Freedom of speech has often been defined as the (political) right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. It is one of the Four Freedoms enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the others being freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom from want. With specific regard to freedom of speech (used interchangeably with freedom of expression), Article 19 of the declaration states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
Free speech is considered as the fabric of democratic society, as it gives voice to the numerous opposing interests competing for resources, recognition and protection from the state. The Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit uses freedom of speech to measure the state of democracy in each country.
Freedom of speech also comes with its moral responsibility. It is expected that while an individual or group may air its opinions, it should also make room for other opinions which conflicts with its values or interests. As Chomsky puts it, "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech". It is also an unspoken creed that societies and individuals do not use their speech to spread ridicule, hate or violence against opposing groups. Measures taken to exclude certain types of speech such as slander, hate speech, copyright infringement et al, imply that freedom of speech though infinite, has moral boundaries.
The recent attack on the offices of controversial satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, prompts us to analyse the boundaries of free speech. Precisely, at what point may 'free' speech be interpreted as being hurtful or slanderous? At what juncture do we characterise an utterance as 'irresponsible' and a nuisance to free society?
To answer this, I would use an occurrence in my work place. By virtue of my job, I come in contact with people of different nationalities. Americans, Canadians, Indonesians, Croatians etc. One day, the supervisor (an American) was addressing a group of Nigerian workers, and he used the word mudafucker. The Nigerians found this word offensive and took the matter up. The American looked surprised and bemused at the fuss created by what he described as a slang. He was later made to apologise.
This illustrates that the definition of free speech differs across societies, with its boundaries expanding or shrinking, depending on the particular culture or society.Cultural and mental representations of (vocal) symbols vary across societies and so is the reaction towards them. While some societies may find a particular symbol offensive, others may not. Which explains why the American was surprised about the fuss over a mere slang. As such, it is the responsibility of citizens in a global community of different cultures and symbolic interpretations is to cognisance these differences and accord them their various respects. Something, Clifford Gertz called emic point i.e seeing the culture through the eyes of the culture bearer.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not only a fire burning in the background for too long. It is also an example of how irresponsibility in exercising free speech can have pernicious effects on multicultural societies. Yet again, it helps us unmask the hypocrisy in free speech where its definitions are only meant to serve a particular section of the society.
While the magazine repeatedly published cartoons which constantly mocked Islam's central beliefs and figures, it has also shown the same zeal in mocking Christianity or other west. Infact, the magazine had fired one of its cartoonist for an 'anti-semitic' depiction of Jean Sarkozy, son to then French president, Nicholas Sarkozy. Yet the french authorities saw nothing wrong in allowing the magazine republish the controversial caricatured cartoons of Prophet Muhammed release by a Danish magazine years back. Perhaps it may be of interest to know that Magazine has been the recipient of violent attacks in the past, and at numerous times has had to operate under tight security and anonymous it because of similar islamophobic depictions.
What we witness here is a case of ethnocentrism, the idea that one's cultural values and beliefs are superior to that of others. While the editors at Charlie Hebdo saw is as a necessity to protect the 'sacredness' of western symbols and champion causes of anti-semtisim, it has failed to replicate such actions of respect and responsibility towards the symbols of other cultures. Perhaps if the management of the magazine had chosen to adopt an emic interpretation of cultural symbols and beliefs, such drawings would never be published.
It is irresponsible that we engage in free speech on one hand, and then absolve ourselves from the consequences of expressing these freedoms on the other. In a world where the voices of some are more louder and secure than others, advocating free speech is utopic. The channels through which free speech can be expressed has been auctioned off to the highest bidder. Freedom of speech becomes what the most powerful defines as free speech. This is why the United States sees nothing wrong in producing a movie which depicts the assassination of the North Korean president, but ignores issues questioning it's foreign policies and wars abroad.
Freedom of speech is not a placard we raise to press our own interests to the exclusion of others. It is a neutral field in which all parties can stake their claims, the execution of which demands responsibilities. Respect for varied cultures, beliefs and values is essential in freedom of speech. Failure to execute this throws a society into anarchy and totalitarianism. Those castigating the actions of the gunmen who killed the journalists have not really done justice to the scenario. The current global structures of free speech which espouses the supremacy of one race over others only fuels amber's of hate in the world. If freedom of speech is expressed in such ways, then we should accord the other groups a right to express their grievances. The murders of Charlie Hedbo cartoonists was uncalled for, but so were their satirical cartoons. Perhaps if one section of the French society had chosen to be responsible, it would have prevented a catalogue of irresponsible reactions. Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom after speech, it is conscious collective responsibility that does.

what a thread CC lalasticala Abeg help this boy