This paper is mostly about the liberation to publish irreligiously and how it influenced the attacks on terrorist attacks such as Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. The author critiques that the freedom to publish cartoons of this nature should have been consoled and protected. The primary question of this article is addressed whether the freedom to publish such ‘irreligious cartoons’ is as basic and valuable as was and is suggested by some users of the Je Suis Charlie motto, and by many critics of blasphemy and accusal of religious laws. The issue is intricated by the fact that, where Charlie Hebdo was attacked, two conceptually different types of cartoons involving the Prophet Muhammad were involved. Some indeed satirized the Prophet, but others also conveyed that there was a connection between the Prophet and terrorism. Therefore, the question of the article is whether the freedom to be exceedingly offensive in relation to sacred matters and also to negatively stereotype a religion is authentically essential to international society.
The author mentions that the Al Qaeda attack on the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris and the killing 12 people, in fact, was in response to its publication of various cartoons embodying the Prophet of Islam. According to his research, the typical international reaction to this terrorist attack, after all, includes condemnation, fear, and sympathy. Here he criticizes that there was an additional and describing aspect of the international reaction to the latter which is not ordinarily found when acts of violence have happened, videlicet a sense of solidarity; with the journalists, with the magazine, and with its work, briefly in the ubiquitous use of the phrase Je Suis Charlie.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
I think he tries to bring up two different focuses that such solidarity may have taken. Actually, at the more obvious level, there was a feeling that whatever the matter that was being published, it was plainly unacceptable that a magazine should be earmarked violently for publishing cartoons, however irreverent or offensive they may have been. Veritably, no doubt, the exceedingly widespread and spiritual nature of the response to the attacks did derive in large degree from their shocking nature and from the level of violence which was preoccupied.
I do agree with him that of course, there is a difference between analyzing that the freedom to publish irreligious cartoons should be protected from violent attacks and saying that it should be protected as a matter of right from juridical interference. Furthermore, there will be many users of the phrase Je Suis Charlie who would not subscribe to this latter position. By the way, the author’s concern, however, is with the nature of that part of the reaction in the wider global context, which implied that the freedom to publish irreligious cartoons was essential not exclusively having regard to the French view of the appropriate relationship between freedom speech and religion, but also as an international proposition which could claim some kind of worldwide legitimacy.
Summarily, the writer divided the article into four sections. First, he tries in order to figure out the difference between the two types of cartoons, we should consider the difference between blasphemy and libel of religion according to the meaning of the UN resolutions. Secondly, it is suggested that the proposition that the international right to freedom of speech must always support the publication of such cartoons is unsustainable. Thirdly, he argues that many Western societies accept the legitimacy, in essence, of laws that are directly equivalent to laws against blasphemy and defamation of religion. Fourthly, he considers the counter-argument that, religion can be noticed as fundamentally sui generis such that the analogies cited above do not work. In the end, he concludes that, whereas, of course, any attacks in which there are numerous casualties will attract international condemnation, the explanation for the unrivaled nature of at least some of the international reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attacks may lie profound within the broken relationship between western orthodoxy and the Islamic world. Therefore, faced with an ideological dissident of this kind, it is unsurprising that many in the West will cheerfully take the option of seeking either to denigrate the tenets of Islam or to demonize the religion as a whole. This is of course what the cartoons in both Charlie Hebdo and Jyllands Posten did and what blasphemy and defamation of religion laws request to prevent.
Stuck on your essay?
