PHILOSOPHY CAFÉ | How absolute can freedom of expression be?

The second Philosophy Café held at the Rui Cunha Foundation last week posed a challenging question that aimed to trigger debate over the concept of freedom of expression and its potential limits. This time conducted by  Nicolas Le Jeune, a PhD student at the University of Macau, the event’s organizers raised the question of whether we “should have absolute freedom of expression.”
“The first [philosophy café] was focused on the role of China in the world today. The second session looks at whether we should have absolute freedom of expression. It’s a very different topic, and I suggested it just after the event in France, because I think it’s important to discuss it further,” Nicolas Le Jeune told the Times, recalling the terrorist attack on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo last January in which two gunmen killed 11 people and injured 11 more inside the publication’s offices in Paris.
Le Jeune acknowledged that the question of freedom of expression is challenging to address and respond to. “One of the limits we could say we have is made apparent when what we want to express has harmful consequences for others, or when you promote violence. So of course, there’s a limit. But it’s also interesting to discuss where that limit stands,” he recalled.
Xavier Garnier, director of the Alliance Française de Macao, who also presided over the debate, added that, “A limit [to freedom of expression] could be, for instance, differences in cultures or religions. When you offend another religion or culture, this is a limit. But in France, blasphemy is not a crime.”
Beatrice Machet, a French poet who also led the debate last week, reiterated that blasphemy is not a legal offense in France, and has not been since it was scrapped from the law during the French Revolution. Ms Machet added that there are a number of issues attached to freedom of expression, particularly for artists. “Creativity or art is nothing if you’re not allowed to express yourself,” she acknowledged.
The talk, which gathered about 30 people at the Foundation’s gallery, rapidly evolved into a comprehensive discussion, in which most of the attendees agreed that there should be a limit to what can be freely said.
Where exactly that limit begins or ends, however, tended to trigger conflicting opinions.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was likely prompted by the paper’s controversial cartoons which depicted the Prophet Muhammad. A cartoon mocking ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-
Baghadi had also been tweeted just one hour before the attack.
Since January 7, which saw the deadliest terrorist attack in France’s history since 1961, discussions have been raised over the limits of freedom of expression.
Ms Machet recalled that French culture is very much grounded on the ability to express an idea through satire. Even the king’s court, she stressed, had clowns presenting the king with informative theatre, so that he knew what the population truly thought of him.
“Even if you are a bit provocative, it’s appreciated in France,” she added, pointing out that there’s a clear difference between disrespecting people and discussing ideas. “We respect people, but ideas are to be discussed,” she reiterated, hinting that the cartoons were not mocking the Prophet himself, but rather mocking certain ideas and possibly the consequences resulting from the spread of those ideas. Therefore, according to Machet, satire is about reflecting on what surrounds us.
However, not all shared the same opinion, recalling that cultural differences can add more complexity to the matter. “We are used to criticizing religion in Europe, but, in other countries, they’re not used to that. For them [the cartoons] were more powerful than [they were] for us,” a participant said.
Another participant commented, “I don’t think we should be allowed to say everything; not everything we say can set us free.”
One member of the audience stressed that what we draw or write might be hurtful to others. Furthermore, it may damage social harmony, which, as Nicolas Le Jeune pointed out, is a very important concept in Chinese society. “[Harmony] comes from music, and it tells us we can have different notes and still be harmonious. At the same time, harmony can be problematic if it means we only have one voice,” he recalled.
One participant expressed the opinion that the Charlie Hebdo attacks unveiled a clear asymmetrical relationship between Western and Muslim communities.  He believes the latter group is not being given the same respect and economic opportunities.
Another participant expanded on this discussion of East and West, concluding that although freedom and human dignity are priorities for Western countries, other nations do not see these concepts as main concerns.
The inaugural philosophy café at the Rui Cunha Foundation was held in February. On that occasion, UM professor William Franke addressed the topic of philosophical universalism and the role of China in the world today.
The philosophy café is a joint initiative of the Rui Cunha Foundation and the University of Macau, aiming to encourage discussion and critical thinking while also addressing current affairs.
The second instalment was also co-organized by the Alliance Française. “It’s very important for philosophy to be present in the city,” said Nicolas Le Jeune, adding that “philosophy concerns everybody, and it’s important to discuss philosophy with everyone, rather than only with experts or philosophers.”