The events that take place after the Wednesday shootings in Charlie Hedbo bother many people around the whole world. The point is that this event touches upon several different aspects like racial inequality, religious preferences, freedom of speech, ethical norms, and people’s expectations and reflections on what is happening in the press.
The current paper aims at evaluating the video with several people discussing the right of the press to offend people and the right of the readers to use bloody techniques to solve their discontents.
The video raises the question whether freedom of speech may provide people with the right to offend, and its participants prove that the complicated nature of the issue under consideration may create a new conflict even during the discussion; this is why, to avoid bloody outcomes in the profession of a journalist, people have to understand their rights, follow a number of ethical norms, and remember that all media sources may criticize but never impose the violence.
Many media representatives like to touch upon political, religious, and racial issues, however, Charlie Hebdo remains to one of the most controversial, open-minded, and provocative sources. Some readers may think that Charlie Hebdo takes a great risk choosing such offensive topics, but many people know nothing about this magazine.
In the video, Douglas Murray explains that it is high time to spread the risk around. It is wrong to believe that one magazine with one cartoonist may prove the worth of speech freedom in the right way.
It is wrong to believe that the way of how one public media source may correctly introduce the idea and not be punished. Another interesting position introduced in the video is that freedom of speech is all about someone saying something offensive. However, it should not be a reason to take a gun and kill people. Any idea and any thought do not deserve a single human life.
People like to believe that each event has its purpose. However, some people cannot still understand a true reason of why the terroristic attack in Charlie Hebdo took place. The experts admit that it was a reaction on the religious offenses that cannot be legitimized. And passionate journalists, like Douglas Murray, define this event as a bloody attempt to impose faith using losing freedoms.
The point is that people do not care about the idea of freedom in case it does not touch them directly. People are afraid to admit that they have fears, dependencies, and responsibilities that cannot be neglected. But they will care about it as soon as a controversy appears in front of their doors.
In my opinion, the video contains one simple truth that cannot be neglected. Media does have the right to criticize, accuse, provoke, inspire but never spread the violence! Freedom of speech is all about sharing information and offering new ideas and visions on the same situations.
However, when a magazine decides to offend someone’s feelings on religious or ethical ground, it is crucial to consider the idea of human rights, cultural norms, and rules that cannot be neglected in society. Of course, it is not a reason to choose a gun as the only possible method to solve a question. However, it is necessary to remember that some offenses may lead to such unpleasant, unpredictable and terrible results as it happened with Charlie Hedbo’s people.