Open/close all quotes
Freedom of expression faces other threats now
Those who railed most vehemently against the terrorists after the attack did not really do so for the sake of press freedom, De Standaard explains:
“At the time, freedom of expression was defended most vociferously by politicians and movements that strive for the opposite. They exploit people’s sense of being culturally oppressed as an inexhaustible political resource. Because of this permanent danger, the press must be monitored, they say. A press that is not subservient they call an enemy of the people…. That’s how it was in Russia, that’s how it is in more and more European countries, and that’s how it looks likely to be under Trump, too. … The era in which it was a matter of course to defend the free press is definitely over.”
Growing intolerance for provocations
French society is increasingly unwilling to tolerate provocative, silly and sometimes tasteless satire, The Economist comments:
“Today French support for the defiant Charlie Hebdo spirit – known as ‘Je suis Charlie’ – seems fragile. It was strong in 2020 after Samuel Paty, a schoolteacher, was decapitated by a terrorist. (He had shown pupils caricatures of Muhammad in a class about free speech.) Yet by 2023 only 58 percent of the French told a poll ‘Je suis Charlie’, down from 71 percent in 2016.This may reflect a more general trend in Western society of growing intolerance for causing offence.”
The law protects the right to humour
There is an effective legal framework for satirical publications, author Sébastien Bailly stresses in L’Humanité:
“We are fortunate to have a right to humour and a judiciary that does its job. It differentiates between a bon mot and an offence, between caricature and defamation, parody and plagiarism. With these tools, the courts distinguish between harassers and jesters, antisemites and humorists. They condemn the former and protect the latter. Legally, humour must meet two conditions. Firstly, it must strike the right note: deliberately exaggerated and sarcastic, it reveals the whimsical character of something without claiming to be serious. Secondly, the status of humorist must be clearly recognisable and announced as such. … If there is ambiguity, the contract is broken. If you don’t accept these rules, democracy is in danger.”