Following the shooting in France against the journalists at Charlie Hebdo, the phrase "Je suis Charlie" has been circulating. In english this translates to, "I am Charlie". However, David Brooks, writer for the New York Times, delves into why people should be careful not to utilize the trending saying. Through his arrangement and word choice, Brooks creates an effective argument and voices his unpopular opinion.
Brooks begins with a succinct current state of the situation writing how the journalists, "are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression". He is able to separate his opinion from something positive that is seen in the situation. He also recognizes his audience and doesn't go into detail about the current event, he just assumes his reader is aware. Brooks continues to explain that while the journalists were free to speak as they did, it never would've flown in America. Following such a grand claim, Brooks gives countless evidentiary support to the idea that just because someone is in favor of free speech, doesn't mean what they are saying is right.
Brooks continues very casually writing, "So, this may be a teachable moment." He beings to propose his idea of what needs change, as he has already established that he is indeed in favor of free speech. His casual tone dies, however, when he writes, "When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs." The indirect comparison between the writers at Charlie Hedbo and young teenagers is not a very kind one. He uses this newly proposed idea to explain that everything has a place and to not simply lionize something simply because it has been attacked.
Brooks concludes his piece with a very clear message, "The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating." Brooks has made it very clear that he is most definitely not Charlie.
No comments:
Post a Comment