When freedom of speech threatens national security


Recently, Western countries have been shaken by a incident in which self-proclaimed Al-Qeada militants rushed and shot at Charlie Hebdo headquaters in Paris, killed 12 and wounded 10 people. This satirical magazine has been attacked once for publishing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in the name of free speech and France’s cherished secular laws. You should remember that the Prophet Mohammed to muslims like Jesus to christians, and you must not mess with the Muslim! Charlie Hebdo don’t know it, so the tragedy happened.
 After that, France declared national mourning, EU member nations also made memorial ceremony to victims of the incident. Thousands of French marched on streets with slogans of “I am Charlie” to show their solidarity. This slogan also flared all many electronic boards. Many French newspapers turned into black-and-white background with this slogan on first page “I am Charlie” to memorize their colleagues. In Britain, Germany, Switzerland, Italia… people marched and bought milions of the papers as a way of supporting victims.
 In Vietnam, some groups, self-proclaim as activists for democracy, and hostile forces abroad have quickly exploited the event to praise for freedom of speech and consider that this value has absolute quality and is protected by the world, in an attempt to slander the Party and State of Vietnam of violating speech freedom. On the Internet, there are images of a football team and an “intellectual” holding a banner “I am Charlie” by English and Vietnamese, and not forgetting their won banners “I am Ba Sam”, “I am Bo Lap”… These acts have been criticized by social network communities, because we are so familiar with their acts of showing patriotism but calling relief for those individuals who commited criminals of tax dodges, disturbing public order and violating national interests, and are being charged by authorities like Le Quoc Quan, Nguyen Van Ly, Ta Phong Tan… Even, some also use satires of the Le Monde publishing porn pictures of leaders of Russia, France… to prove the unlimited quality of speech freedom as a criteria of civilized community.
 Reviewing history, in 1970, the precursor of Charlie Hebdo was banned by the French Ministry of Home Affairs because of posting ironical title of Charles de Gaulle’s funeral.
Stéphane Charbonnier, Editor-in-chief, must and has understand risks of insulting the Prophet Mohammed, but still, he did that. And, it’s not the first time. In 2012, Charlie Hebdo published series of satire about Mohammed like naked or sitting on a wheel-chair pushed by a Jew… After that, French government must close their diplomatic agencies and other cultural organizations in 20 nations for fear of revenge. The weekly satirical magazine has been threatened by many extremist elements, but it seems they don’t care. They don’t know their “freedom of speech” has violated others’ freedom of religions, offended others’ worship. Now, they obviously know that, but it’s a little late for the victims.
 The U.S. and Western countries have separated around viewpoint on limits of speech freedom after the attack. New York Times is one of Western newspapers does not publish satires of Charlie Hebdo, many readers accused it of being coward and not supporting and showing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and speech freedom. Explaining that, New York Times published a article “I am not Charlie Hebdo”, in which, there’s a sentence that freedom of speech needs to respect others’ belief.
 So, it might be cruel a bit, but Charlie Hebdo has reaped what it sowed. Experts have discussed that extremism can’t be resolved by extremist thoughts. Though no one tolerates violent force and terrorism, we must seek civilized solutions to deal with these kinds. The Charlie Hebdo tragedy will be a warning sign raises a need that there must be a strict limit on individuals’ atcs who always claim themselves protecters or supporters for speech freedom in extremist ways./.
Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 10 ]

yobro yobro 18/7/15 09:02

When a situation arises which threatens the national security of the state, and thereby of the human rights of the entire population, international law permits certain proportionate measures to counter that threat. This includes restrictions on freedom of expression.

Only Solidar 18/7/15 09:03

I totally agree with you, Yobro. Human rights can not threaten national interests.

LawrenceSamuels 18/7/15 09:04

All the international instruments which guarantee the right to freedom of expression also recognise national security as a legitimate ground for limiting that right.

Love Peace 18/7/15 09:09

We should focus on how or on whether the restrictions at issue are necessary, just don't let national security bind human rights.

MaskOf Zero 18/7/15 09:15

No government accepts freedom of expression to harm national interests.

Jane smartnic 18/7/15 09:16

Even in US, Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government.

John Smith 18/7/15 09:20

Some in US and Western countries believe free speech that criticizes Islam poses a national security threat to national security and that those responsible should be investigated by the authority.

Deck Hero14 18/7/15 09:22

The US and Western countries like France must have known this specifically.

Gentle Moon 18/7/15 09:28

In Vietnam, now there are many people, bloggers, facebookers, even some of the press have abused rights of speech freedom to unintentionally or intentionally undermine our national interests.

Pack Cassiopian 18/7/15 09:30

I support government to have restrictions on freedom of speech in harmony with national security. We must have laws to manage this.

Your comments