Since the introduction of rights and freedoms in various societies, the ability to express and to voice opinions has been one of the most valued. It is argued that the ability to speak freely is what forms a healthy society – when people are able to converse and express their opinions, minds are opened to new ways of thinking.
However, the concept of free speech is one that has been under heavy scrutiny for a long time. Although it is one of the most essential rights in a democratic society, the scope of free speech is often debated. How far does free speech go before it becomes hate speech? Can free speech even be limited without violating other rights?
The recent controversy with British comedian, Jimmy Carr, and his offensive Holocaust joke, has thrust the issue of free speech vs hate speech back into the spotlight.
In his new Netflix film, ‘Jimmy Carr: His Dark Material’, described by the streaming company as a stand-up special filled with dark humor and jokes that could very well become career-enders, Jimmy Carr finds perhaps just that. The ‘joke’ that has sparked wide outrage from a range of organizations and people comes in the hour-long film, which started with a trigger warning. After touching on the Holocaust, Carr made a joke that people only focus on the horrific tragedy of millions of Jewish people who lost their lives to the Nazi ‘war machine’ and they never focus on the ‘positives’ that thousands of gypsies met the same fate.
The clip went viral on social media, and sparked many notable figures and organizations to call on Netflix to remove Carr’s film from the platform. Many expressed how, comedy aside, the joke was insulting to make. The Culture Secretary of the United Kingdom, Nadine Dorries, even spoke to the BBC about passing new legislation that would hold streaming platforms like Netflix accountable for the content they host.
The public condemnation of the jokes that Carr makes have been trending on social media, as people share statistics and personal experiences that put into perspective how harmful Carr’s jokes were to the community of people affected by the Holocaust.
However, Jimmy Carr’s viral stand-up routine is not the first time an offensive comment has been made in the name of content or comedy and it is not the first time a host of people have felt negatively impacted by the harmful sentiments portrayed.
But the contrast in how the public and media respond to the derogatory comments, depending on who is at the receiving end, is evident.
In 2012, the popular French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, released a series of cartoons offensively depicting the Founder of Islam Muhammad. When the caricatures were rereleased in 2020, the heartbreak that the millions among the Muslim populace felt over the initial release was reignited — by mocking their religion, and their prophet, Charlie Hebdo had contributed to the media’s constant misrepresentation of Islam.
The public response to the offensive content the French magazine published was noticeably less consequential than the Netflix special: where the streaming giant is being threatened to remove Jimmy Carr’s film from the platform and new legislation is being introduced via the media bill, the Charlie Hebdo magazine went on to print thousands more copies of the material to continue spreading their harmful rhetoric.
In fact, instead of condemning the publications, many supported the magazine and encouraged to publish the caricatures that caused pain to Muslims around the world. Instead of pursuing legislative action, French President Emmanuel Macron stated it was not his place to critique the magazine for what it posted, and defended freedom of speech.
As a result, Muslims in France and around the world felt as though their feelings were neglected, and the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, that continue to be available for viewing today, are still a source of discomfort for many Muslims. The use of free speech as a defense for the offensive cartoons, and the lack of public solidarity with Muslims created divisions in society where people no longer see eye to eye.
This double standard in calling out offensive media is what continues to create tears in society. In both cases, a group of people were harmed because of a misrepresentation of facts in order to create a snazzy piece for the media. In only one case, definitive action is trying to be taken in order to prevent harmful sentiments from being ingrained into the minds of people.
And this is true for so many more cases than just Jimmy Carr and Charlie Hebdo. There are so many conflicting incidents where specific people are used as punchlines for disrespectful jokes and content in the media, where only some creators are condemned.
For the instances where there is public condemnation, the reason for public outcry is to condemn the acts and to show solidarity with a group of people. But why, then, does the public only cry out when some people are misrepresented and not others?
If the goal of legislation and public condemnation against Jimmy Carr is meant to highlight that every community of people must be respected, then why isn’t the courtesy extended to every group of people? Why is it that the media can take loud action to denounce an abhorrent action against only some and not all?
If freedom of speech can morph to spew hatred against some people without consequence, but is denounced when it morphs too far for others, are we really protecting democracy and equal rights?
If silence is violence, then the refusal to call out all offensive content as offensive is what perpetuates the disharmony in our societies. If we are too scared to draw a line between free speech and hate speech in the case of some, then there is no line at all. But if we recognize hurtful speech as hurtful speech, no matter who it is against, we can draw that line and make it definitive. We must denounce insulting content as insulting, no matter who it is against.
The silent war against offensive content does not have to be silent — and when we make this war against offensive content loud, then it should be unequivocally loud for whoever is on the receiving end of disrespect.
The media, as a source that conveys and amplifies perspectives, has to become a platform that outright condemns harmful content. There shouldn’t be a double standard in the media that calls some acts of offense out as abhorrent in the headlines, and refuses to call out other offensive content in clear words.
In order to be a totally harmonious society — one that has stepped away from disrespectfully using marginalized communities to create content — we must all learn to breathe together and to bleed together. We must remove this double standard in calling out ignorant content to protect every single person and community who is harmed by it.
Recent Comments