Je Suis Charlie

Je Suis Charlie? Maybe. I Am Certainly ACLU

This week, Charlie Hebdo will publish its magazine and feature a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on its front cover. Is this an act of defiance to challenge what took place at its offices in Paris a week ago? Is it an act of folly as it may endanger other publications and journalists? Is it bravado, knowing that an extreme section of the Muslim community will be offended and might react adversely? It is all these things but, most important, it is a demonstration of the value of freedom of speech, one of the pillars of the way of life enjoyed by those who live by the rules of western liberalism.

I have to admit I had not heard of the French magazine until last week. I have read some of the back issues and find its brand of satire a little hard to take. However, the magazine does not discriminate. It has poked fun at the political right wing, especially France’s National Front led by the Le Pens. It has been merciless about the transgressions of Francois Hollande and Nicholas Sarkozy. It has mocked all religions and their leaders. It does not attack the Muslim faith to the exclusion of others.

However, like other satirist publications, it may on occasion have taken things too far. This is part and parcel of satire. In our free, liberal society, provided what is said or printed is not against the law, anything goes.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution protects freedom of speech. It is arguably the liberty that Americans hold most dear. It is protected by numerous Supreme Court rulings. However, it also has an interest group, the American Civil Liberties Union, whose mission is to defend and preserve individual rights and liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution to all American citizens.

In late 1919, in the face of a “red scare”, US Attorney General Palmer oversaw the rounding up of so-called radicals in what became known as “the Palmer Raids.” Thousands of people were arrested without warrants as constitutional protections were disregarded. The ACLU was created to take a stand against such egregious abuses of civil liberties.

Over the past hundred years, the ACLU has been at the forefront of numerous legal battles. It was a partner with Clarence Darrow in the 1925 Scopes trial, when the state of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution. After Pearl Harbour when 110,000 Japanese Americans were uprooted from their homes and “relocated” to war camps, the ACLU stood alone, speaking out about this atrocity. In 1954, the ACLU joined forces with the NAACP in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the case which led to desegregation of schools, a major victory for racial justice.

The ACLU does not discriminate. In 1978, it defended the rights of a Nazi group which wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Stokie, Illinois, the home of many Holocaust survivors. The ACLU persuaded a federal court that city ordinances restricted the Nazis’ First Amendment rights.

The decision confirmed and demonstrated the ACLU principle that constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups and causes if they are to be preserved for everyone. So, for example, those Americans who seek to prevent the burning of the nation’s flag in public would be challenged by ACLU members on grounds that, unpalatable as this act may be, it is the constitutional right of all Americans to freely act in burning the flag, provided no criminal offence takes place at the same time.

This, surely, is the lesson to be learned by those who would challenge freedom of speech rights. The law and individual rights do not apply merely to some citizens and not others. The principle that the law is blind applies. Therefore, it is essential that attacks on freedom of speech be met with the pen, not the sword.