not enough to wring their hands and say they disagree with the actions or the methods. Adherents of a belief system with billions of followers must surely anticipate that some of their own number are likely to act on the teachings and traditions therein.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
Once again Mr Brooks loses me with his unbalanced approach to a discussion. He uses this terrible tragedy to lambast the infamous liberal colleges for not letting conservatives speak. He mentions nothing of conservative institutions who do the same. There is a difference between thought provoking speech and hate speech. Universities must walk that fine line and determine whether a speaker is actually trying to advance knowledge through discussion or mearly fostering hatred. This is the same approach many news organizations take including the NYT.
1
Most religions are not only "weird", they're deadly. Think of the millions of people who have been killed over the centuries, not because of natural disasters or wars, but because someone of a particular faith didn't agree with a person of another faith. Oddly enough, they all profess to "do good." In my humble opinion, we'd be much better off without them.
3
I don't have sympathy for this view. While Muslims may have found the cartoons offensive, the reality is that the cartoons weren't, in the main, just poking fun at irrational beliefs. Neither does Bill Maher.
Islam - mainstream Islam - contains intolerant ideas, and therefore intolerable ideas. Keep women in a bag, no criticism or satire is permitted, and death to those who do so, or to those who decide not to believe. Females are inferior to males, anyone who does not believe is an enemy, and the goal is universal Islamic law.
These are not extreme views, these are VERY widely held, central tenets of Islam.
If we believe they are BAD ideas, we should have no hesitation in criticising them and mocking them loudly and clearly. That's the very point of the freedoms the West has been slowly fighting for ever since the Enlightenment (mainly against the Christian Establishment), and which have been paid for in blood.
If "moderate" Muslims wish to distance themselves from this kind of atrocity, they need to clearly and loudly distance themselves from the BELIEFS that lead to the actions. It's not enough to wring their hands and say they disagree with the actions or the methods. Adherents of a belief system with billions of followers must surely anticipate that some of their own number are likely to act on the teachings and traditions therein.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
Islam - mainstream Islam - contains intolerant ideas, and therefore intolerable ideas. Keep women in a bag, no criticism or satire is permitted, and death to those who do so, or to those who decide not to believe. Females are inferior to males, anyone who does not believe is an enemy, and the goal is universal Islamic law.
These are not extreme views, these are VERY widely held, central tenets of Islam.
If we believe they are BAD ideas, we should have no hesitation in criticising them and mocking them loudly and clearly. That's the very point of the freedoms the West has been slowly fighting for ever since the Enlightenment (mainly against the Christian Establishment), and which have been paid for in blood.
If "moderate" Muslims wish to distance themselves from this kind of atrocity, they need to clearly and loudly distance themselves from the BELIEFS that lead to the actions. It's not enough to wring their hands and say they disagree with the actions or the methods. Adherents of a belief system with billions of followers must surely anticipate that some of their own number are likely to act on the teachings and traditions therein.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
4
Yes, imagine if N. Korea released a film about executing President Obama? Or George, George, or Jeb bush? Would we all be defending free speech? Or would free speech not be mentioned as we derided they utter lack of human values...
I think Mr Brooks is right in pointing out that the reader needs to reflect upon the kinds of speech they will tolerate and the kind they won't, hopefully identifying their own hypocrisies if they exist.
But, just because a person writes 'I am Charlie Hebdo' on their Facebook page or wherever, doesn't mean they need to "engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that the newspaper specializes in" so as not to be hypocritical. Showing solidarity and adopting a particular style are not the same thing. Mr. Brooks confuses the two and supports his points with a number of examples that are, in varying degrees, out of context.
But, just because a person writes 'I am Charlie Hebdo' on their Facebook page or wherever, doesn't mean they need to "engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that the newspaper specializes in" so as not to be hypocritical. Showing solidarity and adopting a particular style are not the same thing. Mr. Brooks confuses the two and supports his points with a number of examples that are, in varying degrees, out of context.
3
Charlie Hebdo did not publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet but cartoons ridiculing the zealots. It seems offending the zealots has become a major offense these days, and that being an atheist is becoming more and more impossible. When learning of the slaughter, Pdt Obama's reaction was to pray for the victims and their family - and this is exactly what they don't need.
2
There should be no speech codes. There should be no restriction. People should't die for speaking their minds, no matter how immature, offensive, or controversial the thoughts within those minds may be.
This is what I took from Mr.Brooks. How anyone could disagree is beyond me, but I wouldn't deny them the right to.
This is what I took from Mr.Brooks. How anyone could disagree is beyond me, but I wouldn't deny them the right to.
1
What is appropriate and inappropriate speech, offensive and inoffensive, is inherently subjective. Perhaps in my own eyes I am not Charlie Hebdo, but in someone else's I could be. Pour ça, je suis Charlie Hebdo.
(Your title, Mr. Brooks, is overly provocative as it is not in sync with the rest of the article. Now is not the time to fish for click bait.)
(Your title, Mr. Brooks, is overly provocative as it is not in sync with the rest of the article. Now is not the time to fish for click bait.)
1
It is not inaccurate to say Je suis Charlie Hebdo if your intent is to express your support for that brilliant point of view of Voltaire: I totally disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I hold those folks who took to the streets with dignity in support of Charlie Hebdo with the utmost love and respect. They are our only line of defense as the technocrats and their word games drive societies further and further down the path toward totalitarianism.
1
This is a good article. I liked it. However I do have an issue: "Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people." Who are they: institutions, politicians, elites, waitresses, sanitation workers, CEOs, people at the DMV, children, hipsters, etc, who? Depending on how one interpret "they" the rest of the paragraph changes. I think. But, then again I'm just speculating.
Mr. Brooks, we have a saying in special operations:
Never throw down over words.
Translated: Never get in a fight over words.
Which is to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
To the French, who as Mr. Brooks--how conveniently--fails to mention, bled with us, suffered with us and died with us to free France and all Europe from the Nazis in WWII, I can only say that we will win the war against Radical Islamic terrorists in Europe and throughout the world, and we will win it together with the French and all who stand with us against Radical Islamic terrorism.
We will never forget 1944 and we will never forget 2015. Je Suis Charlie.
Never throw down over words.
Translated: Never get in a fight over words.
Which is to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
To the French, who as Mr. Brooks--how conveniently--fails to mention, bled with us, suffered with us and died with us to free France and all Europe from the Nazis in WWII, I can only say that we will win the war against Radical Islamic terrorists in Europe and throughout the world, and we will win it together with the French and all who stand with us against Radical Islamic terrorism.
We will never forget 1944 and we will never forget 2015. Je Suis Charlie.
9
This column is absolutely irredeemable. If Bill Maher, a liberal leaning libertarian, is equivalent to reflexively insulting Ann Coulter, then I want some of what Mr. Brooks is smoking. And he ought to have a look at who the Republicans have sitting at the "adult table." I'll take Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart or Bill Maher over Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz ANY day, thanks.
8
When has Ann Coulter ever said a necessary thing?
3
"Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect." Are you talking about Voltaire? Swift maybe? Orwell?
6
Offending religious sensibilities? Really? History is fraught with incidences of religious groups slaughtering nonbelievers in the name of Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and on and on. Not to mention all of the rightious preaching by christian ministers proclaiming nonbelievers as instruments of the devil, or politicians proclaiming a pluralistic America as a christian nation. I think it is really the other way around Mr. Brooks..... that religious organizations should respect the rest of us.
2
Ugh, please spare us.
5
Mr. Brooks places himself at the children's table by trying to equate the tragedy in Paris with administrative or social censure.
If Ayaan Hirsi Ali were gunned down by people trying to silence her and her beliefs, then people would stand in solidarity with her, too. That doesn't mean we're going to invite her over for coffee.
Grow up, Mr. Brooks, if you want to be taken seriously.
If Ayaan Hirsi Ali were gunned down by people trying to silence her and her beliefs, then people would stand in solidarity with her, too. That doesn't mean we're going to invite her over for coffee.
Grow up, Mr. Brooks, if you want to be taken seriously.
5
You have utterly missed the point, which is unusual for you, David Brooks.
Je suis Charlie is simply a show of solidarity for the value of freedom of expression in a free society.
Je suis Charlie is simply a show of solidarity for the value of freedom of expression in a free society.
13
You are a fool. Satirists are not killed in the US. They may be censored on college campuses, but have you ever seen the Onion?
5
You are taking Je Suis Charlie to literally. When I say I'm Charlie I'm saying all the thoughts you've expressed later in the article.
1
This totally misses the point.
No one has to like what Charlie Hebdo wrote - and not many did in France too.
The reason "Je suis Charlie" is not because I would agree to listen to them at my university - I would still oppose them - it is because they have the right to do that without getting killed.
By saying "I am not Charlie", this article misses the point.
No one has to like what Charlie Hebdo wrote - and not many did in France too.
The reason "Je suis Charlie" is not because I would agree to listen to them at my university - I would still oppose them - it is because they have the right to do that without getting killed.
By saying "I am not Charlie", this article misses the point.
2
Bravo David. Best take I've seen on the tragedy. Too bad so many won't see the distinction you are drawing.
While I think that the crime itself is awful, but I do believe that making Charlie Hebdo a martyr of free speech when it's the same medium that took a whole different reaction towards a cartoon over anti-Semitic allegations is not logical or fair. I believe that the way this crime has been used by political parties in France in the name of "fighting terrorism" sounds very familiar. As media packs with news items without professionalism or transparency, what is sure is that France in particular is completely enjoying a state of double standards, and no Muslim should have to apologize or condemn-while realizing the atrocity of the killing-because not every Buddhist, Jew, or Christian has to go in a state of self-defense whenever someone who 'says they belong' their faith does something horrible.
I think there are many discussions that should be reinforced in light of this reminder; freedom of speech, stereotypes, hate crimes, how governments will definitely politicize these acts. But, healthy societies promote equality in dealing with freedoms and encourage a debate for the best of all, which I can't see anywhere be it the east or west.
I think there are many discussions that should be reinforced in light of this reminder; freedom of speech, stereotypes, hate crimes, how governments will definitely politicize these acts. But, healthy societies promote equality in dealing with freedoms and encourage a debate for the best of all, which I can't see anywhere be it the east or west.
Mr. Brooks is comparing freedom of speech issues within two different spheres, the public arena and the confines of a university, and in that sense the compariso is specious.
1
I haven't been able to read 475 or more comments, but I hope someone has pointed out the positive and valid function that ridicule of religion serves in society.
One of the "offensive" cartoons, for instance, shows two men kissing, full-mouthed and with a copious exchange of saliva ...
This is offensive to Muslims because homosexuality is offensive to Muslims. We all do get that.
Guess what - the hatred and fear of homosexuals is offensive to ... homosexuals. If even one confused and frightened and shame-ridden young person understands, from taking in that cartoon, that not everyone thinks he is evil, that there are people in the world who understand and accept him and don't want him dead because of his sexuality, then that cartoon has served an important public function.
THAT'S why we allow it. Not just to be PC and prove we're tolerant of everything and everybody. Because it's IMPORTANT. Because religion kills people, and satirizing religion can save some people, especially people brought up in totalizing, restrictive, our-way-or-death religions.
One of the "offensive" cartoons, for instance, shows two men kissing, full-mouthed and with a copious exchange of saliva ...
This is offensive to Muslims because homosexuality is offensive to Muslims. We all do get that.
Guess what - the hatred and fear of homosexuals is offensive to ... homosexuals. If even one confused and frightened and shame-ridden young person understands, from taking in that cartoon, that not everyone thinks he is evil, that there are people in the world who understand and accept him and don't want him dead because of his sexuality, then that cartoon has served an important public function.
THAT'S why we allow it. Not just to be PC and prove we're tolerant of everything and everybody. Because it's IMPORTANT. Because religion kills people, and satirizing religion can save some people, especially people brought up in totalizing, restrictive, our-way-or-death religions.
1
Speaking of civility and respect, I found your piece to be instantly and deeply offensive to the recently deceased. Even though I have never read Charlie Hebdo I feel for their loss and the outrage of the attack. If the phrase, "I am Charlie Hebdo" gives the French people some comfort and community in their time of pain and grieving I think the mature thing to do is leave it alone. Ironic that your piece seems so puerile, offensive and lacking in basic social manners, Perhaps you have never lost a loved one suddenly in a senseless, premature death?
5
Brooks' fundamental argument, that universities are intolerant, says nothing about society at large. Charlie Hebdo wasn't funded by a university administration. The comparison on which this editorial is based is completely false.
A paper like Charlie Hebdo, NOT funded by a university, could certainly exist in America. Americans are much more tolerant than David Brooks gives us credit for, especially when it comes to publications that are self-sustaining and don't receive public or university funds.
A paper like Charlie Hebdo, NOT funded by a university, could certainly exist in America. Americans are much more tolerant than David Brooks gives us credit for, especially when it comes to publications that are self-sustaining and don't receive public or university funds.
1
Charlie Hebdo is not into hate speech any more than Private Eye is in Britain. Publications such as these are necessarily valuable for throwing a spotlight on fanaticism, corruption and ludicrousness, to name a few of the plagues that blight society. There will always be disenfranchised people in the world, but fortunately only the fanatics among them go around killing people. Free speech is free speech. It should never be censored by any means whatsoever. Everyone should be Charlie Hebdo.
2
You are right to point to the hypocrisy of American universities, where freedom of speech because of the threat of correct thinking doesn't exist anymore. You really do have to watch what you say, and there really are repercussions for failing to do so.
I worked on a college paper in the early seventies, and our one rule as smart smarty pants was, no rules. Irreverence and truth were the tandem goals. It was quite wonderful, all funny and useful and young and forward thinking.
During the nineties, when universities began their turn toward serious alumni relations and theme-park appearances the paper was put under the control of the administration, and the unsurprising result was a house organ cum sales brochure. All controversy was banned. Color photos were introduced.
So yes, nous somme tout Charlie.
I worked on a college paper in the early seventies, and our one rule as smart smarty pants was, no rules. Irreverence and truth were the tandem goals. It was quite wonderful, all funny and useful and young and forward thinking.
During the nineties, when universities began their turn toward serious alumni relations and theme-park appearances the paper was put under the control of the administration, and the unsurprising result was a house organ cum sales brochure. All controversy was banned. Color photos were introduced.
So yes, nous somme tout Charlie.
3
Well for once, I have to agree with David Brooks. Our freedom carries with it a responsibility for respect of other people and their cultures. Sacrilege and needless provocation have no place in a civil society.
1
In the movie "Kundun" the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying: "Violence is never good." We each can ask, myself as well, before commenting on anything using satire or any form of comment, is this comment peaceful, loving, constructive, and compassionate? Or is there anger, pushing the limits, and provocation within the words. Satire need not be violent in its commentary.
It never would have occurred to me that you are Charlie Hebdo, but thanks for that clarification, humble brag duly noted.
"Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect."
Funny that, I hold Bill Maher in high respect, even though he only rates a lowly seat at the kids table. However, I'm relieved we have wise men like you at the adult table to sort all this out for us.
But when push comes to shove, I'll have a burger and fries with Mr. Maher.
"Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect."
Funny that, I hold Bill Maher in high respect, even though he only rates a lowly seat at the kids table. However, I'm relieved we have wise men like you at the adult table to sort all this out for us.
But when push comes to shove, I'll have a burger and fries with Mr. Maher.
3
When someone says "I am Charlie Hebdo", they don't mean it in a literal sense. But they have a realization that for our rights to be meaningful, they cannot be personal. Instead, they must be extended even to those who are marginalized in society.
In part, we are looking at Tallentyre's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but even more we are looking at Niemöller's "First they came. . ." If we allow the rights of those we disagree with to be eroded, eventually we may have no one to defend our rights.
In part, we are looking at Tallentyre's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but even more we are looking at Niemöller's "First they came. . ." If we allow the rights of those we disagree with to be eroded, eventually we may have no one to defend our rights.
The tedious tyranny of intellectually limited political correctness has been eroding our freedom of speech in this country for years.
1
Of course, you aren't Mr. Brooks. You are a right wing commentator who supports suppression of speech that you don't like. No surprise here.
5
i'm not charlie either. i don't believe the best use of free speech is to mock people who are marginalized and despised as muslims are in france, a very racist society. in the third reich gross charicatures of jews were used to dehumanize them, and i think the charlie hebdo cartoons to some extent served the same purpose.
No Mr. Brooks, you certainly aren't Charlie Hebdo, that much is true. You , as part of the 0.1%, make more money in a single year than Charlie Hebdo's likely annual operating budget. Events such as the Charlie Hebdo massacre are seen very differently through the prism of wealth, privilege, political power.
As you said in your column, the provocateurs "puncture the self-puffery of the successful."
As you said in your column, the provocateurs "puncture the self-puffery of the successful."
2
I'm afraid that I agree with David Brooks. You have a responsibility to your listeners. If you insult them in exercising your freedom of expression, you should accept the consequences of your insult. Self censorship is not a sign of weakness or intimidation. Rather it is a judgement call one should make out of respect to ones listeners not to cross a line one knows will unnecessarily hurt them. Crossing that line with the weaker among us, who feel threatened by it, has consequences for all of us.
Social norms of what constitutes satire vary in different cultures. The American equivalents of French publications like Charlie Hebdo are shows like the Colbert Report or John Stewarts' Daily Show.
Colbert and Stewart use a different medium and a different tone, and are just as funny but less strident. It's like a difference between cuisines. Some are just spicier than others, and you always have to factor that in when discussing them.
Brooks is misjudging Le Monde as the reference for the adults' table. Le Monde lectures you about what you should think instead of telling you what happened. The French press, overall, is not very good at collecting information but you would in particular never go to Le Monde for a scoop. You would be better off checking out Mediapart, or Liberation.
Colbert and Stewart use a different medium and a different tone, and are just as funny but less strident. It's like a difference between cuisines. Some are just spicier than others, and you always have to factor that in when discussing them.
Brooks is misjudging Le Monde as the reference for the adults' table. Le Monde lectures you about what you should think instead of telling you what happened. The French press, overall, is not very good at collecting information but you would in particular never go to Le Monde for a scoop. You would be better off checking out Mediapart, or Liberation.
This is an excellent point.
We learn by having our views challenged. We should embrace criticism.
The Charlie Hebdo's of the world deserve our support and emulation.
We learn by having our views challenged. We should embrace criticism.
The Charlie Hebdo's of the world deserve our support and emulation.
1
Satire is a valuable tool in politics and philosophy. U.S. campuses are crippled by fear of being found un-PC. Je suis Charlie. Free speech needs the outliers--an outlier is not automatically hate speech.
1
David Brooks declares boldly and publicly that he is not Charlie Hebdo.
We have seen, heard, and read enough of his commentary to know that he is not. He does not attack the pernicious pieties of religion and tribalism. Just last week he lauded Netanyahu for his "profound nationalist passion".
Brooks is not the one to expose the sources of evil that are religion and tribal identity. He is the one to defend and perpetuate them. Il n'est pas Charlie and mores the pity.
We have seen, heard, and read enough of his commentary to know that he is not. He does not attack the pernicious pieties of religion and tribalism. Just last week he lauded Netanyahu for his "profound nationalist passion".
Brooks is not the one to expose the sources of evil that are religion and tribal identity. He is the one to defend and perpetuate them. Il n'est pas Charlie and mores the pity.
3
This is a "teaching moment"---you must be kidding. Cartoonists were murdered in the name of religion. It doesn't get any more tragic and ridiculous than that.
3
You've seen The Onion, David Brooks?
2
So David, not a "South Park" fan I guess?
6
Your comparison of a culture's ethos to that of a college campus is preposterous.
8
This wonderfully nuanced article, with its humility on the one hand and its call for free speech on the other, seems is exactly the kind of thought provoking editorial the NYT used to deliver on a daily basis. Now it has become a rarity, How sad that this thoughtful, reasonable man should be the object of the vitriolic ad hominem responses in these comments.
Thank you Mr. Brooks.
Thank you Mr. Brooks.
1
Bill Maher show "Politically Incorrect" was cancelled from network TV. This was attributed to an offensive remark he made about the Iraq war which led some sponsors to drop out. He wasn't even allowed at the kids table for a while when his brand of satire clashed with commercial interests. Fortunately his voice is now heard on cable which is less reliant on sponsors that fund the increasingly bland networks.
3
Charlie Hebdo was and still is, I hope, the epitome of a certain French spirit. A bit anarchist, always good for a big laugh, with very little respect for the establishment, sometimes vulgar, and almost always very smart, that was the gang from the Rue Choron. This crew: Cavanna, Pr. Choron (Jo Bernier), Gebe, Wolinsky, Cabu, Reiser, Delfeil de Ton, Chenz for the photos, and the others. They were making the core of Hara Kiri and Charlie Hebdo.
Those guys were not campus kids, sorry to say Mr. Brooks. They were adults, smart and disrespectful and very very interesting people to be around. I knew all of them, worked with them at a time, discussed with them. You are right to write that CH would not have lasted a NY minute here, though not for the right reasons. The Establishment here would have crushed them. There is in this country a deeply rooted hypocrisy on provocation such as CH was heralding. This group was not "puerile", but made a clear choice to tackle serious issues with the might of ridiculing while being afraid of nothing or no one. For sure, I am not Charlie, because I cannot be. I am lacking their wit, intelligence and unwavering dedication to provoke. I just remember all of them as they were.
Those guys were not campus kids, sorry to say Mr. Brooks. They were adults, smart and disrespectful and very very interesting people to be around. I knew all of them, worked with them at a time, discussed with them. You are right to write that CH would not have lasted a NY minute here, though not for the right reasons. The Establishment here would have crushed them. There is in this country a deeply rooted hypocrisy on provocation such as CH was heralding. This group was not "puerile", but made a clear choice to tackle serious issues with the might of ridiculing while being afraid of nothing or no one. For sure, I am not Charlie, because I cannot be. I am lacking their wit, intelligence and unwavering dedication to provoke. I just remember all of them as they were.
60
There is only one question. All other commentary from the New York Times and its columnists is superfluous nonsense.
Why hasn't the New York Times published Charlie Hebdo's cartoons?
Why hasn't the New York Times published Charlie Hebdo's cartoons?
4
"The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down."
This is a non sequitur. What's your point, Mr. Brooks? What Charlie Hebdo publishes is in fact hate speech. The writers and illustrators at the magazine in fact hate people who take themselves and their ideas seriously, or too seriously, in the eyes of those at Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo is offensive, and deliberately so, not merely satirical.
We defend free speech, even hate speech, but not just anywhere. The ACLU defends the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL. Those ACLU lawyers are trained at American universities. And yet, most universities would not continence a neo-Nazi demonstration. Hypocrisy? No. Mutual respect, civility, is part of what universities teach. Universities rightly defend their community members' dignity. Charlie Hebdo would be shut down on campuses. That is not inconsistent with defending the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish, or of its publishers to live.
But when you're one who confuses money and speech, and corporations and people, you probably cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and privilege of venue, either.
This is a non sequitur. What's your point, Mr. Brooks? What Charlie Hebdo publishes is in fact hate speech. The writers and illustrators at the magazine in fact hate people who take themselves and their ideas seriously, or too seriously, in the eyes of those at Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo is offensive, and deliberately so, not merely satirical.
We defend free speech, even hate speech, but not just anywhere. The ACLU defends the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL. Those ACLU lawyers are trained at American universities. And yet, most universities would not continence a neo-Nazi demonstration. Hypocrisy? No. Mutual respect, civility, is part of what universities teach. Universities rightly defend their community members' dignity. Charlie Hebdo would be shut down on campuses. That is not inconsistent with defending the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish, or of its publishers to live.
But when you're one who confuses money and speech, and corporations and people, you probably cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and privilege of venue, either.
2
This is an untimely column. I argue that at this time we should put aside our differences with the French and support unconditionally the uproar that the murders in Paris have generated. It is untimely to discuss the merits of American exceptionalism arguing that “it would not happen here, because we know better”, in fact we do not know better. This column comes from a pulpit of elitism and condescence, and should not have been published.
2
I did not put "Je Suis Charlie" on my Facebook page yesterday because I am ok with ridiculing Muslims. I am not. I put the image there because I believe in the right of others to ridicule Muslims -- and their right to ridicule Buddhism, for that matter. And I am a Buddhist.
1
What an eloquent article.
I agree. Free speech means you don't get arrested for saying things. It does NOT mean that words are harmless and do not hurt people.
I agree. Free speech means you don't get arrested for saying things. It does NOT mean that words are harmless and do not hurt people.
Fair and balanced comments by Mr. Brooks. The Charlie Hebdo was introduced in 1970 after another publication, Hara-Kiri, was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.
I don't think "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" means "I draw provocative satirical cartoons", as Mr. Brooks essentially says. I think it means, "What you do to Charlie H, you do to me", in other words, I stand with them. Me. Brooks has missed the point entirely.
2
David, Bully for you for not being Charlie Hebdo! Be proud of writing articles expressing beltway consensus and being paid handsomely for synthesizing other people's opinions. I am sure that you sleep very comfortably at night knowing that you take the safe, serious "adult" approach. What a brave man you are!
2
You certainly are not.
4
This column is off base. Comparing an independent French magazine to US Universities, aka profit centers, is absurd. It is equally insulting to compare Charlie Hebdo to the fame grabbing hack Coulter. You are judging the paper with no understanding of what was behind the paper’s founding and their ongoing efforts. Charlie Hebdo is more like South Park, a form of legitimate U. S. weekly satire that has had its own brushes with controversy. It is also not reasonable to apply US sensitivities to a French paper. There are many things in even Le Monde which would NEVER be published in the US.
The world needs a free press which forces the public to call into question especially authorities which are assumed and not granted. All power corrupts. What we're facing is that difficult edge where the power of free speech itself corrupts. Je suis Charlie doesn't mean that you can ignore the ethics involved in publishing. Just because you can publish doesn't mean you should. Je suis Charlie for me shows that I want to live in a world where I am exposed to everything, even things that offend, and judge them for myself. The debate itself is healthy and builds a more informed public. It’s not just about authority, but making sure the public is seeing a truer version of what is really going on in the world. That is exactly what the paper exposed this week at a tragic cost.
Your column makes it clear that you don’t really understand Charlie Hebdo at all. I concur, you are not Charlie.
The world needs a free press which forces the public to call into question especially authorities which are assumed and not granted. All power corrupts. What we're facing is that difficult edge where the power of free speech itself corrupts. Je suis Charlie doesn't mean that you can ignore the ethics involved in publishing. Just because you can publish doesn't mean you should. Je suis Charlie for me shows that I want to live in a world where I am exposed to everything, even things that offend, and judge them for myself. The debate itself is healthy and builds a more informed public. It’s not just about authority, but making sure the public is seeing a truer version of what is really going on in the world. That is exactly what the paper exposed this week at a tragic cost.
Your column makes it clear that you don’t really understand Charlie Hebdo at all. I concur, you are not Charlie.
3
Brooks is right. It is almost never a good idea to suppress speech, and speech codes can never be written well enough to get rid of only bad speech. But I think he is incorrect when he posits that people listen with great respect to credentialed, serious scholars. We need look no further than the denial of climate change, which scholars KNOW is damaging the planet, the insistence on teaching creationism alongside evolution, the belief that fouridating water supplies was a communist plot aimed at giving us all cancer. The list is depressingly long and reaches back to the dawn of time.
1
While there are points in this article that maybe true, now is not the time. Thoughts and prayers ought to be focused on those in France who have lost loved ones and those, who at this hour, whose lives are in danger.
1
Can we infer then that freedom of speech led to a war? While Russia has meticulously guarded its media space from uncontrolled outside intervension and kept it under the Kremlin's strict message and discourse control, Ukraine never banned, blocked or even refuted all the anti-Ukrainian and pro-Kremlin propaganda that Russia was spreading in Ukraine for years through its easily accessible media, speakers, envoys and, in the end, terrorists. While Ukraine has enjoyed relative freedom of speech, it now has a war to fight.
The PC police are often overbearing and annoying but shooting people to death, all around the world, issuing "fatwas" against authors- these are not in the same league as campus politics. It isn't a case of can't we all just get along- being legally tolerant toward offensive voices is not a workable approach when those "voices" come in the form of bullets.
1
The basic fact the Mr. Brooks is blind to is that if you don't like a cartoon, it does NOT give you the right to kill the cartoonist or the folks in the office or what happened in the past, riot, destroy property etc. The American students who posted offensive to some cartoons ,were Not gunned down by the college authorities. In our country we, via the constitution, have freedom of speech. The most outrageous words have been spoken or printed against any and all topics or individuals. Our constitution does not allow murderous retorts That is the issue in France..
2
I remember South Park backing off, self-censoring itself, and not showing the prophet Muhammad is a supposedly controversial episode.
(season 10, "Cartoon Wars Part I" and "Cartoon Wars Part II")
Clearly South Park could say: "I Am Not Charlie Hebdo".
(season 10, "Cartoon Wars Part I" and "Cartoon Wars Part II")
Clearly South Park could say: "I Am Not Charlie Hebdo".
1
Thank you for this thoughtful post. America has taken political correctness to the extreme, imposing a cultural censorship that makes even liberal communities intolerant.
I am proud to be French, and I am Charlie.
I am proud to be French, and I am Charlie.
23
Really bad timing for this column, I must say. While there are some important points, I cannot bear to read this kind of analysis so soon after the massacre. Sorry.
1
Bill Maher with Ann Coulter?? That's a total false equvilancy if I ever heard one. Maher will occasionally make vicious points, but they are usually well thought out and he's open to understanding an opposing viewpoint. Coulter is simply Palin on steroids. A grifter who will lambase anyone with a sound opposing view.
4
The discussion of the events in Paris and overwhelmingly in support of Charlie Hebdo and the right of free speech. Angry talking heads on TV espousing the unquestionable support of free speech and the astonishment at the horror of the retaliation of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. However, one would ask; how Americans would react to a satire of Jesus assisting with an abortion in the same paper? Have these "free speech" trumpeters forgotten the bombings and shootings of doctors in our abortion clinics? Have they forgotten their very own manipulation of day to day news solely to keep their jobs within corporate media?
Certainly we deplore the attacks in Paris, but let us also honestly include in those discussions the reasons for such attacks. Free speech, to be respected, must extend to all with the same enthusiasm and support. For the talking heads and writers in the corporate media who practice selective free speech, pointing out the grievance is as important as supporting the freedom to say what one wishes. Once again, if these satirists replaced their attention to Mohammed and Islam to Jesus and Christianity, I would be surprised if attacks from the right would not occur?
Certainly we deplore the attacks in Paris, but let us also honestly include in those discussions the reasons for such attacks. Free speech, to be respected, must extend to all with the same enthusiasm and support. For the talking heads and writers in the corporate media who practice selective free speech, pointing out the grievance is as important as supporting the freedom to say what one wishes. Once again, if these satirists replaced their attention to Mohammed and Islam to Jesus and Christianity, I would be surprised if attacks from the right would not occur?
Je suis, "I am", is the phrasing of identity, connection, non-separation. The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian God self-identified as "I Am."
As difficult as many of us find it, it is likely true that poet Thich Nhat Hanh's "Please Call Me By My True Names" poem is our fate, and that he would suggest: We are those who were slain; We are those who murdered them; We are those engaged in their capture.
It sometimes seems we delight in separative, divisive, uncompassionate exclusion. Which is why, I suspect, we choose political stance over spiritual surrender.
As difficult as many of us find it, it is likely true that poet Thich Nhat Hanh's "Please Call Me By My True Names" poem is our fate, and that he would suggest: We are those who were slain; We are those who murdered them; We are those engaged in their capture.
It sometimes seems we delight in separative, divisive, uncompassionate exclusion. Which is why, I suspect, we choose political stance over spiritual surrender.
1
This is a great column, Mr. Brooks. Bravo!
1
David, as is so often the case, you miss too much of the point.
Yes, yes, yes, satirist are different from unifiers and deep thinkers and political leaders. Great. We all agree.
But your comment on "speech codes" is just silly. Free speech is like free enterprise. You take your product or speech out to the marketplace. If you are selling sausage that is "safe" but it makes a small group of folks feel terribly sick when they taste it, or even smell it being cooked, it is likely that the public will demand that it be removed from all but a very small area where those who love that sausage can go and consume it.
The same is true with speech. In the 1920s and again in the late-40s and 50s, the KKK's brand of racism was very popular. Now it makes a lot of folks sick. The NRA's day is likely to wane soon. When I was a kid, no one talked about gay marriage, but rock songs about drugs were very popular, and rape fantasy scenes in movies were acceptable (see Gone with the Wind and Goldfinger for two very popular examples).
The marketplace for speech has changed. Good. It will always evolve...as long as it is a marketplace and there are no firing squads.
Charlie Hebdo's brand of humor would have faded on its own or evolved, in the marketplace of satire. But we have to let the market decide on speech. Not hackers or extortionists or terrorists.
And, yeah, I am Charlie Hebdo.
Yes, yes, yes, satirist are different from unifiers and deep thinkers and political leaders. Great. We all agree.
But your comment on "speech codes" is just silly. Free speech is like free enterprise. You take your product or speech out to the marketplace. If you are selling sausage that is "safe" but it makes a small group of folks feel terribly sick when they taste it, or even smell it being cooked, it is likely that the public will demand that it be removed from all but a very small area where those who love that sausage can go and consume it.
The same is true with speech. In the 1920s and again in the late-40s and 50s, the KKK's brand of racism was very popular. Now it makes a lot of folks sick. The NRA's day is likely to wane soon. When I was a kid, no one talked about gay marriage, but rock songs about drugs were very popular, and rape fantasy scenes in movies were acceptable (see Gone with the Wind and Goldfinger for two very popular examples).
The marketplace for speech has changed. Good. It will always evolve...as long as it is a marketplace and there are no firing squads.
Charlie Hebdo's brand of humor would have faded on its own or evolved, in the marketplace of satire. But we have to let the market decide on speech. Not hackers or extortionists or terrorists.
And, yeah, I am Charlie Hebdo.
1
In this latest demonstration of solipsistic psychopathy Mr Brooks uses the murder of twelve as pretext to resume his quibble over semantic niceties.
Twelve souls were slaughtered, Davey, does that not register in your own?!
Twelve souls were slaughtered, Davey, does that not register in your own?!
3
One of the more thoughtful pieces by Brooks, and it has a lot of truth in it. Unfortunately, as other readers have pointed out, our "adults" are frequently the fundamentalists that brook no compromise, and see issues like climate control as "anti-religious." Censorship in any case is always bad, and indicative of the kind of neurotic fear that grips all sorts of fundamentalists.
To give Ann Coulter and Bill Maher equal status is akin to the classic sample headline exemplifying "balanced" journalism: "Scientists say Earth is round; others disagree"
4
This column actually sounds somewhat smart. Welcome to the Adult's Table, Mr Brooks!
Since it's always better to know something about what's being discussed, I have looked at scores of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. In general they have a child-like air of innocence. I didn't see one that showed a hateful bias against any group. What they uniformly portray is a total lack of self-awareness by their subjects. The militant Islamist outrage over these harmless caricatures shows that these Islamists cant accept any portrayals of themselves or their fundamentalist views that is not 100% uncritical and worshipful. Pitiful and dangerous.
2
Mapplethorpe's religiously offensive photos saw only verbal reactions from targeted sectors. There were no mass murders by people with religiosity. Likewise, there were no murders committed by artists who, given Mapplethorpe's puerile and banal depictions, had more reason to feel offended. Art, speech and music among other human creations sets us free. Religiosity binds us and compels its fringe elements to violence. When there are none of these we see the abyss. Je ne suis pas Mapplethorpe et al.
1
Now that a Kosher Market has been assaulted and hostages killed and others taken to be killed by these vile excuses for a person....well I sort of wonder if David Brooks would have used this as an opportunity to bring up the tired PC debate.
2
This disjointed opinion piece should be rewritten and re-titled.
2
Bravo!
Exactly right. The proper response to offensive or wrong speech is more speech.
Exactly right. The proper response to offensive or wrong speech is more speech.
1
This is a characteristic David Brooks column--a mixture of good points, sophistry and hypocrisy which is hardly worth the bother of trying to disentangle. But I'll make a couple of points.
First, on campus PC, Brooks mentions Hirsi Ali, but not Professor Salaita--it seems to me that if one wishes to bring up campus speech codes then both are relevant. But Salaita was fired for being offensive about Israeli war crimes, while Hirsi Ali was disinvited for making sweeping statements about Islam. Evidently Brooks is bothered more by some forms of PC thinking than by others.
Second, as others have pointed out, whatever one thinks of Hirsi Ali or Salaita or campus newspapers, nobody is being killed for what they say, so the comparison to Charlie Hebdo seems out of place.
But I wholeheartedly agree with lumping Bill Maher and Ann Coulter together. Except that I don't think that either of them is worth listening to.
First, on campus PC, Brooks mentions Hirsi Ali, but not Professor Salaita--it seems to me that if one wishes to bring up campus speech codes then both are relevant. But Salaita was fired for being offensive about Israeli war crimes, while Hirsi Ali was disinvited for making sweeping statements about Islam. Evidently Brooks is bothered more by some forms of PC thinking than by others.
Second, as others have pointed out, whatever one thinks of Hirsi Ali or Salaita or campus newspapers, nobody is being killed for what they say, so the comparison to Charlie Hebdo seems out of place.
But I wholeheartedly agree with lumping Bill Maher and Ann Coulter together. Except that I don't think that either of them is worth listening to.
Not a great generalization, but Mr. Brooks article panders to the point that liberals fright for freedoms and conservatives fright for oil, money, power, and control over others. The rest, to them, is surplus.
1
The only issue I have with David's article is the implication that Ann Coulter has ever said anything of value to anyone, though, of course, she has every right to say whatever she wants.
4
Putting Ann Coulter and Bill Maher on the same plain at "the kids' table" for saying necessary things that no one else is saying underscores your complete lack of relevancy as a commentator.
3
Really now David. "I am Charlie" is not a statement that we endorse their views, it is a statement that we endorse their right to HAVE views. It is not as though they seek out groups or individuals or movements to satirize - these things get right in your face. Sure it would be great to just sit down and have adult conversations, but that presumes adult perspectives and wisdom, and those are in short supply. Besides which, the point is not their tact or lack of it, and if they get fired or put out of business so be it. That is not what we are dealing with at the moment - not remotely, and please stop trying to equate losing a job with losing a life. "I am Charlie" means I respect their right to use satire, I admire their fearlessness, and I stand with them against threats (REAL threats, not just angry tweets and social pressure) to free thought, speech and the right to satirize, regardless of whether I am a subscriber to their methods or publication. Hopefully you stand for that too. Try and understand that several lines have been crossed here and that you disrespect the issue at hand by repainting it as a question of "the adults' table and the kids' table". I fail to see how this act should remind us to focus on tolerance toward offensive voices. This act should motivate us to understand and address head on the intolerance, rejection of facts and total lack of respect for life practiced by violent extremists.
23
Why am I not surprised that David Brooks claims that 'Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo'? He clearly lacks empathy that differentiates humans from the rest of the creatures that inhabit the earth.
Empathy was clearly the reason that so many people, not only in France but globally, proclaimed their support for Charlie Hebdo through the simple statement that they too, were Charlie.
It makes me wonder how Brooks would have categorized Ben Franklin - America's original satirist - had they been contemporaries. He probably would have seen him as a revolutionary apostate deserving of death, as Brooks would have no doubt been a British loyalist.
Empathy was clearly the reason that so many people, not only in France but globally, proclaimed their support for Charlie Hebdo through the simple statement that they too, were Charlie.
It makes me wonder how Brooks would have categorized Ben Franklin - America's original satirist - had they been contemporaries. He probably would have seen him as a revolutionary apostate deserving of death, as Brooks would have no doubt been a British loyalist.
3
I think your views on satirists' roles in American society today are woefully dated, Mr. Brooks. Take a look at today's trends--hell, just take a look at what's being shared on your Facebook.
My generation flocks to hear Jon Stewart's take on the day's news before it does anyone else's. And the more serious that news, the better: look no further than his cold open to "The Daily Show" yesterday, responding to the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo, which was shared numerous times on my Facebook News Feed--compared to the zero other such videos shared from our supposed "trusted names in news," like Brian Williams, or even Wolf Blitzer.
My generation looks to Stewart the way that my parents' and grandparents' generation looked to Walter Cronkite. And there's the flaw in your argument, Mr. Brooks: we no longer look at satirists in this country with "bemused semirespect." Satire, in the American 21st Century, is becoming the highest form of truth--free from the lowest-common-denominator, back-and-forth, must-please-everyone hemming and hawing that has made meaningless drivel out of most other news and opinion sources, such as your column.
My generation flocks to hear Jon Stewart's take on the day's news before it does anyone else's. And the more serious that news, the better: look no further than his cold open to "The Daily Show" yesterday, responding to the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo, which was shared numerous times on my Facebook News Feed--compared to the zero other such videos shared from our supposed "trusted names in news," like Brian Williams, or even Wolf Blitzer.
My generation looks to Stewart the way that my parents' and grandparents' generation looked to Walter Cronkite. And there's the flaw in your argument, Mr. Brooks: we no longer look at satirists in this country with "bemused semirespect." Satire, in the American 21st Century, is becoming the highest form of truth--free from the lowest-common-denominator, back-and-forth, must-please-everyone hemming and hawing that has made meaningless drivel out of most other news and opinion sources, such as your column.
1
Try to get the whole picture - what´s happening is about lawlessness(taking the law into your own hands).This time the offenders are called islamists,other times their names were Bush and Putin.We live in a time of sensless violence created by ourselves(men of power and money)Killing people does not solve problems but give us more problems.
Brooks is dishonest. Vanderbilt got rid of the Christian group because it insisted on the right to discriminate in its membership, not because it "wanted to be led by Christians." His credibility is destroyed when he has to twist the facts to try to make his point.
4
So you're equating petty academic arguments about tweets and campus groups with slaughter and mass murder? You're making a cheap political point and it's degrading to those who lost their lives.
2
The University of Chicago has gone far recently in putting out a free speech policy that actually means what it says:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/01/08/free-speech-campus-please-...
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/01/08/free-speech-campus-please-...
Let's see if I can follow the logic in this essay. Is the author actually saying that satirists--a list which would include such names as Aristophanes, Swift and Voltaire--should be seated at the kids' table, while someone like George Bush sits at the adults' table? I find the notion prompts me to regurgitate.
5
Darwin could explain what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Their editor, who is reported to have made the boast about preferring dying on his feet to living on his knees, taunted very evil guys until they came and killed him and others. While taunting jihadists might sound like a brave and bold thing to do and might score one the approval of one's like-minded friends at intellectuals' cocktail parties, it's really not such a smart thing to do unless you've got a couple dozen Navy SEALs lying in wait full-time as part of a trap you're setting to flush out the evil ones.
So he died on his feet, and is celebrated/mourned now by his friends and the greater media. But if you ask his loved ones whether they'd rather have dad/son/brother alive than celebrated, they'd take alive every time.
So he died on his feet, and is celebrated/mourned now by his friends and the greater media. But if you ask his loved ones whether they'd rather have dad/son/brother alive than celebrated, they'd take alive every time.
This argument has a history dating back around 2,500 years that I know of, with Aristotle arguing on behalf of theatre in 'Poetics' to Sir Philip Sidney's wonderful 'Defense of Poesy' of the 1570's. There are always people who hate and want to control culture, and they are right to do so because it is dangerous. Spenser is dangerous, so is Chaucer. Pope is an absolute horror, and Shakespeare is even worse. Any fearful person is going to want to regulate this stuff because people might laugh and come to their own conclusions. I challenge anyone to read Chaucer and not split their sides. It should certainly all be banned, or in modern parlance, come with a 'trigger warning.'
2
Well, the title you chose is also a provocation.
Mais bon. But where is this going to end according to your logic?
Will it be a provocation if I eat a ham pizza in public?
If my sister wears a skirt? If I send my daughter to school?
This is the path to auto-censorship, de facto theocracy, and surrender.
Charlie Hebdo were extremely courageous and stood up for our values.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
Mais bon. But where is this going to end according to your logic?
Will it be a provocation if I eat a ham pizza in public?
If my sister wears a skirt? If I send my daughter to school?
This is the path to auto-censorship, de facto theocracy, and surrender.
Charlie Hebdo were extremely courageous and stood up for our values.
I am Charlie Hebdo.
6
"They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird."
Perhaps if religious garb included "perfectly creased pants" religions'd be less weird to Mr. Brooks.
Perhaps if religious garb included "perfectly creased pants" religions'd be less weird to Mr. Brooks.
1
Julian Assange est Charlie, aussi. But Julian has offended that bastion of free speech, the United States by publishing unflattering information that was kept secrect from voters and Congress. While the President rightly honors those who died in the cause of freedom, both at Charlie Hebdo and in our military, let us recall that our government bombed the offices of Al Jazeera in Bagdhad in 2002, repeatedly tortured people it snatched off the streets and that has one of the most militarized police forces on the planet. The murderers in Paris are only a crude and extreme example of what our own nation practices.
1
Mr. Brooks,
You mentioned that the University of Illinois fired a professor for teaching the Roman Catholic view of homosexuality. They also fired Richard Salathia for tweeting negative comments about Israel. They did that, because of pressure from a wealthy Jewish donor.
In the United States, many institutions act cravenly in face of the threat to withdraw funding.
You mentioned that the University of Illinois fired a professor for teaching the Roman Catholic view of homosexuality. They also fired Richard Salathia for tweeting negative comments about Israel. They did that, because of pressure from a wealthy Jewish donor.
In the United States, many institutions act cravenly in face of the threat to withdraw funding.
5
This column is obscene. How in the world does the author manage to both criticize these martyrs for the cause of free speech and at the same time worry about people who want to insult others on college campuses without anyconsequences.
5
Since reading about the massacre of cartoonists in Paris I have been trying to reconcile the cartoons in Charlie with the cartoons in Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer. I am neither Charlie nor Streicher but I guess if it is OK for one to publish, it was OK for the other too. What I do know is that I approve heartily of freedom of the press and also free market economics and I wouldn't purchase either publication.
What a wonderfully written piece. Thank you for this Mr. Brooks. Thank you for being brave enough to speak up about the hypocrisy in our own system. Thank you for not penning yet another a politically correct knee-jerk piece.
Mr. Brooks: Ms. Ali is confusing the difference between texts and their interpretation. Fundamentalisms are crude interpretations of texts, very crude, produced by people often locked in despair or brutalized. But more humane interpretations, driven by deeper less literalistic self-understandings, arise from religious communities.
But Islamic terrorists are fundamentally acting out of deep conviction of their crude literalistic reading of the Quran -just as crude American Christian "pastors" want to eradicate homosexuals.
Now, even if the levels of understanding of leadership in the Islamic communities were to weigh toward more conservative interpretations, we have to (1) realize they are entering the West where culture has evolved hundreds of years ahead of the Islam on human liberties, and they need our support to help them catch up, and (2) that it does no good to vilify the whole Islamic religion as Ms. Ali does. These are perilous times and false prophets are shown by the fruits of their work -producing fear, alienation, and victimizing a people in a difficult cultural transition. The situation calls upon us the look more carefully into the problems we face. Texts do not interpret themselves, people and communities in historical context do.
But Islamic terrorists are fundamentally acting out of deep conviction of their crude literalistic reading of the Quran -just as crude American Christian "pastors" want to eradicate homosexuals.
Now, even if the levels of understanding of leadership in the Islamic communities were to weigh toward more conservative interpretations, we have to (1) realize they are entering the West where culture has evolved hundreds of years ahead of the Islam on human liberties, and they need our support to help them catch up, and (2) that it does no good to vilify the whole Islamic religion as Ms. Ali does. These are perilous times and false prophets are shown by the fruits of their work -producing fear, alienation, and victimizing a people in a difficult cultural transition. The situation calls upon us the look more carefully into the problems we face. Texts do not interpret themselves, people and communities in historical context do.
It seems that David Brooks missed class the day his English professor discussed the merits and definition of Satire.
Is it also possible that he missed class the day they defined the meaning and merits of courage.
Is it also possible that he missed class the day they defined the meaning and merits of courage.
2
I think we may be forgetting the role of context in this discussion. There are various types of humor and satire that are appropriate in various settings. Jokes told in a garage full of guys drinking beer are held to a different standard from jokes told at a Press Club luncheon or in a speech at a high school graduation or in the Op-Ed pages of the Times. There is a difference between a little ribbing and out and out ridicule. The level of vulgarity and blasphemy must be tuned to the audience.
How many Christians would find Charlie Hebdo's cartoons funny or on-point if you replaced Mohammed with Jesus?
How many Christians would find Charlie Hebdo's cartoons funny or on-point if you replaced Mohammed with Jesus?
Not for the first time, it is difficult to understand what point Brooks is trying to make, except to let us all know that he is too grown up and superior to relate to mere satirists and cartoonists.
I agree that college campuses should be a place to challenge oneself with different ideas and perspectives, but while some may object when Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to speak on campus, *nobody guns her down*.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo, David.
I agree that college campuses should be a place to challenge oneself with different ideas and perspectives, but while some may object when Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to speak on campus, *nobody guns her down*.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo, David.
3
Comparing apples to oranges to make a point is dishonest and beneath the standards of the NYTimes. What does the distribution of a public newspaper in France have to do with the publication of newspapers by US colleges? Compare Charles Hebdo to Mother Jones or The Rolling Stone, if you want to be accurate. What happen to the free market acting as censor? As long as there's a readership base for Charles Hebdo, its existence and editorial creed is justified. But thank you, Mr. Brooks, for offering your sense of humor and politeness as the standard that everyone else should follow. Should I check in with you after I read a satirical piece to see If I should laugh or be appalled? How dare you write such a dishonest, disrespectful column as the fate of hostages are still in the balance. It's a good thing for your employment status that my sensibilities about honest and thoughtful journalism are exactly that -- mine -- and not imposed on other readers of the NY Times.
3
I think the phrase you're looking for, Mr. Brooks, is "J'accuse!"
At least Emile Zola aimed it at the right target.
At least Emile Zola aimed it at the right target.
I didn't think I was going to like what he had to say, but that was the best column by David Brooks that I can remember.
Its funny that as you move toward either end of the political spectrum, tolerance for suppression of opinion grows.
Its funny that as you move toward either end of the political spectrum, tolerance for suppression of opinion grows.
1
This Op-Ed is childish. As other commenters have noted, it's rife with false equivalencies. I'm just going to pick one:
"If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers."
This is one of many quiet jabs at so-called liberal educational institutions. But, let us not for a minute suggest that disinviting a commencement speaker -- and one who is not just a commentator, but an actual political actor -- and *government enacted censorship.* It's one thing to suggest that certain public spaces should be open to all who care to use them. It's another thing to say that it's morally required that I invite such people to my dinner parties.
If you're going to make an argument Brooks, at least make a decent one.
"If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers."
This is one of many quiet jabs at so-called liberal educational institutions. But, let us not for a minute suggest that disinviting a commencement speaker -- and one who is not just a commentator, but an actual political actor -- and *government enacted censorship.* It's one thing to suggest that certain public spaces should be open to all who care to use them. It's another thing to say that it's morally required that I invite such people to my dinner parties.
If you're going to make an argument Brooks, at least make a decent one.
4
To paraphrase your writing "Healthy societies don't suppress speech but a college may do so in the name of political correctness." I would add that the censorship of Internet by China is also tolerated as Google and Yahoo restrict access to meet the standards of the Chinese Communist Party and here in the United States a ranting preacher who threatened to burn the Koran was also summarily suppressed. Don't forget how South Park was crudely censored and of course, as another commenter noted, the NYT is also afraid to publish criticism of Islam or publish satirical cartoons of the profit Muhammed. Yes, you are correct. You are not Charlie Hebdo. Nor is anyone else that I just remarked upon. We've become fearful of free speech. Limiting free speech is not to be equated with respect or the right to be disrespectful. We can respectfully or disrespectfullly lampoon, parody, and draw caricatures and we should do so without fear of being politically insensitive or incorrect. Freedom of expression is no longer being preserved or protected in the United States. That encourages the violence of the Islamic radicals who can threaten us with impunity. No, you're not Charlie Hebdo. That takes moral courage.
1
Puerile? Really? Intelligent satire is not childish, no matter how offensive to some group of people, regardless of taboo or the size of the group. I hope you aren't suggesting that these people, who I see as heroic, were acting like 13 year olds in their shocking the complacent. Of course you have a right to express this opinion, but I would have expected more from a New York Times columnist. I agree that America effectively censors freedom of expression of thoughts and ideas far too often. We "demand apologies" when we're offended, which actually is puerile. If some idiot wants to express ignorance, it's their right to do so. That way, we all know who to avoid. But I disagree with your opinion of the situation with Ken Howell. He is obviously free to express his point of view, but he shouldn't be allowed to teach such ignorance and intolerance; not in a public university. I long for the day when all religions are seen for what they are: divisive, intolerant, and fictitious. Should this professor also be made to teach the FSM point of view (Flying Spaghetti Monster)? It is almost as credible as Christianity. I like you David, but I sometimes find your opinions démodé.
1
David Brooks is more than welcome to take his place at what he deems "the adults' table", taking for his dinner partners those considered "wise and considerate scholars" whom he, at least, listens to with "high respect." What a bore!
Moi? If I cannot properly claim sufficient wit to say "Je suis Charlie Hebdo", still I would much prefer to be seated at "the kids' table" with the great satirists of then and now -- Aristophanes, Juvenal, Plato, Swift, Chaucer, Voltaire, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Lenny Bruce, Tom Lehrer, Bill Maher, Tina Fey, Jon Stewart and yes, Howard Stern. The jesters and the holy fools are the change makers of the world, precisely because they are not deemed "respectable" by people like David Brooks.
If there is a Brooks seated at my table, please let it be Mel.
Moi? If I cannot properly claim sufficient wit to say "Je suis Charlie Hebdo", still I would much prefer to be seated at "the kids' table" with the great satirists of then and now -- Aristophanes, Juvenal, Plato, Swift, Chaucer, Voltaire, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Lenny Bruce, Tom Lehrer, Bill Maher, Tina Fey, Jon Stewart and yes, Howard Stern. The jesters and the holy fools are the change makers of the world, precisely because they are not deemed "respectable" by people like David Brooks.
If there is a Brooks seated at my table, please let it be Mel.
51
David, ich bitte Sie. You have merely described the pre-attack atmosphere in France and then criticized the French in the immediate aftermath of the attack for publicly affirming solidarity with their targeted people and ideas. Plenty of not terribly pro-American folks were American on 9/12.
2
False equivalencies of the worst kind. Colleges in the West have curriculum committees to avoid personal biases by profs, and when profs violate objectivity, they get told to shape up or out, not machine gunned.
When goofy satires don't appear in newspapers and magazines, it is because bosses fear showing the articles might cost them, Social gain, no, social cowardice, yes. But we still get them -- MAD, Onion -- Colbert, Stewart, and Oliver, and these are brilliant shows, not "Jesters".
And if we want to see "adult" and serious racist talk, why, tv, radio, internet, and Cong. Record archives of Sen. Bilbo supply them. "Socially discriminating" for the health of society -- trading off for cash that sometimes goes dead-wrong
So please when the media pass up a controversial voice, don't call that "socially discriminating" as though it's good news. Call it "capitalism triumphing over social responsibility".
Once, the NYTimes published "The Pentagon Papers". There were giants in those days, and great cartoonists still appear in "respectable" material at "the adults' table". The sponsors "grant" respectability ? No, they and their media merely censor for sales. Corporations do not give a darn about society, just about financial reward, and , like prostitutes, not for love.
That is nothing to be proud of. Deciding what academic material a course has is not that kind of censorship. Voting on content of a course is not the same as shilling for a sponsor.
When goofy satires don't appear in newspapers and magazines, it is because bosses fear showing the articles might cost them, Social gain, no, social cowardice, yes. But we still get them -- MAD, Onion -- Colbert, Stewart, and Oliver, and these are brilliant shows, not "Jesters".
And if we want to see "adult" and serious racist talk, why, tv, radio, internet, and Cong. Record archives of Sen. Bilbo supply them. "Socially discriminating" for the health of society -- trading off for cash that sometimes goes dead-wrong
So please when the media pass up a controversial voice, don't call that "socially discriminating" as though it's good news. Call it "capitalism triumphing over social responsibility".
Once, the NYTimes published "The Pentagon Papers". There were giants in those days, and great cartoonists still appear in "respectable" material at "the adults' table". The sponsors "grant" respectability ? No, they and their media merely censor for sales. Corporations do not give a darn about society, just about financial reward, and , like prostitutes, not for love.
That is nothing to be proud of. Deciding what academic material a course has is not that kind of censorship. Voting on content of a course is not the same as shilling for a sponsor.
1
Do you really not get that the protest about Charlie Hebdo was about violence and murder in response to freedom of speech, and nothing else, Mr. Brooks?
That it had nothing to do with mere protest about speech?
That many of the people who were protesting about the Charlie Hebdo massacre may themselves in fact have not liked, or would not have read, or were offended by, Charlie Hebdo?
That it had nothing to do with mere protest about speech?
That many of the people who were protesting about the Charlie Hebdo massacre may themselves in fact have not liked, or would not have read, or were offended by, Charlie Hebdo?
4
John Stewart? Colbert? The Onion? South Park for God's sake? Have you watched South Park for the past 15 years?
Never mind Celebrity Roasts, televised stand up, crass movies and specialized blogs.
American satire is alive and well, with huge audiences and levels of acidity that make the CH cartoons look tame in comparison.
They've become the astringent that keeps American debate tasting fresh, and the reason why they're winning popularity wars vs. self important, stale, "respectful" voices that are slowly rotting while sitting at the "adults table".
I long for the day that runaway and unbridled freedom of speech is more sacred than religion, censorship is not tolerated specially if enforced at the point of a gun, a cyberattack or a pink slip.. and we all become Charlie Hebdo.
That's the world I want my children to grow up in.
Never mind Celebrity Roasts, televised stand up, crass movies and specialized blogs.
American satire is alive and well, with huge audiences and levels of acidity that make the CH cartoons look tame in comparison.
They've become the astringent that keeps American debate tasting fresh, and the reason why they're winning popularity wars vs. self important, stale, "respectful" voices that are slowly rotting while sitting at the "adults table".
I long for the day that runaway and unbridled freedom of speech is more sacred than religion, censorship is not tolerated specially if enforced at the point of a gun, a cyberattack or a pink slip.. and we all become Charlie Hebdo.
That's the world I want my children to grow up in.
3
This time, David Brooks totally misses the point. It is one thing to ban, within a democratic framework, an expression of certain ideas. It is a totally different matter to kill -- pure and simple -- those you disagree with. The comparison between what happened in Paris and certain events at American campuses is intellectually dishonest and thus unacceptable -- pure and simple.
2
We are not Charlie because we are not being gunned down in cold blood for our views, right or wrong.
Yet.
Yet.
1
To express ideas that offend is the core of freedom of speech. It is the freedom to irritate and offend, which, apparently Mr. Brooks succeeded in doing. Yes, David, Vous et Charlie.
I'm not surprised Mr. Brooks is surprised by the content of Charlie Hebdo, which is a typically French part of the culture and found its origins in the late sixties (an irreverent time not just in France...) and right after the De Gaulle era. Charlie Hebdo and Hara Kiri ("le journal bête et méchant") -- mean and stupid, made no secret of going after everyone in a derisive, but most often extremely funny, manner. They crossed many lines many times and the French public knew how seriously they should take them, or not take them, which echoes the last paragraphs of Mr. Brooks' column. They've had a niche of their own for half a century. But I don't agree with the kids' table analogy, which is too dismissive (and it's wrong for the kids too). Sometimes kids speak the truth, most often truths that adults have decided not to hear any more, like the Emperor has no clothes. I think this is actually why Charlie Hebdo was so savagely attacked. If they'd had no impact they wouldn't have been targeted that way. Kids can be fearless too. Please, let's keep taking Charlie Hebdo seriously: behind their ill-mannered bad faith, irreverence, iconoclasm, there was something deeper running, having to do with the visceral rejection of hypocrisy. Religious intolerance has to be hypocritical, it cannot stand otherwise.
No one would ever compare David Brooks to Charlie Hebdo. In fact, they are polar opposites. The latter communicates with a sledgehammer. Mr. Brooks prefers stitching banal homilies in tasteful needlepoint. They both have the right to express their views, but I could get by without either of them.
1
Our country was founded on a number of very closely held and inalienable rights. The right to free speech is the first one in our explicit listing embodied in the Bill of Rights.
The very fundamental basis of a free, democratic society, though, is the freedom of choice for every individual. The only limitation is that I cannot exercise that freedom of choice if it inhibits the next person's freedom of choice.
No law in a free society should limit or abrogate absolute freedom of written, spoken, and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, drawn speech, for everyone and anyone has the equally absolute right to choose what they read, listen to or look at.
Mr. Brooks goes on about social manners, et al. He makes derogatory remarks about the form and content of the expression of others, including Charlie Hebdo. That is his right as he has freedom of speech.
I will now exercise mine and say he has a sophomoric view of the value of absolute freedom of speech. If 'social manners' are to be lauded in limiting freedom of speech, then many a scientific discovery, of which Mr. Brooks along with all of us is a beneficiary, would never have occurred at the pace it did. Many a 'social attitude' wouldn't have changed and we'd still be in the 'Dark Ages' where life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", if you remember your Hobbes.
The very fundamental basis of a free, democratic society, though, is the freedom of choice for every individual. The only limitation is that I cannot exercise that freedom of choice if it inhibits the next person's freedom of choice.
No law in a free society should limit or abrogate absolute freedom of written, spoken, and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, drawn speech, for everyone and anyone has the equally absolute right to choose what they read, listen to or look at.
Mr. Brooks goes on about social manners, et al. He makes derogatory remarks about the form and content of the expression of others, including Charlie Hebdo. That is his right as he has freedom of speech.
I will now exercise mine and say he has a sophomoric view of the value of absolute freedom of speech. If 'social manners' are to be lauded in limiting freedom of speech, then many a scientific discovery, of which Mr. Brooks along with all of us is a beneficiary, would never have occurred at the pace it did. Many a 'social attitude' wouldn't have changed and we'd still be in the 'Dark Ages' where life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", if you remember your Hobbes.
1
Freedom of speech is dead in this country. Just read some of the comments here that believe they should have the authority to censor speech they belief is "offensive".
1
Freedom of expression in American society is paramount. The despicable attempt to deny free speech in Paris reminds me of an occurrence late last year right here in Oklahoma City. Catholic Archbishop Paul Coakley did everything in his power to prevent an open to the public "black mass" by purported satanists from being conducted at our civic center. His intent was really no different from the murderous brothers and their ilk in Paris and everywhere intolerance resides. Coakley and those like him should be countered whenever their attempted dogmatic censorship occurs.
For most of us, laughter and ridicule is the only defense we have against these irredeemably ugly ideologies and practices. You can pontificate all you want about how it should be otherwise, but for the foreseeable future, taking the mickey is far preferable to giving them a pass.
2
Last time I looked, there were no commandments that said "Thou shalt not be too overtly satirical". However, there was one that said "Thou shalt not kill".
1
Well said. When you poke a hornet's nest, you might well expect to be stung. I'm not sure that courage was their motivation: I didn't know them personally. I do know that other cultures' humor is not based on satire, ridicule, sarcasm, and unflattering portraiture. It is always more courageous, (and possibly more effective), to engage the offenders on the establishment level you describe; because, if they are madmen, which these are, you might dissuade them with unambiguous respect (or not, bu that's why the UN has troops as well as diplomats). But surely if you provoke, this result cannot be unexpected; the pen may be mightier than the sword, but the latter is surely more deadly. I read elsewhere (and here, I stand to be corrected) that there are French legal restrictions on the dissemination of anti-Semitism, and also other religions, and that this is why the mainstream Muslim community in France was suing to gain an equal footing before the law.
Fascinating. David Brooks seems to have completely missed the point that the story surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre is about murder as a response to offensive material. It is not a story about censorship.
2
The massacre of the Charlie cartoonists certainly put that magazine at the adult's table when it comes to the fight for freedom of information and of the press. Because of the tragic place it now has in upholding the democratic views of freedom of expression, the next issue, when and if it comes out has become a Must Read. I never heard of the magazine before yesterday. The terrorists have now put its name on the front pages of the world. Sadly they did murder so many people. However they did not murder the magazine and their faith is not better for their crime.
2
"The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down." In the struggle to write something, David Brooks's approach is the height of false equivalency. Defunding a college newspaper or uninviting someone to speak at a university is not in the same universe as what these three fanatics did with their assault rifles.
I think what makes this challenging is that if are totally honest with ourselves we would see that the folks at Charlie Hebdo racists. I know, not nice given that they are becoming a symbol of free speech. But look at the drawings. We have a history of racist cartoons here and of course we would all probably defend David Duke or cartoonists who work on his behalf if his or their free speech was threatened by force. And some of us would proclaim "I am David Duke." And some wouldn't. A funny thing, taking a side in a fight between racists and terrorists.
All of us saying Je Suis Charlie are not saying that there shouldn't be reactions to offensive cartoons or views! React strongly, but never with bloodshed!
Boo on you Brooks. Once again you are clueless.
Boo on you Brooks. Once again you are clueless.
1
David,
What about The Onion, it got started in Madison, Wisconsin and is now a national phenomenon.
It's respect has even established a standard for mainstream journalism when articles are published in print or on television that we can't believe is not The Onion.
And, yet the Onion satirizes Religion, Race, Politics, American culture, and Gender and is loved on college campuses.
You have obviously not seen many memes on Tumblr or Reddit which are filled with ironic bits on the very issues that Charlie Hebdo editorialized about.
Lets not forget that many Onion writer went on to write for The Daily Show, which is an incredible source of the same parody of these issues.
So, I wouldn't start splitting hairs here. I think you are missing out on a lot that has gone on since you went to college.
What about The Onion, it got started in Madison, Wisconsin and is now a national phenomenon.
It's respect has even established a standard for mainstream journalism when articles are published in print or on television that we can't believe is not The Onion.
And, yet the Onion satirizes Religion, Race, Politics, American culture, and Gender and is loved on college campuses.
You have obviously not seen many memes on Tumblr or Reddit which are filled with ironic bits on the very issues that Charlie Hebdo editorialized about.
Lets not forget that many Onion writer went on to write for The Daily Show, which is an incredible source of the same parody of these issues.
So, I wouldn't start splitting hairs here. I think you are missing out on a lot that has gone on since you went to college.
1
This column teeters awfuilly close to an apologist's view of the massacre. Has far too much of an implication you get what you ask for.
3
The terrorist attack in Paris to Charlie Hebdo was above all an attack on freedom of expression. This article by David Brook points out to something we all have been feeling for some time in the USA, we have lost or we are losing our freedom of expression and political correctness is the main culprit. What do we need to do to recover free speech? That is the one million dollar question.
1
Today PC politics have made things so convoluted that the only ones who seem to be speaking the most truthfully are the satirists and humorists.
As for their being at the children's table, I have often found children refreshing in their blunt,unvarnished, and honest observations.
As for their being at the children's table, I have often found children refreshing in their blunt,unvarnished, and honest observations.
1
David, you equate political correctness censorship with murder. Don't you see the difference? French society is much rougher than ours in terms of criticism and directness. Most newspapers in the US (and certainly not heavily-censored TV) would not publish some of the offensive stuff in Charlie Hebdo. But we share a belief that civilized speech should not fear violence. So yes, I too am Charlie, even though I would not insult someone's religion in public (but that's beside the point). Because the idea of people being afraid to publish cartoons - I don't care *what* kind of cartoons - makes me sick and furious.
3
Mr. Brooks writes that we should be "legally tolerant" of offending voices. Perhaps he has misunderstood or overlooked the First Amendment, which does just that. But the First Amendment doesn't mean that anybody has the "right" to be invited to speak at, or be paid salary by a university funded by students' tuition and taxpayer money. So, whatever your views on speech codes, it is a bizarre interpretation of this event.
Mr. Brooks makes a distinction between which people and publications belong at society's "adult's table" and which belong at the "kids' table." I suspect that he envisions his own medium, The New York TImes, in one of the adult chairs, although his work has also appeared in The New Yorker Magazine, which includes endless amounts of cartoons, ranging from silly and pointless, to provocative and political. I'm not sure where he envisions that high-minded publication sitting at his Fantasy Thanksgiving, just as I'm not sure about how he could declare that, after age 13, "Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others," then goes on to declare that "most religions are kind of weird."
If Mr. Brooks set out to be provocative, he succeeded, but if he set out to make a well-reasoned point, he failed, and if he thought he was somehow cleaver or creative in his work, he was not. In that way, no, David Brooks, you are not Charlie Hebdo.
Thomas Hughes
Mr. Brooks makes a distinction between which people and publications belong at society's "adult's table" and which belong at the "kids' table." I suspect that he envisions his own medium, The New York TImes, in one of the adult chairs, although his work has also appeared in The New Yorker Magazine, which includes endless amounts of cartoons, ranging from silly and pointless, to provocative and political. I'm not sure where he envisions that high-minded publication sitting at his Fantasy Thanksgiving, just as I'm not sure about how he could declare that, after age 13, "Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others," then goes on to declare that "most religions are kind of weird."
If Mr. Brooks set out to be provocative, he succeeded, but if he set out to make a well-reasoned point, he failed, and if he thought he was somehow cleaver or creative in his work, he was not. In that way, no, David Brooks, you are not Charlie Hebdo.
Thomas Hughes
2
Brooks is comparing criticizing someone's beliefs with killing someone for his/her beliefs. It's a bogus comparison, obviously.
4
In tragic situations, Polonius does not work well as a comic figure.
But to slaughter for a drawing or comment is beyond belief.
1
"Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect."
Charlie Chaplin and "The Great Dictator" sure seem to have withstood the test of time. So have Mark Twain and, more recently, Stephen Colbert.
Charlie Chaplin and "The Great Dictator" sure seem to have withstood the test of time. So have Mark Twain and, more recently, Stephen Colbert.
2
There are adult grounds for ridiculing radical Islam. It is repressive, seditious and murderous. It enters other people's cultures, then insists on its own rule of law. Ridicule is the very least we should be doing.
A note to my Muslim friends, who are cherished: my point relates to radical Islam.
A note to my Muslim friends, who are cherished: my point relates to radical Islam.
1
I'm often struck by how many NYT commenters come up with knee-jerk reactions to David Brooks implying that he is just another benighted right-wing apologist, while completely missing the nuances, and often the entire meaning, of what he is trying to say. This column is supportive of Charlie Hebdo and similar outrageous and irreverent voices, while recognizing that they are not mainstream, and furthermore, that even as we pound the table about free speech, we in America can be hypocritical, such as when we disinvite speakers to campuses because they are politically uncomfortable. Read it again, people, it's a very good column.
17
But that begs the point!
people died yesterday because of radical religious intolerance. This article is some sort of nuanced categorization of speech categories. Brooks used his platform to describe the obvious...that satire is not the same as scholarly work. And that satirists must be tolerated? That they don't deserve to die? My oh my, what a low bar in the face of tragedy.
And on final word, it is just a veiled critique of liberal behaviors to say there is a group that belongs at the kids table. It's silly. I may not have the guts to be Charlie Hebdo, in the Brooksian logic, but those who do can sit at the adults table with me.
people died yesterday because of radical religious intolerance. This article is some sort of nuanced categorization of speech categories. Brooks used his platform to describe the obvious...that satire is not the same as scholarly work. And that satirists must be tolerated? That they don't deserve to die? My oh my, what a low bar in the face of tragedy.
And on final word, it is just a veiled critique of liberal behaviors to say there is a group that belongs at the kids table. It's silly. I may not have the guts to be Charlie Hebdo, in the Brooksian logic, but those who do can sit at the adults table with me.
2
"... it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating."
Sorry, but no.
The road to hate crimes is paved with hate speech. Should racist groups spouting ethnic slurs be given legal quarter? Should the "Elders of Zion" be published in mainstream (or any) media? Should the KKK be allowed to recruit in public schools? Voices of hate, unleashed and unbridled, give permission and authority to act, to lynch, to beat, to exterminate...to kill.
Should the Muslim community descry the actions of terrorists? Perhaps. But, most likely, the murderous acts of their co-coreligionists are as confounding to them as they are to non-Muslims.
If one Jew kills, does the rest of the Jewish community feel the imperative to rise up and say, "This is not us. We do not support this behavior." If you recall the murder of Lisa Steinberg, or the killing of innocents by David Berkowitz (the infamous Son of Sam), no Jew felt it was incumbent upon him to separate himself from the actions of a murderer, Jewish or not.
The human condition looks for logic and reason. Where it does not exist, the irrational takes hold. The majority of Muslims are not murderers, nor are the majority of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, adults, children, etc. Killers are criminals, but a witch hunt does nothing to eliminate homicidal tendencies. Do not let prejudice get in the way of true justice.
Sorry, but no.
The road to hate crimes is paved with hate speech. Should racist groups spouting ethnic slurs be given legal quarter? Should the "Elders of Zion" be published in mainstream (or any) media? Should the KKK be allowed to recruit in public schools? Voices of hate, unleashed and unbridled, give permission and authority to act, to lynch, to beat, to exterminate...to kill.
Should the Muslim community descry the actions of terrorists? Perhaps. But, most likely, the murderous acts of their co-coreligionists are as confounding to them as they are to non-Muslims.
If one Jew kills, does the rest of the Jewish community feel the imperative to rise up and say, "This is not us. We do not support this behavior." If you recall the murder of Lisa Steinberg, or the killing of innocents by David Berkowitz (the infamous Son of Sam), no Jew felt it was incumbent upon him to separate himself from the actions of a murderer, Jewish or not.
The human condition looks for logic and reason. Where it does not exist, the irrational takes hold. The majority of Muslims are not murderers, nor are the majority of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, adults, children, etc. Killers are criminals, but a witch hunt does nothing to eliminate homicidal tendencies. Do not let prejudice get in the way of true justice.
Healthy societies should not encourage their children to hate. The worst offender is religion. Every parent should watch the scene in the movie 42 where the father uses the infamous n word. The child is perplexed, but not knowing wrong from right blurts out the same hate. Stop teaching your children to hate.
I'm so please to finally read a piece that echos my own views. While the attack on Charlie Hebdo was shocking and truly barbaric, let's agree that religion and faith are not subjects to take lightly. Else, freedom of speech just becomes a convenient excuse to air out Xenophobic views.
8
What I find truly offensive is the false equivalency that media folks like Brooks engage in while commenting on issues like this and on political discourse in general. In Brooks' case, it seems to be done to provide cover (and safe harbor) for some of the more offensive traits of the political party with whom his views are most often aligned.
1
Well said, Mr. Brooks. I am not usually a fan, though I often read you column. This one hits the mark, I think. We must be willing to skewer and confront our own paradox and contradictions as well as those of others. I do not approve of the things said by the persons you cite, and the cases may be more nuanced and complex than a short rendering in a column, yet they deserve to be heard and we all should seek the strength that comes from having our views refined by the challenge of others. Far better this, than the view I heard expressed on the radio yesterday, that no one should be forced to hear views that they do not consent to listen to. His was a view that I did not want to hear. Should he be prevented from expressing it? I'd say not.
There's no way Charlie Hebdo would be allowed to be published at a public French university or at an American one.
And why is Brooks attacking Vanderbilt? It's a private university. Doesn't he believe private universities are free to be as "wussy" as they want to be? If he doesn't, why not attack BYU, where you can be expelled or fired for publicly supporting same-sex marriage?
Lies, false equivalencies, half-truths. I guess that's easier than making an honest argument.
And another thing, there's no stomach in the American public for the kind of satire produced by Charlie Hebdo. It's too raw, too vulgar, too extreme. Look at the tizzy this country got into over Hustler's skewering of Jerry Falwell, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And why is Brooks attacking Vanderbilt? It's a private university. Doesn't he believe private universities are free to be as "wussy" as they want to be? If he doesn't, why not attack BYU, where you can be expelled or fired for publicly supporting same-sex marriage?
Lies, false equivalencies, half-truths. I guess that's easier than making an honest argument.
And another thing, there's no stomach in the American public for the kind of satire produced by Charlie Hebdo. It's too raw, too vulgar, too extreme. Look at the tizzy this country got into over Hustler's skewering of Jerry Falwell, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Grateful for accident of birth... I am Charlie.
"The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table."
Not only is this stunning condescension, it's wrong. Maher, Stewart, Colbert, Lewis Black, Will Durst, David Cross, the editors of The Onion—all are wicked smart, attuned to the pulse of global news and, most important, unafraid to synthesize the world and culture around them and speak (their) truth. Their work isn't "puerile," as David Brooks dismisses it—indeed, at its most effective, it's the best and, often, only mature way to deliver hard truths to a broad public.
Conversely, Mr. Brooks, you have one of the most enviable platforms in the world to reach people, affect broad thinking and start conversations. Yet time and again, you take a timid pass—columns leadened with stunted thought for the sake of burnishing your moderate, middle-of-the-road reputation. When is the last time you inspired readers to gasp or act with a truly provocative column?
Rather than cast satirists as children, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're doing all you can with your platform of privilege.
Not only is this stunning condescension, it's wrong. Maher, Stewart, Colbert, Lewis Black, Will Durst, David Cross, the editors of The Onion—all are wicked smart, attuned to the pulse of global news and, most important, unafraid to synthesize the world and culture around them and speak (their) truth. Their work isn't "puerile," as David Brooks dismisses it—indeed, at its most effective, it's the best and, often, only mature way to deliver hard truths to a broad public.
Conversely, Mr. Brooks, you have one of the most enviable platforms in the world to reach people, affect broad thinking and start conversations. Yet time and again, you take a timid pass—columns leadened with stunted thought for the sake of burnishing your moderate, middle-of-the-road reputation. When is the last time you inspired readers to gasp or act with a truly provocative column?
Rather than cast satirists as children, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're doing all you can with your platform of privilege.
1
I am reminded of the great protest that surrounded the release, in the U.S., of the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ". It wasn't satire, but asked the question what if, as Jesus faced his death and ultimate sacrifice, he had had the very human doubt and question of what if this could turn out differently. The storm that resulted from people of faith who hadn't even seen the movie or read the book, apparently, was troubling.
This is a very rare instance when I agree almost totally with Mr. Brooks. Satire needs something though, it needs to be funny. When Bill Maher is funny his satire works, when he is not funny he is just another demagogue. Ann Coulter is never funny, only foolish.
This is a very rare instance when I agree almost totally with Mr. Brooks. Satire needs something though, it needs to be funny. When Bill Maher is funny his satire works, when he is not funny he is just another demagogue. Ann Coulter is never funny, only foolish.
1
I would say that it is fairly clear that those who are here defending Charlie as bold satirists, comparing them to Colbert and The Daily Show have clearly not looked at the typical output from CH. Satire? - maybe it is considered so in France. Most all I have seen from them is more along the lines of deliberately disrespectful and gross toilet humor which seems designed to offend without making any particular satirical point.
This in no way justifies their slaughter of course. But what I take from Brooks piece, and what many seem to miss, is that condemning the murderers need not be accompanied by the elevation of CH to hero status.
Careful readers should be able to make this distinction and appreciate the points that Brooks is making without claiming that he is a terror apologist, confused, or unclear. It is a messy point he is making, but it is one that is worth considering: The kind of material that CH typically publishes does very little to encourage intelligent and reasonable debate.
This in no way justifies their slaughter of course. But what I take from Brooks piece, and what many seem to miss, is that condemning the murderers need not be accompanied by the elevation of CH to hero status.
Careful readers should be able to make this distinction and appreciate the points that Brooks is making without claiming that he is a terror apologist, confused, or unclear. It is a messy point he is making, but it is one that is worth considering: The kind of material that CH typically publishes does very little to encourage intelligent and reasonable debate.
I also am not Charlie Hebdo, but I think the national popularity of South Park on college campuses disproves Brooks' point on this. I'm hesitant to say this because the the terrorist activity in France and the deaths of these men is appalling. But in the context of France, with a secular government a secularist population, a history of colonial oppression in Muslim countries, and disenfranchisement, including explicit limits on the free expression of Muslim religion and culture, I wonder weather Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent the voice of power more then the "speaking truth to power" which is essential role of satire.
Perhaps this screed against the left-minded can be revisited when Elizabeth Warren is invited to speak at Bob Jones University.
While unpopular speaker choices may be shouted down popularly at our more mainstream or left-leaning universities, at least they are invited. The paucity of dissenting viewpoints at more conservative institutions demonstrates a much more rigorous enforcement of local orthodoxy.
While unpopular speaker choices may be shouted down popularly at our more mainstream or left-leaning universities, at least they are invited. The paucity of dissenting viewpoints at more conservative institutions demonstrates a much more rigorous enforcement of local orthodoxy.
2
The Southern Poverty Law Center has helped people affected from immature behavior to understand that it is not illegal to hate, but it is illegal to hurt. That is a distinction some haters fail to grasp.
Harry Overstreet wrote decades ago that unless we gain empathy and sympathy for our fellow human beings as we grow older, we will just be big kids with lots of power. I think exclusive religions could use refresher course in that study.
Harry Overstreet wrote decades ago that unless we gain empathy and sympathy for our fellow human beings as we grow older, we will just be big kids with lots of power. I think exclusive religions could use refresher course in that study.
2
I think Mr. Brooks omits a key distinction between Charlie Hebdo and university "hate speech" cases. Universities spend state monies and cannot be involved in support of one religion, political party or cultural faction at the expense of others. Providing an open forum for ideas and views where spokespeople from a variety of viewpoints is their function. How they do that is open to argument.
Private individuals or groups not subsidized by the government have an entirely different role in our society and are not expected to be as "fair and balanced" (or in Ann coulter's - even sane).
Mr. Brooks knows this distinction well, but omitted discussion of it to give himself room to discourse on manners.
Private individuals or groups not subsidized by the government have an entirely different role in our society and are not expected to be as "fair and balanced" (or in Ann coulter's - even sane).
Mr. Brooks knows this distinction well, but omitted discussion of it to give himself room to discourse on manners.
What I understand here is not equivalency but an invitation to examine our own form of censorship, Our "free speech" may not be threatened in the cited instances by murderous jihadists, but by donors who will withdraw their money from these institutions - be it a university or congressman. Our American form of confrontation too often lacks the wit and intelligence that satire requires. The "offended" will always be out there. Yea Bill Maher!
Asking for tolerance is not a right, it cannot be demanded. I practice tolerance by taking a dim view of, and not practicing, offensive speech designed primarily to offend and optionally provoke. Free speech is a right yes, but also a responsibility, just like the right to remain silent, a responsibility as much as a right. All these rights and responsibilities co-exist, they work only when citizens meld them harmoniously without trumping one at the expense of others.
1
Thank you for bringing this up. Too many people are too easily offended. It is important to distinguish the difference between dis-inviting a speaker to a graduation and massacring an entire office, but Brooks is right to note they they are on the same spectrum. The satirist is often cruel and simpleminded, but at times they focus attention on the worst hypocrisies. It is sad that the response of some to being forced to face the contradictions or shallow piety of their beliefs is mass, indiscriminate murder, and often of innocents. Remember, two police officers and a maintenance worker were killed as well. There are some who condemn CH for their own demise, but we must always remember that the fault always lies with the person whose finger is on the trigger.
1
I thought the constitution read "Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not read that universities shall make no laws. It seems that the implicit comparison of the government to universities in making laws about free speech is Mr. Brooks extending the constitution to fit his argumentative goal and using an inappropriate analogy. But, his other points are still reasonable.
Those interested in this discussion might want to look at my book, "Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech," published by the University of Chicago Press nearly 20 years ago. It begins with a discussion of three notorious debates over offensive speech:-the Nazi march in Skokie, the feminist critique of pornography, and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It locates these in the context of status competition. It shows the perverse consequences of state regulation. And it comes to a conclusion close to that of David Brooks about how to respond to harmful speech.
People who post je suis Charlie on their Facebook page do so not because they believe they are Charlie Hebdo. They do so to pay their respects to those who were murdered by the criminally insane. Employees of the NYT may feel the need to defend the paper's decision not to show similar respect and solidarity by not printing the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. And, this editorial certainly makes a convoluted attempt to do so by subtly suggesting that their murdered colleagues belong at the "kid's table" of journalism for not keeping their ridicule of the evils of organized religion sufficiently "respectful". The editorial suggests that " most of us may have started out using offensive humor when we were 13... but have moved toward complicated views of reality". Perhaps Mr. Brooks is right, that he has matured sufficiently not to engage in the "offensive humor" that the journalists of Charlie Hebdo were murdered for. But the courage of Charlie Hebdo and all those who went before them, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, to name a few others who used scatological offense to skewer religions, deserves far more respect from a fellow journalist, in my opinion, than a suggestion that while they are important to society they belong at the "kid's table" of journalism.
1
Good points by Brooks. I would add this about ridicule and satire. Religions, being based on ancient texts and ideas, are easy targets. But for many people less fortunate and far less educated and prosperous than readers of the NYT they provide some of the little consolation, hope, and elevation they have in their very difficult lives. These people are peaceful and vulnerable, and those who attack their beliefs and way of life are often supercilious, pseudo-intellectual bullies and smugly cruel.
A reasonable set of assertions and good defense of speech. But, is the establishment press really mature? As we hasten forward toward extinguishing species and destroying the environment that supports us, I wonder if that is the adjective that characterizes our media the most accurately?
Agree. I was shocked to discover that liberal sensitivity to speech had grown to the point of censorship about 18 years ago, when a group of students collected the entire press run of a free college newspaper when they disagreed with the opinions that had been published. This cowardly act at one of the bastions of progressive education went unpunished, and in fact was applauded by many associated with the college. I guess they need a class on Voltaire every year? Repeat of 9th grade civics? It is astonishing and discouraging that so called intellectuals can't maintain their ideals even within the walls of their ivory towers, let alone out in the real world.
Firstly, I would say there is no comparison to a college newspaper and Charlie Hebdo. One is a commercial venture with a very small circulation, the other is funded by colleges and universities. Secondly, the French have a long tradition of satirical art, going back to Daumier. They also have a wildly popular television show, Les Guignols, which can be brutal in its humor, and skewers many of the same politicians and personalities.
Interestingly, in New York in the 70's there were a number of underground magazines which had similarly offensive content. The good old days.
Interestingly, in New York in the 70's there were a number of underground magazines which had similarly offensive content. The good old days.
1
Dale Alden is fundamentally wrong, when he comments, " Free speech is about protecting citizens from oppression by governments, and from abuse by powerful majorities." Free speech is about being able, without governmental recrimination, to say it is wrong for governments and powerful majorities to oppress their people.
In fact, the whole notion of "free speech" as it has evolved through a quarter millennia of jurisprudence here is precisely that it is not about the substance of the speech itself.
In fact, the whole notion of "free speech" as it has evolved through a quarter millennia of jurisprudence here is precisely that it is not about the substance of the speech itself.
1
I admit I'm stupefied. I find David Brooks wrong about 97% of the time, but this one is unfathomable.
He's comparing murder and hostage-taking to disinviting campus speakers; disciplining or interfering in the affairs of student-run organizations; or universities exercising their right to hire/fire as they see fit.
I might - many of us probably do - disagree with some of those situations. In fact I think I disagree with the actions taken in most of the situations David names (the firing of the professor etc.).
But the comparison would be if the University of Illinois SHOT the professor who taught a Roman Catholic view of homosexuality, or if the University of Kansas SHOT the professor who wrote an anti-NRA tweet. Or if instead of "de-recognizing" a Christian group on campus, Vanderbilt sent hired gunmen into their office.
He's comparing murder and hostage-taking to disinviting campus speakers; disciplining or interfering in the affairs of student-run organizations; or universities exercising their right to hire/fire as they see fit.
I might - many of us probably do - disagree with some of those situations. In fact I think I disagree with the actions taken in most of the situations David names (the firing of the professor etc.).
But the comparison would be if the University of Illinois SHOT the professor who taught a Roman Catholic view of homosexuality, or if the University of Kansas SHOT the professor who wrote an anti-NRA tweet. Or if instead of "de-recognizing" a Christian group on campus, Vanderbilt sent hired gunmen into their office.
2
Freedom of speech is right, however, hate speech is not. It is also not effective. If there are serious questions with any doctrine, they must be settled with arguments, dialogue, historical facts and scholarship rather the promoting hate speech. It does no good than satisfy the instincts of cartoonists, but insult and tear the hearts of millions, even if there are not casualties like in the incident recently. As a matter of fact, Quran says in verse 256 of Al-Baqara 'There is no compulsion in religion"
1
Utterly befuddled and annoyed by the comparisons -- and false equivalence -- made by Mr. Brooks in this piece, seemingly written in an attempt to have us consider weakening speech codes and particular expectations of our university professors. Also having difficulty believing Mr. Brooks missed the point of "Je suis Charlie Hebdo", which is clearly not to be taken literally, but metaphorically, as a call for solidarity, for standing up for freedom of speech and for freedom from terror and violence.
Finally, we are not "mortified" by what happened at Charlie Hebdo, nor are we being hypocritical for reacting with horror and a need to rise up in defense of these slaughtered journalists/satirists. We are horrified. We are outraged. We are shocked. We are terrified of what seems to be happening to our increasingly divided world.
Finally, we are not "mortified" by what happened at Charlie Hebdo, nor are we being hypocritical for reacting with horror and a need to rise up in defense of these slaughtered journalists/satirists. We are horrified. We are outraged. We are shocked. We are terrified of what seems to be happening to our increasingly divided world.
2
I hate to point out that Charlie Hebdo was not published on a university campus. In fact I can't think of any truly outspoken publication finding the campus a congenial place to set up shop.
Comedy Central does not originate from a campus, nor does Fox News for that matter.
This is a red herring to beat up on students protesting against people whose views Brooks favors. One can argue whether disinviting people is fair or even wise, but I can understand how students may get angry when their outrageously expensive institutions, controlled like most of this country by the wealthy, invite people to receive honors or to speak who are fundamentally opposed to the values that created universities in the first place.
Comedy Central does not originate from a campus, nor does Fox News for that matter.
This is a red herring to beat up on students protesting against people whose views Brooks favors. One can argue whether disinviting people is fair or even wise, but I can understand how students may get angry when their outrageously expensive institutions, controlled like most of this country by the wealthy, invite people to receive honors or to speak who are fundamentally opposed to the values that created universities in the first place.
Sorry David, now is not the time to flaunt your contrarian streak - now is the time for solidarity. We can consider the subtleties of our hypocrisies after we have made clear to all that we will not stand for any suppression of freedom of speech. You can speak for yourself but I AM Charlie.
But let's face it: this was a matter of freedom of speech, not whether the satirical newspaper would have been published elsewhere. In reality, Mr. Books, you are Charlie whether you choose to be or not.
While I agree with David's "teaching moment" point about US hate speech codes, he is diverting from the immediate issue. "Je Suis Charlie" is like JFK saying "Ich bin [ein] Berliner." Solidarity and identity are different things. There is no hypocrisy in decrying evil.
Mr. Brooks misses the point of the movement, I am Charlie. It has nothing to do with agreeing with their style or message. It has nothing to do with wanting to avoid the children's table where there might be a food fight. It is instead realizing that when the Nazis came looking for the Jews in France, if everyone said, I am a Jew, the killing machine would not have been able to work. And if in America, instead of having to deny accusations that may have been false or true, everyone had said, I am a Communist when McCarthy came a knocking, the fear would have been turned back. I imagine that might have been hard for you to say, but what makes it hard is also what makes it powerful. Come on David, can't you find a little bit of Charlie in you?
28
Last time I checked, Charlie Hedbo is NOT a college newspaper. And, while most independent newspapers in this country "engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in," it wouldn't be illegal, no one could stop them, and we would be just as outraged if the same thing happened here.
Once the French did something akin to the recent attack by terrorists, Robert Brasillach was killed by General de Gaulle's squad for what he wrote, not what he did, but for his political views
.
.
I think it's safe to say that most New Yorkers (and perhaps most Americans in general) would agree that we receive more honest journalism from the likes of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and John Oliver than we do from the NY Times.
Mr. Brook, you might be surprised to know that in France, an individual doesn't not have the '"freedom" to verbally insult another individual in public and other wise provoke them with direct profanity, as we are "free" to do here, in the US.
Here, it is legal to use profanity against one another, you are not going to be liable for that. And if that person was indeed very offended and reacted, most likely he or she won't have a legal recourse for that reaction in light of the verbal attack. That is modicum level that demonstrate respect to INDIVIDUAL dignity. We have not come to even grasp this concept yet, here in the US. We are limited to protection of property.
Here, it is legal to use profanity against one another, you are not going to be liable for that. And if that person was indeed very offended and reacted, most likely he or she won't have a legal recourse for that reaction in light of the verbal attack. That is modicum level that demonstrate respect to INDIVIDUAL dignity. We have not come to even grasp this concept yet, here in the US. We are limited to protection of property.
Most Americans believe that virtue stands in the middle, which, to them, means that they don't have to think about the best solution but only avoid extremes they stop short to define properly. It's a kind of a no-position. David Brooks is one of those. He writes: “Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humour that that newspaper specializes in”, meaning that the Charlie Hebdo is too much humoristic, that is, morally provocative. Ouch!
I'm uncertain why, but it seems that those on the right often engage in setting up false equivalencies ....e.g., Bill Maher and Ann Coulter?!
You do realise, I hope, that whatever your intention, your headline is pretty offensive mockery of the sorrowful solidarity being expressed around the world today. How would you respond to a "I Am Not NYC" headline the day after 9/11?
1
"The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table."
Au contraire, Mr. Brooks. Bill Maher, right and wrong, is at the adults table. Ann Coulter is at your table. But you're simply too polite and civil to acknowledge her presence there.
Au contraire, Mr. Brooks. Bill Maher, right and wrong, is at the adults table. Ann Coulter is at your table. But you're simply too polite and civil to acknowledge her presence there.
3
Actually, Bill Maher has it just about right, David.
I am afraid we can all agree David Brooks is not Charlie Hebdo.
6
I'm afraid this comment reflects a complete misunderstanding of what "Je Suis Charlie" means. Everybody kindda figures that "David Brooks" is not actually "Charlie". When Kennedy said "I'm a Berliner", nobody thougth he was from Berlin... When there were the 9/11 bombings, I claimed "I'm a New-Yorker", and, guess what, I'm not actually a New-Yorker... In 1941 the King Of Danemark wore a yellow star: he was saying "I am a Jew" when this was necessary, not because he actually was.
Voltaire, probably one of the brightest philosopher after Socrate, wrote 3 centuries ago something that more or less translates to "I might strongly disagree with you, but I'll fight to death so that you can express yourself". In other words if you don't stand for the free speech of people you disagree with or even dislike, you don't stand for free speech at all. I don't endorse many of the things that Charlie Hebdo wrote, but "I am Charlie" without condition and without hesitation, because even if you do not agree at all with their drawings, the fundation of our civilization relies on the fact that we stand to let people we disagree with express themselves.
By the way I Am Ahmed as well, the Muslim policeman who was shot to death when he heroically tried to stop the terrorists who had committed the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.
A last word: Charlie Hebdo is many thing, but a vector of "hate speech"? I am afraid you do not really know what you are speaking about...
Voltaire, probably one of the brightest philosopher after Socrate, wrote 3 centuries ago something that more or less translates to "I might strongly disagree with you, but I'll fight to death so that you can express yourself". In other words if you don't stand for the free speech of people you disagree with or even dislike, you don't stand for free speech at all. I don't endorse many of the things that Charlie Hebdo wrote, but "I am Charlie" without condition and without hesitation, because even if you do not agree at all with their drawings, the fundation of our civilization relies on the fact that we stand to let people we disagree with express themselves.
By the way I Am Ahmed as well, the Muslim policeman who was shot to death when he heroically tried to stop the terrorists who had committed the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.
A last word: Charlie Hebdo is many thing, but a vector of "hate speech"? I am afraid you do not really know what you are speaking about...
I may not have always liked all the content of Charlie Hebdo but I fell I am Charlie today because the often shocking humour it carries is certainly what many of French like so much. When a few years ago President Sarkozy appealed to identify what makes a French a French, Charlie would be part of the answer. Charlie did not attack Islam, Charlie did attack bigots of any religion, including, of course, Christians. And some Christians felt aggressed. And some even sued Charlie. And they lost in the courts. Always. Because provocation is in part what makes France be France, what makes France be the country of Enlightenment, the country of Philosophers who wrote such things as “Le pape est une vieille idole qu’on encense par habitude” (“the Pope is an old idol we cense out of habit” - Montesquieu, les Lettres persanes) in a time when such writings would not be done without serious risk.
I consider sad that in a country that claims to be the land of Freedom to he point it lets Nazis and racists openly express their opinion under the protection of the First Amendment, professors who express their own views in a University – the place by essence of free speech – can be fired. I come from a country where Jesters where often the hidden -or open- Advisers of the Powerful, not of a country of disclaimers.
And this I why I feel I am Charlie these days.
I consider sad that in a country that claims to be the land of Freedom to he point it lets Nazis and racists openly express their opinion under the protection of the First Amendment, professors who express their own views in a University – the place by essence of free speech – can be fired. I come from a country where Jesters where often the hidden -or open- Advisers of the Powerful, not of a country of disclaimers.
And this I why I feel I am Charlie these days.
1
Is the the same people who laud Charlie Hebdo while at the same time denouncing other "offensive" speech? You can point out hypocrisy if it is the exact same people, but to generalize is never accurate.
My response to speech that offends me is to ignore it or to engage in open debate. And I also deplore the attack on the cartoonists.
My response to speech that offends me is to ignore it or to engage in open debate. And I also deplore the attack on the cartoonists.
Finally, someone says what I've been thinking all week. Finally someone sees a double standard at work here with all this celebration of free speech. We have all agreed in this country to have a limited free speech (no hate speech, people observing tolerance, sensitivity, good manners) as often as possible. We agree as a people that this works better, to be thoughtful. Not that anyone should mow down others who take a different path; that's intolerance on a grand scale. Thank you David Brooks for putting it all together here.
1
Can Brooks or anyone else give an example of a single instance where Ann Coulter has said "a necessary thing that no on else is saying"? I read very little of her commentary because everything I have read is coarse and stupid, so maybe I missed it.
My beliefs are constantly mocked, and I am deeply offended by, killings in the name of Allah. But I do not claim the right to kill those who offend my beliefs. Ironically, the killers might prefer to be killed thus, as it would make them martyrs.
I think a central point needing to be stated clearly is in need here. In my opinion Charlie is not denegrating Islam or Muhammad. They are stating on paper and in words and cartoon like drawings the effect that the people that murder and kill at will those that don't believe the same as them. They happen to be of the Islamic faith. This type of terroism is used throughout the world and not always attatched to a religious affiliation.
It is one thing and a civilized thing to present to those one does not agree with a medium of expression that is written and drrawn. It quite another to kill those one disagrees with.
To me the prime effect Charlie is attacking are the acts of murder. It is more than incidental that these murderers are using the Islamic faith to ligitimize their killing. So the killing and their misguided use of Islamic faith are permentantly fused as one idea, concept, reality. This kind of killing is a crime not an act of war or jihad. And that is what Charlie is working to represent to us. As the killing of the journalists is a crime not an act of war or jihad.
It is one thing and a civilized thing to present to those one does not agree with a medium of expression that is written and drrawn. It quite another to kill those one disagrees with.
To me the prime effect Charlie is attacking are the acts of murder. It is more than incidental that these murderers are using the Islamic faith to ligitimize their killing. So the killing and their misguided use of Islamic faith are permentantly fused as one idea, concept, reality. This kind of killing is a crime not an act of war or jihad. And that is what Charlie is working to represent to us. As the killing of the journalists is a crime not an act of war or jihad.
Two comments.
First, a university campus is where you go for many reasons other than listening to an occasional speaker who may seem or be offensive. Subscribing to and reading a satirical weekly is something you do just for that reason, and none other. So the comparison simply does not hold.
Second, this piece reeks of moral superiority and sanctimoniousness, which have long ago become the substance of this column.
I'll take in-your-face offensiveness over moral superiority any day.
First, a university campus is where you go for many reasons other than listening to an occasional speaker who may seem or be offensive. Subscribing to and reading a satirical weekly is something you do just for that reason, and none other. So the comparison simply does not hold.
Second, this piece reeks of moral superiority and sanctimoniousness, which have long ago become the substance of this column.
I'll take in-your-face offensiveness over moral superiority any day.
We have become more restrictive of both free speech and the hurtful expressions of free speech.
We are all going to be in trouble for as long as we feel it's necessary to treat religious feelings with reverence. Sympathy, courtesy, for sure. But reverence for a medieval hold-over?
I agree. It is presumptuous to say "I am Charlie". Here in the US there is too many attempts at censorship. Ayam Hirsi Ali is a heroine and great favorite of mine. I would not however put Anne Coulter in same class as Bill Mahr, even though both can be provocative, Bill Mahr is definitely at the adult's table.
Wouldn't last 30 seconds? Nonsense! The Onion has regularly published satire critical of Christianity, and even received threats of violence (does anybody remember the Easter Bunny being crucified?). Yet contrary to your completely fact-less assertion, they've survived for decades. Oh, those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of a nice narrative.
Sir, would it not be proper to distinguish between two issues. Firstly, the debate whether or not (or to which extent) freedom of speech is absolute. Secondly, the self awarded right to impose one's opinion in that debate, with lethal violence, on to other people.
To me in other words, like in the examples you give on how US colleges would feel about certain 'expressions' of free speech, it is perfectly acceptable to defend the opinion that freedom of speech is not absolute and is limited by example the right to privacy. What is entirely not acceptable, is to execute people because they do not comply with your own standards and convictions. The only real limits to FoS that exist should be imposed through the law. So to take matters into their own hands as has happened has nothing to do with a debate on FoS, but rather with a fundamental refusal to accept the democratic society's. By reducing the Charlie H massacre to a FoS discussion, we underestimate how deep the Western jihadist threat runs.
To me in other words, like in the examples you give on how US colleges would feel about certain 'expressions' of free speech, it is perfectly acceptable to defend the opinion that freedom of speech is not absolute and is limited by example the right to privacy. What is entirely not acceptable, is to execute people because they do not comply with your own standards and convictions. The only real limits to FoS that exist should be imposed through the law. So to take matters into their own hands as has happened has nothing to do with a debate on FoS, but rather with a fundamental refusal to accept the democratic society's. By reducing the Charlie H massacre to a FoS discussion, we underestimate how deep the Western jihadist threat runs.
Well the Enlightenment has been 3-400 years and religion is still around in its unholy alliance with the state. It might be time to be a little more radical. It is quite reasonable to be anti-semitic in the sense of resisting the birth of the worldwide nonsense. The intellectual gymnastics required to tolerate the creeds derived from those illterate shepherds cannot be done by real adults, more by powers-that-be hangers-on.
The point is not the opposing or offensive views on subjects - it is the right of modern citizens of a democratic country to have those views and its expressions. There are sufficient legal structure available to protect the individual from any harm from those offensive speeches or expressions. The issue is how a offended individual or community or religious groups deal with those type of expression. The sad part of Muslim religion - violance is accepted by them as legitimate way to deal with this offensive speeches and as a community they encourage this. Every Muslim scholar in TV programs for last two days condemned this Violance with a "but". One Indian Muslim politician declared reward for the two brothers for their heroic act. This is a dangerous culture and this has to change. I do not notice that Muslim society at large understood their problem. They are either hiding their heads in the sand or they are arrogant and believe this Violance will establish the legitimacy of their view point.
I agree with Mr. Brooks that we prefer civility but it shouldn't be legislated. Having worked in several higher educational institutions that have speech codes, I'm never comfortable with them. While I never deliberately try to demean any group, I think the example set by these codes sets students up to live with censorship as adults. And I remind them that by leaving their first amendment rights at the gateway to their university, they are not preparing themselves to live in the rough and tumble of a multicultural society. I'm not even sure whether a majority of Americans today would ratify the First Amendment if it were put to a referendum. Many now seem perfectly happy to see censorship applied, if it will protect their group from insult.
There are those who use "Freedom of Speech" as a license to deliberately insult and anger groups whom they dislike or hate and who disregard any and all truths or facts that contradict their words. I think there is a difference between satire and mean spirited hate speech such as that offered by holocaust deniers and, as David Brooks points out, individuals like Ann Coulter. Using "free speech" seems to be an excuse for some who try to build themselves up by tearing others down.
There are rational ways to talk about the discontinuities in religious beliefs, pointing out the contradictions in the Bible and Koran and how erroneous translations have given birth to "virgin birth", for example. Insulting someone's beliefs just for the fun of it is simply puerile and worthy of scorn and rejection. But, all this said, stupid free speech is not and should not be a capital offense.
There are rational ways to talk about the discontinuities in religious beliefs, pointing out the contradictions in the Bible and Koran and how erroneous translations have given birth to "virgin birth", for example. Insulting someone's beliefs just for the fun of it is simply puerile and worthy of scorn and rejection. But, all this said, stupid free speech is not and should not be a capital offense.
Many of us grew up with Mad Magazine Adults of the time, the 50' and 60's, lampooned it and even went out of their way to confiscate it much as they attempted to destroy Lenny Bruce. But their satire became one of the roots for social change such as the Civil Rights movement, protests against Vietnam and fostered the rise of feminism.
Rocking the boat is absolutely necessary to evaluate whether the ship of state is still sea worthy. The conservative will always be threatened by criticism for it seems to threaten the world as they think it should be. Fundamentalists and many conservatives live in a small box that is challenged constantly by those who see the limitations of that box. Lots of metaphors here, but you may get the point. Societies founder when they fail to acknowledge their limitations and,'yes laugh at themselves.
Rocking the boat is absolutely necessary to evaluate whether the ship of state is still sea worthy. The conservative will always be threatened by criticism for it seems to threaten the world as they think it should be. Fundamentalists and many conservatives live in a small box that is challenged constantly by those who see the limitations of that box. Lots of metaphors here, but you may get the point. Societies founder when they fail to acknowledge their limitations and,'yes laugh at themselves.
As per your statement that on any university campus a student paper as per Charlie Hebdo would be shut down. I counter with this. Do you really believe that the freedom of speech of a few has the right to place the entire university in jeapordy? The university out of necessity takes the entire population into consideration when making some decisions. Terrorists don't always attack the Pentagon if they are attacking the military decision of the United States. Although they did do that didn't they. And as such terrorist may decide it is better for them to blow up an entire dormitory than to simply kill the student journalists. Who be the way are still learning the paramiters of professional journalism and not necessarily steeped in the satire represented by Charlie.
As members of complex democratic societies our views on complicated matters like free speech seem to move in one of two directions, as Brooks points out. On the one hand our views increase in complexity and risk becoming awash in contradiction, or become so complex that they are inarticulable. On the other hand our views are reactionary, we choose one fine point and harp at it. The middle ground that most intellectuals find is this "adult table". This is the table that speaks the language of power and intelligencia though. Perhaps there is another table to sit at? This table might include folks that are unconcerned with political consequences, religious dogma, and purposefully offensive rhetoric. People who are actually interested in diverse points of view to further their understanding of the human comedy.
Free speech is one thing and ridiculing deeply help reverence, over and over again with higher and higher tempo, is another. It can be a very divisive force by coloring opinions.
There is a fine line that can be crossed as the ridiculing gets more and more outrageous in free speech. At that point it does not serve any purpose other than verbal bullying.
However that does not in any way justify violence. People have to learn to come to terms with extremes in free speech especially if they want to live in open cultures.
Charlie Hebdo has three choices going forward - one to continue as it has done; two, to reflect on whats its about and see if it can be accepting of peoples sensitivities while making good fun of extremism; and three raise the tempo even more. It will be interesting to see how it goes forward.
There is a fine line that can be crossed as the ridiculing gets more and more outrageous in free speech. At that point it does not serve any purpose other than verbal bullying.
However that does not in any way justify violence. People have to learn to come to terms with extremes in free speech especially if they want to live in open cultures.
Charlie Hebdo has three choices going forward - one to continue as it has done; two, to reflect on whats its about and see if it can be accepting of peoples sensitivities while making good fun of extremism; and three raise the tempo even more. It will be interesting to see how it goes forward.
As Simon Shama accurately points out in today's Financial Times, political satire has been around for 300+ years and always offensive to those at the pointy end of the stick.
It is culture that determines what is and is not offensive and by what degree. Unless one is advocating destruction of others, the line dividing hate speech from satire is not traversed. But, how odd, for a conservative, David Brooks, who typically stumps for conservative causes and approaches to suddenly join the far left elitists who will not acknowledge difficult social problems stemming from culture - religion?
It is culture that determines what is and is not offensive and by what degree. Unless one is advocating destruction of others, the line dividing hate speech from satire is not traversed. But, how odd, for a conservative, David Brooks, who typically stumps for conservative causes and approaches to suddenly join the far left elitists who will not acknowledge difficult social problems stemming from culture - religion?
David Brooks has no idea or is completely unfamiliar with Europe and their life styles - satirical humor at the expense of anyone and everyone in high positions of government, religion and private lives has existed in Europe for a long time and is part of their society. Many satirists paid heavy prices, some were jailed, others lost their lives. The musical "Cabaret" is such an expression, and there are many other examples from many countries. All these satirists exhibited courage, whether Brooks feels different about it or not. Our society has never really embraced satirists, and our culture does not look at this with great favor. He might not be Charlie Hebdo, but at least admire their courage and mourn their loss. David, being a good Republican, has no doubt made many satirical remarks about Democrats and the President, but has not had the courage to put it into writing.
Not a fan of Brooks. He ruins his argument in the very first paragraph when he states if these cartoons had been published on American campuses, they would be brought down as hate speech. But they WEREN'T on American campuses, they were in France, which has a wholly different issue regarding immigration and religion than our nutty country. Modern democratic republic government was born in France and it can be easily argued that so was the freedoms all of us enjoy, including in speech and the press.
Brooks, for me, too often tries to soft-peddle his far right ideology in very clever but also very insidious writing. What he promotes here is extremely dangerous. His three examples of professors fired by three different universities are the perfect example. With the headline-only and completely fact-free examples he gives, we are led to believe that a great injustice was done to these far-right uber-religious individuals who were let go. But those of us who stop and think for a minute know there must be far more to the story and that the single place where it is hardest on earth to be fired from is a college or university and these institutions have to have reams of information to let people go. Again, Brooks is violating the very thing he protests which also again shows the insidious nature of his ideological drives.
Brooks, for me, too often tries to soft-peddle his far right ideology in very clever but also very insidious writing. What he promotes here is extremely dangerous. His three examples of professors fired by three different universities are the perfect example. With the headline-only and completely fact-free examples he gives, we are led to believe that a great injustice was done to these far-right uber-religious individuals who were let go. But those of us who stop and think for a minute know there must be far more to the story and that the single place where it is hardest on earth to be fired from is a college or university and these institutions have to have reams of information to let people go. Again, Brooks is violating the very thing he protests which also again shows the insidious nature of his ideological drives.
Religion as a set of ideas does not deserve deep reverence. It must be examined skeptically and thoroughly like any other philosophical topic. If it can't stand up to the examination, it should be relegated to the intellectual dustbin. Deep reverence has given religion a free ride in the world of ideas for centuries, and has brought us the brutal cruelties of the Spanish Inquisition, medieval witch trials, Irish homes for unwed mothers, and now the atrocities of the Islamic State.
Often, irreverence and derision is necessary to call attention to the absurd and mendacious when it is being presented as a basis for public policy. H.L. Mencken said "One horse laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms." The horse laugh is very important in exposing the ridiculous, and Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are just a more abrasive version of the in-your-face humor of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. We need more publications like Charlie Hebdo, and more brave journalists like those we lost. Social manners in this sphere only provide cover for pious scoundrels and unreasonable fanatics.
Often, irreverence and derision is necessary to call attention to the absurd and mendacious when it is being presented as a basis for public policy. H.L. Mencken said "One horse laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms." The horse laugh is very important in exposing the ridiculous, and Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are just a more abrasive version of the in-your-face humor of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. We need more publications like Charlie Hebdo, and more brave journalists like those we lost. Social manners in this sphere only provide cover for pious scoundrels and unreasonable fanatics.
Charlie Hebdo always makes a point to skewer fundamentalists specifically, not religions as a whole. It is hard for Americans to understand the nature of that uniquely French publication. To be clear, they are not bigoted right wingers, but leftists with their roots in the protest movements of the 60s and a voice informed by France's "esprit gaulois". That doesn't make their work any less offensive to some, but it is important to understand that it does not fall under the category of hate-speech. That distinction has been litigated over and again by both muslim and catholic organizations, with the courts ruling in favor of CH every time. Remember that France has rather stringent hate-speech laws that would probably not survive a First Amendment challenge in the US.
Read carefully. Mr Brooks is, in effect, making a claim of moral equivalence between Charlie Hebdo and the intolerant jerks that killed them (and their apologists). He says that if we favor freedom of expression for Charlie Hebdo, then we should also favor it for the haters on this side of the Atlantic. But, if you complete the analogy, which public figures in the U.S. are comparable to Charlie Hebdo? Steven Colbert, The Onion, and Borat seem reasonable choices. And, the hue and cry to silence these social critics is -- nearly silent.
Can we find analogs for "our own controversial figures" in the French situation? Mr Brooks makes clear, by his examples, that he includes right wingers that want to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of us, and similar haters and hypocrites. The natural analogs are the French attackers and their supporters.
To make this crystal clear: Mr. Brooks is defending those in this country who are rightly the targets of satire because of their intolerance and hypocrisy. He compares these people to to Charlie Hebdo, the satirists who have lampooned intolerance and paid a tragic price. What a difference three thousand miles of salt water makes!
Can we find analogs for "our own controversial figures" in the French situation? Mr Brooks makes clear, by his examples, that he includes right wingers that want to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of us, and similar haters and hypocrites. The natural analogs are the French attackers and their supporters.
To make this crystal clear: Mr. Brooks is defending those in this country who are rightly the targets of satire because of their intolerance and hypocrisy. He compares these people to to Charlie Hebdo, the satirists who have lampooned intolerance and paid a tragic price. What a difference three thousand miles of salt water makes!
Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect? Come on, Mr Brooks. The US has become a country of soundbites and loud, one-track-mind pundits, where commentators are valued only for their ability to entertain and stoke the fires of one-dimensional debate during a 15-minute TV segment, not to comment intelligently with nuance and fact on a particle topic. We no longer seem to value, nor to care about, fact. Instead, beliefs are held up as the new proof in our society, and no one is allowed to argue with these non empirical conclusions. We don't admire intelligence anymore, Mr Brooks; we mock it. Thank god for satirists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They are the last bastions of calling it like it is in American society. I never read Charlie Hebdo when I lived in Paris, but if it serves the same purpose for the French public, then I say, "Vive Charlie!"
The larger question for me is not whether or not I am Charlie Hebdo, but whether or not I am also a Peshawar schoolchild. Two weeks ago, some 160 schoolchildren were massacred by the Taliban in Peshawar, Pakistan. Although there was widespread condemnation, I don't remember spontaneous protests by tired office goers in cities big and small. Granted, Peshawar is no place of romance, at least no romance any travel agent will sell; granted also that freedom of expression was not directly at stake there; but freedom of practicing and improving expression certainly was.
Is there a double standard in what brings out our easy empathy, anger and end-of-the-day exhibitionism? Are we more likely to say of the Pakistanis, "They are only reaping what they've sown?"
Is there a double standard in what brings out our easy empathy, anger and end-of-the-day exhibitionism? Are we more likely to say of the Pakistanis, "They are only reaping what they've sown?"
My initial reaction was rage against these so called Muslims but I think I would have felt rage if Jesus was depicted in such a manner and one has to accept that clashes of religion and cultures between nations are being exploited by a few to divide and conquer and create chaos so as to gain political, military and economic power. Making fun of Mohammed is ironically helping fuel these clashes and continue to propagate further violence and hate in a mideast who feels that the west has failed them in showing a state of respect to their values and way of life. Freedom of speech is a double edge sword and using it requirers extreme wisdom in these tragic times of complete uncertainty.
1
It's pretty disingenuous to compare a university refusing to invite someone to commencement whose views are offensive to many and the what happened to the journalists at Charlie Hebdo. Free speech is not without consequences. I believe very strongly that people can believe and say whatever they wish. But that doesn't mean I should be forced to listen to it. I have the right to remove myself from that speech if it offends me, and I have the right to use my voice to tell those people I find it hateful.
What people don't have a right to do is physically attack people whose speech offends us. It is at the point where beliefs become action that the lay ceases to protect free speech.
What people don't have a right to do is physically attack people whose speech offends us. It is at the point where beliefs become action that the lay ceases to protect free speech.
Brooks conveniently overlooks the famous Hustler Magazine v Jerry Falwell case, 485 US 46 (1988), in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Rev Falwell could not sue for emotional distress brought about by Hustler's crude satirical humor of mocking Falwell by descriptions of incesturous sex between Falwell and his mother in an outhouse.
The magazine wasn't firebombed, no one was decapitated, life went on for everyone. American freedom of the press and freedom of expression remained.
But speech codes in schools and workplaces are another matter entirely depending on whether or not it is a government school or government workplace. Private schools and private workplaces have the freedom to have these codes. Is David Brooks really advocating that private schools and businesses should be prohibited from imposing their own rules? Would he advocate government enforcement for church schools and church businesses as well? He needs to think about the ramifications of his sweeping statements.
The magazine wasn't firebombed, no one was decapitated, life went on for everyone. American freedom of the press and freedom of expression remained.
But speech codes in schools and workplaces are another matter entirely depending on whether or not it is a government school or government workplace. Private schools and private workplaces have the freedom to have these codes. Is David Brooks really advocating that private schools and businesses should be prohibited from imposing their own rules? Would he advocate government enforcement for church schools and church businesses as well? He needs to think about the ramifications of his sweeping statements.
2
As an American in France (14 years) I think that France is far more tolerant of those who express views that mock what others consider sacred. And paraphrasing Voltaire, society is more prepared to defend total freedom of expression. See Charlie Heb's Nov. 12 cover featuring the father-son-and holy spirit.
If it were the Village Voice or some other "blasphemous" alternative paper attacked would American politicians from across the spectrum say "I am the Village Voice?" I think not. Sadly, many would say: They had it coming.
If it were the Village Voice or some other "blasphemous" alternative paper attacked would American politicians from across the spectrum say "I am the Village Voice?" I think not. Sadly, many would say: They had it coming.
16
You're right, Mr. Brooks. You're no Charlie Hebdo.
4
Je suis David Brooks, thank God.
1
Brooks has it wrong. The satire in Charlie Hebdo, while biting, actually served a social purpose. The cartoonists were making nuanced political statements about what was happening in their country and around the world.
I’ll also add to what others have said here about Brooks’ comparison to universities: this is apples and oranges. In our country we equate money with speech and universities are free to spend their money however they want. If they choose to pay (or not) certain professors, pay (or not) certain keynote speakers, that’s up to them.
Finally, regarding Brooks’ assertion there’s a “kids’ table” that people like Coulter and Maher occupy: just no. People like Coulter and Maher make their own news for self-serving purposes, mostly to sell their next book or movie. Charlie Hebdo, on the other hand, was a private publication with a rather small circulation, and a history of financial struggles. They actually approached their work with idealism about the nature of satire and its role in society. In contrast with Coulter and Maher, Charlie Hebdo’s fortunes waned when they followed their ideals.
I’ll also add to what others have said here about Brooks’ comparison to universities: this is apples and oranges. In our country we equate money with speech and universities are free to spend their money however they want. If they choose to pay (or not) certain professors, pay (or not) certain keynote speakers, that’s up to them.
Finally, regarding Brooks’ assertion there’s a “kids’ table” that people like Coulter and Maher occupy: just no. People like Coulter and Maher make their own news for self-serving purposes, mostly to sell their next book or movie. Charlie Hebdo, on the other hand, was a private publication with a rather small circulation, and a history of financial struggles. They actually approached their work with idealism about the nature of satire and its role in society. In contrast with Coulter and Maher, Charlie Hebdo’s fortunes waned when they followed their ideals.
9
A lot of mainland European leading newspapers have published Muhammad cartoons, to show that everyone has the right to mock and be mocked. It would have been nice to see that courage by the NYT editorial board...
1
David, " in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things"...
tres magnifique !
tres magnifique !
What a great piece - if you had only edited out your gratuitous knock at 'liberal' universities and started with the 5th paragraph instead.
Puerile. Offensive. Generally disagreeable. When this these traits deserve a death sentence.
How's this for a false equivalency, the murder of Eric Garner for a trivial "crime." Since when did selling a few loosies become a capital offense.
And, oh yeah, we also have killings of abortion providers. They are offensive to some folks too, so they should just pack up and go home and honor religious sensibilities.
Your right to free speech ends when your fist reaches my face. Charlie Hebdo wasn't physically interfering with anybody. It is sublimely irritating and offensive.
False equivalencies can go on forever. But there seems to be once overriding principle: murder is wrong. That's it. Just wrong.
I'm planning to subscribe today. Je suis Charlie. Je ne suis pas David. je ne serai jamais David. J'espere.
How's this for a false equivalency, the murder of Eric Garner for a trivial "crime." Since when did selling a few loosies become a capital offense.
And, oh yeah, we also have killings of abortion providers. They are offensive to some folks too, so they should just pack up and go home and honor religious sensibilities.
Your right to free speech ends when your fist reaches my face. Charlie Hebdo wasn't physically interfering with anybody. It is sublimely irritating and offensive.
False equivalencies can go on forever. But there seems to be once overriding principle: murder is wrong. That's it. Just wrong.
I'm planning to subscribe today. Je suis Charlie. Je ne suis pas David. je ne serai jamais David. J'espere.
David Brooks is not blaming the victim, or saying the CH journalists "deserved" in any way whatsoever getting brutally executed.
What he's saying is that they could not have done what they did in the US, because it's "politically incorrect" to make fun of Muslims (vs making fun of Christians, atheists, Mormons, conservatives, all of whom are acceptable targets).
And thus, he is not Charlie Hebdo because his country, unlike France, wouldn't permit him to do what they did. Claiming solidarity with CH is thus a glib way to avoid dealing with the problem of our own self-censorship.
Whether you agree with him or not, that's what he's saying. Not that the journalists "deserved" what happened, or that the murderers were justified.
What he's saying is that they could not have done what they did in the US, because it's "politically incorrect" to make fun of Muslims (vs making fun of Christians, atheists, Mormons, conservatives, all of whom are acceptable targets).
And thus, he is not Charlie Hebdo because his country, unlike France, wouldn't permit him to do what they did. Claiming solidarity with CH is thus a glib way to avoid dealing with the problem of our own self-censorship.
Whether you agree with him or not, that's what he's saying. Not that the journalists "deserved" what happened, or that the murderers were justified.
1
I doubt many people had even heard of Charlie Hebdo prior to this incident. Did anyone know of Terry Jones before his threats to burn the Quran? It is interesting how such obscure institutions and people who have such a limited almost non existent audience establish celebrity status overnight because of the condemnations and actions of other non entities who are seeking martyrdom or celebrity. It seems like the two live off each other. One saying outrageous things the other taking outrageous actions which propels both into the headlines.
This is a very undisciplined column, full of false-equivalencies. Others have unpacked it better than I would ever be able to do. I agree with Gemli about the "blur" factor. The reader has an uncomfortable feeling of various disparate elements all getting blurred together, all being conflated into one big messy soup of incoherence. This is not worthy of the NYT.
1
I find David Brooks' opinion on condoning violent massacres offensive.
Wait. What? Ann Coulter has said something necessary?
Dear David, this column seems written by a high school student. I am missing some deep thinking here. Je suis Charlie is about freedom of expression (any expresion) without having the fear of getting murdered by some fanatics. Here it is some Voltaire (maybe for the next column): "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
2
I'd never be so comfortable relegating the likes of Juvenal, Swift, Pope, etc. to the "kids' table."
1
Is it possible that Mr. Brooks is missing the point? None of is Charlie Hebdo; there was only one Charlie. This is about a person who expressed his opinions and got killed for it. Period. If Charlie's satirical newspaper would have lasted 30 seconds in an American university campus has nothing to do with my outrage that a person is killed for his opinions.
1
Oh, the cautious way you unpack this complex suitcase. Double rubber gloves, pinkies up. How to deal with the low, vulgar provacateur while still maintaining one's balanced posture on the high horse of academia, and at the same time pretending that this really is so disorderly that one really regrets having to write about it at all. Yes, "all religions are kind of weird." Unwieldy, isn't it?
1
Freedom of speech is not an absolute, even in France. There is a crime to deny the Holocaust; Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times for inciting racial hatred, and various laws prohibit racist statements. Speech, especially public speech, influences public opinion. I strongly denounce the cold-blooded killing of the Charlie Hebdo satirists but their messages are not ones I particularly care about.
The hypocrisy of which David Brooks speaks is playing out at Dalhousie University, Canada, where 13 final year dentistry students face possible expulsion as a result of their repugnant comments made on a private Facebook page. While the university is attempting to engage the students and the female members of the class in a restorative justice process (to which the students agree) the growing mob, including several professors, are calling for nothing less than full expulsion with no opportunity to complete their studies. Ever.
Thank you for the excellent perspective, Mr. Brooks.
Thank you for the excellent perspective, Mr. Brooks.
Reading Kant is easier than some of Mr. Brooks latest articles. I understand and appreciate that our world is too complex for black/white thinking, but if we want to live life in gray areas, at some point we need a shade of gray to guide us, or we become, as this article does, morally and ethically stuck.
Shame on you David. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
3
Excellent job of blaming the victim while obscuring the issue with irrelevancies.
4
What of those of us who read the Times, so presumably are at the adults' table, yet find Jon Stewart and Bill Maher more informed and brilliant, indeed less childish, analysts of current affairs than David Brooks? Many is the child who learns to wear the adult's mask of seriousness, yet that doesn't make him so. The throwing off of humor is not the good sort of maturity; it is dogma, and yes, ideology, the essential core of the evils which put civilization at risk. That is, it's a joke.
Brooks has it all wrong. Voltaire, on the other hand, had it right. This NOT about agreeing with what Charlie Hebdo says or tut-tutting over how they say it. This is purely and simply about defending their right to say it.
1
The ox you gore may be your own.
1