Carol, As I am sure you know, that which is merely permitted is not, therefore, necessarily wise. You need to launch this student beyond the mere “free speech” issue (yes, of course it is permitted, in the most basic sense that you won’t be thrown in jail for merely saying it), and on to a discussion of whether it is a wise thing to say. Some of the loudest “free speech” advocates fail to comprehend that being “free” to say something doesn’t exempt them from (the harshest possible) criticism for saying something foolish. Free speech runs both ways. One can undermine one’s own authority, one's credibility, one’s reputation, even one’s claim to be taken seriously by “freely" saying foolish things. Just because it is permitted to say foolish things doesn’t mean that others a required to continue respecting the person who says them. One can also cause a tremendous harm by saying foolish things. One can set into motion terrible events by saying foolish things; events that one did not, perhaps, intend. (I’m thinking here of, say, of suggesting (with no evidence) to a person whom you know to be violent and impulsive that some third person is out to get him.) But one still shares some moral culpability for setting those events into motion (and others will judge you accordingly), even if the thing said was not specifically illegal. People may think much less of you — people whose respect you would like to earn — because you say foolish things. Being “free” to say things doesn’t “free” you from the responsibility that comes with having said them.
There is a second point, however, which is, perhaps, not well appreciated by North Americans trying to understand Charlie Hebdo. There is a cultural difference in the acceptability of brutal satire in French and American political discourse. It is a brutality that the French are proud of, in a certain way, in no small part because of the (nearly) century-long struggle of democracy against monarchy (to which the country reverted several times over the course of the 19th century, after the Revolution). Using our own political “intuitions” about what is and is not acceptable is not a good guide to what may or may not be acceptable in another culture, where such “intuitions” are different. Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo ………………………………... On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Carol DeVolder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear TIPSters, > Today in my Psychology of Laughter, Mirth, and Humor course, the discussion > will center around Charlie Hebdo, and whether simply because one has the > right to offend, should one? Where does free speech come in and cultural > sensitivities in humor? I haven't read much discussion of this on TIPS and > I'd appreciate reading comments--especially since I have one particularly > outspoken student who is very opinionated ("...free speech trumps > everything..."). I'm going to need to keep a close rein on how the discussion > unfolds, and so I want to give it some more thought. > Thanks for any and all comments, > je suis Carol > > -- > Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > St. Ambrose University > 518 West Locust Street > Davenport, Iowa 52803 > 563-333-6482 > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=41708 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-41708-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41712 or send a blank email to leave-41712-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
