Ethical and Practical Limits of Satire, Essay Example

There are a number of individuals who argue that words are just words. Having said this, they believe that what took place in relation to the massacres of the Charlie Hedbo cartoonists was completely unjustified. This is because of the belief in that all individuals have their own individual rights to exercise, one of them being freedom of expression and speech. These individuals argue that despite that fact that the cartoonists had the audacity to portray Muhammad is a grotesque manner, the portrayal in no way justifies what the two gunmen did. On the other hand, there are a number of individuals who strongly believe that the reckless drawings are what caused the shootings and that the shooters actions are completely justified. In other to fully understand and comprehend the situation at hand, both sides of the argument must be closely analyzed and only then will an effective conclusion will be put into place.

In relation to those individuals who believe that the shootings were not justified, this is because of the idea that the cartoonists had the right to express themselves and critique anyone in whatever form they wished. They argue that the gunmen should have understood, like everyone else, that what was being portrayed in the cartoons was nothing more than satire being carried across via the magazine. The reason as to why these gunmen could have failed to recognize such satire, however, was because of the manner in which the cartoonists when to great extents to show great dishonor and disrespect towards a figure that both gunmen worshiped and honored.

Regardless of what the cartoonists intentions were, however, it is widely believed by a variety of individuals that what the gunmen did was not justified in any way because of the manner in which words are not equal to physical violence. The cartoonists may have crossed the line by portraying such drawings that offended a vast majority of individuals, but that still did not give them any kind of right to take it upon themselves to take the lives of these offensive individuals. The people who argue to this side of the case believe that there could have been a much better manner by which this scenario could have been dealt with.

On the other side of the spectrum, is has been known that there are many who believe in the idea that it was completely the cartoonists fault for portraying Muhammad in such a manner. These individuals argue that the cartoonist must have known what they were getting themselves into before they initially published the cartoon. While some think that this kind of train of thought is not justified, others think it is. This is because of the way in which they argue that whenever something or someone that is worshiped and adored by many is used for public humiliation, there are bound to be a vast number of individuals who become enraged due to such humiliation. Such was the case when a lot of cartoonists were shot down because of the things that they were creating and publishing to the public. The gunmen must have seen it as their own responsibility to do something about their religion, which was been jeopardized by the cartoonists. In essence, people who argue for this side of the case believe that the cartoonists should not have put their foot on unknown ground.

In other to fully understand and comprehend the situation at hand, both sides of the argument must be closely analyzed and only then will an effective conclusion will be put into place. Although it can often times be difficult to come to a conclusion as to which side of the argument is justified and which side of the argument is not justified, there should be no question about the fact that the violence did not solve anything. The magazine continued to produce works full of satire, so it is in many individual’s opinion if the gunmen would not have performed such actions that ended in the death of so many. However, many believe that is it a fair statement to say that magazines who produce such works full of satire should be more wary in the future in regards to who will read their articles.

Works Cited

Frum, David. “The Problem With Garry Trudeau’s Polk Award Speech on Charlie Hebdo.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 1 July 2015.

Parks, Tim. “The Limits of Satire by Tim Parks | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books.” The Limits of Satire. The New York Review of Books, n.d. Web. 1 July 2015.

Penketh, Anne, and Matthew Weaver. “Charlie Hebdo: First Cover Since Terror Attack Depicts Prophet Muhammad | Media | The Guardian.” The Guardian. The Guardian, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 July 2015.

Understanding the Socio-political Context of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 July 2015.