piss christ, charlie hebdo

In the debate over freedom of expression with regard to blasphemy, I find it absurd when the argument is made, usually in response to some Muslim fanatic going on a murder rampage, that "well Christians try to censor expression too."

I just don't think there exists a reasonable argument to be made that there is any moral equivalence between cutting a national arts endowment budget vs. committing mass violence in response to the publication of deliberately provocative expression. In the Piss Christ case, citizens are upset that public money, their money, funded a mediocre art project that they didn't particularly care for, so they voiced their opinion that they don't want to pay for such things. In the Charlie Hebdo case, a privately owned satirical publication published an image that resulted in the violent death of several of its employees at the hands of religious fundamentalists.

The thing about freedom of expression, properly understood, is that it is a right granted by the Creator, to private individuals, secured by government. It is not a right granted to citizens by the government. It is not a right granted to the government by the government. When government pays for expression, it is called state media, not free expression. If citizens of a constitutional republic don't like the state media, for whatever reason, they have the right to make their opinion heard, and present arguments to their representatives in favor of withdrawing funding until they change their tune. That is not censorship; it is an exercise of basic rights.

Ultimately I'm pessimistic about the possibility of eliminating blasphemy, and by extension anti-blasphemy laws. Humans have a need to identify sacred things, and set them apart from profane things. If you try to make everything profane, something else will inevitably become sacred.