After Charlie Hebdo attack, let's not sacrifice more civil liberties

Charlie Hebdo editor "Charb," killed in the terrorist attack.


Charlie Hebdo editor "Charb," killed in the terrorist attack.

"Murder is the ultimate form of censorship," write Sophia Cope and Jillian York of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But we must all be on guard for lawmakers who may use the grief and fear that followed the barbaric attack on Charlie Hebdo as an excuse to ram new, draconian anti-terror laws down our throats.

The journalists and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo have long used satire to engage in cultural critique, a form of expression strongly protected by international norms and with deep historical roots in prompting societal change and igniting discussions on controversial issues (see, for example, Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal and Voltaire’s Candide). In the age of the Internet, satire is finding fecund ground on video sharing sites, social media, and across the blogosphere as a way of engaging in discussion on political issues, social ideas, economic theory, and even poking fun at celebrities. While satire has a long history in France, it has become commonplace in many countries, including in the Middle East, where satirists such as Bassem Youssef (“Egypt’s Jon Stewart”) have faced pressure to go silent. In the face of tragedy and extremism, humor can be a way of reclaiming power.

Often in the wake of a terrorist attack, we see governments move swiftly to adopt new laws without consideration of the privacy rights being sacrificed in the process. Even as we mourn the losses at Charlie Hebdo, we must be wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers, which are likely to disproportionately affect Muslims and other minorities.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on individuals exercising their free expression rights. But we must not sacrifice some rights in a rush to protect others.

"In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even More Rights" [eff.org]