Free Speech vs. Hate Speech in France: A Guide for the Perplexed
By Joelle Fiss on 28 January 2015
In response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, millions of French took to the streets on January 11th to defend the right to “blaspheme” or insult religion. But a few days later, French authorities cracked down on the comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala for writing on his Facebook page, “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” in a sign of solidarity with Amedy Coulibaly, the man who killed four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris as the manhunt for the Charlie Hebdo killers was under way. Dieudonné is now facing charges for “apology of terrorism.”
How can the French authorities sanction Dieudonné, while simultaneously vowing to uphold the right to free speech? On this side of the Atlantic, those double standards don’t make sense. The First Amendment guarantees the highest threshold of free speech in the world. As decided in the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, short of inciting to “imminent lawless action,” US citizens have few restraints. Giving the state the power to intervene in any speech is seen as deplorable, and restrictions on speech are viewed as a barrier to individual freedoms. But the French distinction between hate speech and the right to blaspheme explains why it is perfectly acceptable to punish Dieudonné while protecting journalists who satirize or insult religion. It is far different, and much less invasive, than the anti-blasphemy laws found in many repressive regimes (and mostly in Islamic states).
In France, since the French Revolution, everyone has had a right to blaspheme. That’s why the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad are tolerated. Hate speech, however, is a crime. In postwar Europe, the predominant view is that words can kill. Mein Kampf, for example, the book in which Adolf Hitler outlined his ideology and called for the extermination of the Jews, was read prior to being put into practice. Across the European Union, inciting racial or religious hatred can result in fines or even prison—like it has for French actress Brigitte Bardot and French journalist Éric Zemmour (both for anti-Muslim hate).
To prosecute hate speech, it’s necessary to establish a direct correlation between the words declared and the actual risk that they could harm the person or community targeted. A number of factors must be weighed, including: the likelihood of violence as a result of the speech; the intent of the speakers, particularly if they are a public personality; and the context in which the words were spoken. Dieudonné, whose followers include pockets of anti-Semitic youths from disenfranchised suburbs, spoke after France underwent its worst terrorist attacks in decades. At a time when Jews fear for their lives and some consider leaving the country, the government could not accept his words to be “neutral.” Nor could it disregard commentary that could inflame social tensions or further empower those who support violence.
Restrictions on hate speech seek to protect the physical security of citizens by proscribing certain declarations that could lead to violent acts. What they don’t do is limit the spread of hate. What’s more, unless democratic values are upheld, with an independent and objective judiciary, prosecutions for hate speech can open the door to abuse.
Anti-blasphemy laws do the opposite. They threaten the physical security of individuals, and serve to protect the state, or its official theology. The focus is never on the physical harm that words or images may trigger, but on the degree to which they caused offense.
With frequently vague wording, the laws are open to whimsical interpretation and result in scores of abuses. In some countries, blasphemy is punishable by life imprisonment or death (e.g., Pakistan and Iran) and accusations often lead to arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, or riots (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia). Mobs often take it upon themselves to “uphold justice,” as happened last November when villagers in Pakistan’s Punjab Province beat and burned to death a Christian couple.
Ultimately, blasphemy laws can intend to suppress the voices of religious minorities, non-believers, political dissidents, or any person who discusses or mocks religion.
When it comes to religious minorities, Europe’s hate speech laws serve to protect them from violence, not persecute them.
Joelle Fiss is a member of the Foreign Policy Initiative’s Leadership Network and a consultant on international affairs, with a focus on human rights. She recently published two articles on the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Le Monde and Libération. The views expressed are her own. Affiliations are provided for identification purposes, and do not suggest institutional endorsement.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/joelle-fiss/free-speech-vs-hate-speech-france-guide-perplexed
