Censorship Its Not What You Think

Censorship It's Not What You Think Picture of Said and Cherif Kouachi executing French police officers Ahmed Merabet (photo credited to CBS News) On January 7, 2015, two armed gunmen burst into the headquarters of a small French satirical newspaper called  Charlie Hebdo  and killed  12 people in and around the building. The attackers were reported to have claimed to be from Ansar al-Sharia or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The attackers, later identified as Chèrif and Saïd Kouachi fled the scene, killing a police officer and stealing a car at gunpoint. They took hostages at, ironically, a Print Works after evading capture for two days. There they made a final stand and were killed by police. This attack was coordinated with others across the country. The attackers made claims that this attack was perpetrated to punish blasphemers. In Islam, it is blasphemous to depict the Prophet Muhammad according to various hadiths or supplemental religious texts. Charlie Hebdo has repeatedly depicted The Prophet in their satirical cartoons and has been attacked before by Islamic extremists. As soon as the attack occurred, debate raged over Charlie Hebdo and their satire on multiple world religions, usually Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Many backed Charlie for their outspoken viewpoints and strong messages, but others questioned the value of mocking a religion when such attacks were certain to continue. Hashtags and trends popped up on social media like #JeSuisCharlieor I am Charlie in Frenchas a move of solidarity. The next issue of the weekly magazine was published despite the attack with another depiction of Muhammad and a caption stating “Tout est Pardonnè”: “All is Forgiven.” The issue sold over six million print copies globally. The paper normally reaches around 50,000 individuals in France. The attacks raised controversy about free speech globally, opening up attacks in Niger and other countries on Christians and Muslims. Pope Francis spoke out against the attacks, condemning them saying “One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion â€" that is, in the name of God.” However, his Holiness also said that to insult someone’s beliefs is imprudent and may result in violence from some because of human nature. A rally was held in Paris to commemorate the victims and stand against censorship and affirm free speech. French President Hollande, 40 other world leaders, and 3.7 million French held a rally of national unity. President Obama initially stated his intent to join them, but the Secret Service and CIA convinced the President that given such recent attacks in France, attending a rally of 40+ world leaders might be ill advised. Throughout the world, a large portion of people have constitutions that protect their rights to peaceful demonstrations of dissent and free speech. Credited to blahblahblog.wordpress.com Exceptions are made in the case of liable or slander, but it is a United Nations right that citizens be permitted the right to protest when they disagree with a government policy or social issue. Notable exceptions include the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Syria, Belarus, Iran, Equilateral Guinea, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Burma, Morocco, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Sudan, and Azerbaijan. All these countries censor media, restrict access to the internet, prosecute journalists, control state media and forcefully break up protests. While active censorship exists in the above countries, heavily restricting the amount of information that gets to the people, the people still share their ideas. Inside undercover footage from North Korea proves that people cooperate and spread illegal media and ideas among each other openly. Despite state control, Big Brother-like surveillance is not a possibility in most of these countries. In the “free world,” a different type of censorship occurs. You probably already know about it yourself, but don’t think of it as censorship. It is subversive, difficult to control, and very dangerous to freedom. It is self-censorship. Self-censoring is any blockage of ideas that occurs on your own end of communication. Like editing a paper, self-censorship acts to trim off bits, but usually things that are controversial. This means not tweeting about controversial topics. It means not disagreeing in class so you don’t make a scene. Self-censorship means not letting ideas flow to other people. The worst part is that we are doing it to ourselves. The term “politically correct” may be familiar to you and you may even actively shun it, but it has been a means of censorship in this nation of otherwise limitless free expression. So long as anyone does not publish untrue or classified information, you can and really should. The majority of people, on the other hand, love to use politically correct terminology to avoid conflict. Of course, this does not mean using terms like midget or the N-word are not bad or that Native Americans should be called Indians, but it does mean that no one is willing to challenge ideas. Even in American politics this is true. Each political party has a member of each house of Congress designated as “The Party Whip.” Their job is to ensure political conformity from moderates who might vote in favor of the opposition’s bill. This ensures a strong vote one way or another and does not allow for real discussion or persuasion to take place. It pervades all areas. Science even has taboos. No one wants to study human cloning, homosexuality, physics contrary to Einstein, and a plethora of other disciplines that deserve attention but are blocked out. This form of social censoring keeps discoveries from being made. Its not new either. Darwin and Galileo are just two examples of radical scientists who are largely accepted today because they talked about what no one wanted to at the time. Socially, this means no one wants to debate anything. Most people would rather be silent, and wait until they are among friends of similar persuasion to discuss their ideas. If you talk to friends of similar beliefs though, wouldnt that be the equivalent of talking to yourself? By surrounding yourself with people of similar beliefs, you prevent yourself from ever learning anything new. If you are unwilling to listen, you cannot hear when someone answers your question. Instead of seeking to surround yourself in a cocoon of parrots, seek dissension. Look to find places where you may respectfully disagree and do so with your real face and real name. Do not seek the internet to hide yourself when presenting your views. Put yourself out on a limb. Dare to disagree. Speak your mind, but remember to listen as well. YouTube content creator Derek Muller spoke about this in terms of science. Check it out below. Be sure to share you ideas below and please share this on social media. Feel free to challenge this article too.