You guys, I think I've found the dumbest political cartoon ever. It's by Matt Wuerker. No, not the dumb Hillary Clinton one he drew accusing her political opponents of being sexist simply for opposing her. A different dumb one. Here's a link. I want you to click through and read it. Then read it again. Then sit there and let it sink in.
Now let's consider it panel-by-panel.
Panel One:
Well, yeah. I mean, this is more or less a bedrock of First Amendment jurisprudence. There are a few limited exceptions (for reasons of national security, direct incitement to violence, etc.). But I'd like to think most most people involved in the publishing industry would say, "Yes, you do have a right to say anything."
Panel 2:
Again: Well, yeah. Lord knows no one in a position of cultural authority gets too terribly upset when, say, the sensitivities of Christians are viciously ridiculed. And even if they do, we're informed that, hey, it's all part of the game. Because it is. That's what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means it's okay to create the Piss Christ! And it's okay to be upset about the Piss Christ being created! But it's not okay to, say, murder the creator of the Piss Christ. And it's doubly not okay to say no one should create the Piss Christ because we don't want to encourage the murder of artists.
Panel 3:
Oh, shoot. You know what? I just realized that I've always read the First Amendment incorrectly. I totally forgot about the "heedlessly provocative" clause! Emphasis mine, below: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of non-heedlessly provocative speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
MY BAD YO.
Panel 4:
Ah, there it is. The Borowitzian straw man, the moment when good liberals are supposed to pat themselves on the back. "Look at the hypocrisy of those so-called free speech fundamentalists," they chuckle knowingly. "All they care about is their OWN speech. They hate insensitive speech too! Just find OTHER THINGS insensitive. We're so smart. They're so dumb."
And this would be a fantastic gotcha if it even remotely reflected the reality of the moment. But it doesn't. At all. I mean, no one is calling for, say, the beheading of Garry Trudeau for revealing himself to be a useless Boomer quisling. No one is calling for the imprisonment of Teju Cole for demonstrating that his commitment to freedom of expression is less than total. Lots of people have pointed out that there's something deeply disturbing about our artistic class suggesting we should submit to those who commit atrocities in the name of Allah, to those who are committed to silencing their critics via violence. But those of us who are appalled by the deployment of these pusillanimous talking points are by no means interested in ending the right of those who deploy them to say what they want. No one is screaming "You can't say that!" whilst stamping their feet.
No one except, of course, for those who would silence Charlie Hebdo and its descendants. But they don't stamp. They shoot. They chop. They burn. And, in response to the shooting and chopping and burning, people like Wuerker attempt to convince us that their fear is actually compassion, that their lack of commitment to freedom of expression is actually a monumental concern for others to experience freedom from oppression.