EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Yuri Ivanov*
Over time, we may have forgotten it, but it is an obvious truth that in socialist Bulgaria, people had the right to travel wherever they wanted... as long as they did not cross the external and internal borders outlined by the party. They also had the right to do whatever they wanted with their dreams... as long as they did not cross the rather narrow boundaries of communist ideology and the planned economy. They also had the right to speak and write whatever they wanted - within the right limits, of course.
I don't like Charlie Hebdo. I find the work of its authors, for the most part, to be vulgar, unnecessarily provocative, and sometimes downright disgusting. But I believe that the meaning of the idea of freedom of speech - its only meaning - is to protect the right of those whom I perceive as vulgar, provocative, and disgusting to share their ideas, without fear of violence. If that is not there, there will be no freedom of speech, because every person, naturally, likes his own ideas and hates ideas that contradict them, and every person in power is first and foremost a person.
As a result of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, people have appeared on domestic and foreign social networks and media outlets who have spoken about the “limits” of free speech, the “responsibility” of writers, and the “care” that must be taken in the journalistic profession so as not to accidentally offend anyone. These commentators do not seem to realize that only a blank sheet of paper will not offend anyone (and even that is not certain). Moreover, they come from the same intellectual tradition that has supported every dictatorship in the last century. Yes, the limits they imagine are hardly the same as those imposed by communist censors, but this is a difference in detail, not in principle.
Ironically, in the days following the Charlie Hebdo attack, Bulgarian regulators imposed a series of completely unfair fines on domestic journalists and media outlets, showing that once the principle is violated, it is only a matter of time before the open door is used by the powerful of the day to silence critical voices against them.
Freedom of speech, like the freedom to travel and the freedom to dream, can only be limited by your imagination and your own capabilities.
And, if anyone ever feels offended by what someone else has said, civilized societies have invented the institutions of the court and independent arbitration.
* See also Yuri's own blog at http://e-lect.net/
I don't know why you included the Bulgarian Communist Party in the list. If you don't know, in Bulgaria there is a law against inciting hatred based on religion, ethnicity, etc. The things are incomparable.
"Civilized societies have invented the institutions of the court and independent arbitration." In Bulgaria, this does not apply and in many cases, signals from organizations such as the Bulgarian Communist Party are relied upon. Valeri Simeonov recently said in parliament that Gypsies are "human-like." We know what would follow in a normal country. No one is interested in the systematic instillation of hatred and opposition in our society.
I may not like what someone thinks about gypsies, but the basis of freedom of speech/thought is that they have this right. No matter whether the BHC or Emo like it
There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech.