Free Speech Means FREE SPEECH, With No 'Buts'; Most Intellectuals Fail The Charlie Hebdo Test

Why most intellectuals claiming to be Charlie (Je Suis Charlie) are far from being one

On the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo killings, Swaminathan Aiyar wrote a column in The Times of India extolling the virtues of free speech and religious tolerance. However, a closer reading of the piece indicates that there is as much of an advocacy of the opposite position, despite the words being clothed in the symbolisms of free speech.

The problem is what a good friend of mine calls the “Kim Kardashian syndrome” – there is a “butt” in everything, albeit with one ‘t’ less.

Before getting into the specifics, one is not sure what people mean when they refer to themselves as liberals. Are they referring to themselves as US Democrats, or are they thinking classical liberalism? Both are flawed positions.

Anyway, my guess is that Aiyar uses it in the sense of classical liberalists and most of them belong to the Kim “Butt” Kardashian category. Aiyar may think of himself as a “free market” economist, while at the same adding…

• But we need the government to print money, manipulate interest rates and manage demand
• But we need the government to spread prosperity to the disadvantaged communities.
• But we need government to create and run schools, build roads, dams.

There are buts added to every liberal belief. Hence the colourful reference to Kim Kardashian (with due apologies to her for reducing her to just a butt).

Frankly, I don’t think we need a government at all, but if at all we have one, we need it for the purposes mentioned in the Declaration of Independence – i.e. to maintain law and order and the sanctity of contracts (ie, the justice system). Governments the world over have usurped enormous authority under the guise of creating social justice and equality and “liberals” have tacitly approved the really counter-productive and never-ending tasks that governments have set for themselves.

Their position on social and non-economic issues is even more suffocating. Aiyar, for example, reveals it in one of the opening sentences when he says: “Obviously, free speech can be curtailed if it calls for violence or criminality”. Nothing is obvious to me, but who will make the call on whether a speech calls for violence or criminality? One can quote passages from almost all religious texts that call for violence as well as actions that would be deemed criminal. So should we ban the Gita, the Bible and the Quran?

The real Charlie Hebdo position on free speech ought to “Free Speech”. Full stop. One can speak and write whatever one wants and there can be no curbs of any kind to that position. The rebuttal to those who want to proscribe free speech on the ground that it is offensive has to be what the late Christopher Hitchens said:

“If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings I’m still waiting to hear what your point is”.

A reader who finds something objectionable has every right to write his own rebuttal and not use the extended arm of the government to ban speech or writings because something might incite violence or criminality. If it does indeed cause those undesirable activities, then the people to be prosecuted are those who resort to crime and violence.

Gandhi had favoured mercy killing and Valmiki has defended the killing of Vali by Rama. Should these gentlemen be considered perpetrators of crime if somebody follows their advice today? Obviously, opinions are opinions, and in a free world we should be allowed to hold whatever we deem right. It’s only when it impinges on the right of another individual that it becomes a matter of law and order.

I never expect any government to guarantee what would be the equivalent of the original First Amendment in the US constitution. It’s not something to expect from what is essentially a tyrannical system – and that’s the direction all democracies eventually degrade to. Nothing surprising about that, but it’s indeed deplorable when the intellectual class mouths these lines.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement”.

It’s the duty of every citizen to defend these principles of free speech and not lay constraints as may seem “obvious” to individuals. That’s the tribute we all can give to Charlie Hebdo. Aiyar did not explicitly do so. Most claiming to be Charlie (Je Suis Charlie) are far from being one.

About the Author

Shanmuganathan “Shan” Nagasundaram is the founding director of Benchmark Advisory Services – an economic consulting firm. A subscriber to the principles of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism, he can be contacted at shanmuganathan.sundaram@gmail.com