Grant 1

Katherine Grant
Professor Beard
ENG 212-24
January 15, 2015
Speak
On a seemingly typical Wednesday in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a popular antireligious satirical newspaper in Paris, France, a building-wide meeting of journalists was
interrupted by violence. But it wasnt a result of oppositional writersit was due to incensed Al
Qaeda members Said and Cherif Kouachi who were reportedly offended by materials depicting
the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (Al Qaeda in Yemen Commander Claims Responsibility for
Charlie Hebdo Attack). The brothers gunned down staffers and hostages in retaliation, killing
twelve Parisians by midday on January 7 (Al Qaeda). They basically acted as vigilantes,
justifying their actions with the responsibility to uphold Muslim orthodoxy by eliminating
dissidents and their spread of negative propaganda. The ultimate goal was to quell Charlie
Hebdos anti-religious viewpoint permanently. It was a diabolically plotted massacre that raises
concerns about whether or not certain publications should be censored, and, if so, by whom?
The answers to those questions dont come easily though. Consider the catalyst of such a
dramatic event: A simple dislike for what was printed in a country thousands of miles away from
Yemen, the geographical origin from which execution orders were sent. The importance lies in
Al Qaedas subsequent reactionary extremism and its ability to spread. Now, verbalizing
discontent for reprehensible caricatures of a sacred Islamic figure is one matter; overstepping
what Americans would consider First Amendment rights to get the point across is another. By

Grant 2
physically endeavoring to subdue Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist organiztion acted as a selfrighteous censor of French speech, press, and religious freedoms. They thereby infringed on
Thomas Jeffersons statementagain, putting the situation in an American perspectivethat all
are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For those senselessly lost, there is no
more life. No further liberty to walk above ground. No happiness for the relatives left behind.
And yet we continue to ignore these consequences. Just because The Charlie Hebdo
attack is the Yemen-based branchs first successful strike outside of its home country does not
translate into a fluke for the rest of the world (Al Qaeda). Have we already forgotten the horror
of 9/11? What about Detroits own Christmas day Underwear Bomber airline scare in 2009 (Al
Qaeda)? Repeated showings of international interference with values held by differing countries
should put us on alert. No, the group liable for this latest tragedy was not fully connected to those
who have previously targeted the United States, but if we do not begin acknowledging the fine
line between conscious intellectual freedom and respecting cultural norms, then expect to see
copycat organizations attempting censorship here soon. To reference a relevant historical
thought, Thomas Paine once wrote that restriction of a few rights (like deliberate taunting) may
be necessary to protect the majority of others (such as homeland security). So are we the ones in
need of censorship?
At the end of the day, the most prominent reason for us to care about Frances recent
happening boils down to being human. Put yourself in the shoes of a hostagefeel the heat of
bullets narrowly missing your body, endure the screams of terrified co-workers. Or maybe
imagine a loved one in that position. Truth is, you will never care enough until such an earthshattering occurrence becomes personal. The employees at Charlie Hebdo were real people with

Grant 3
families and entire lives waiting for them outside of the office. In the process of bettering their
society by murdering the need for censorship, they ironically wound up as victims of suppression
themselves. Case in point: We do not have to be at the crime scene to be affectedwe only need
to remember that people are people. We are thus obligated to take a stand in honor of those who
can no longer do so. Why? Easysilence is consent. And if we allow our Constitutional
privileges to go unused, we essentially forfeit them. It would practically be self-censorship! The
time for speaking up is the present. Wanna chime in on that before it is too late?

Works Cited

Grant 4
Al Qaeda in Yemen Commander Claims Responsibility for Charlie Hebdo Attack.
FOXNEWS.com. FOX News Network, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/14/video-purported-to-be-from-al-qaeda-in-yemenclaims-responsibility-for-charlie//