In France, Fuzziness on Free Speech

But to support the free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo, albeit with reservations, should also be to back the freedom of others, like Dieudonne, to engage in offensive speech.

I am an unlikely defender of Dieudonne, with his barely disguised "Heil Hitler" salute and his even-less-disguised anti-Semitic "jokes." But Dieudonne has a point in writing, "I am looked upon as if I were Amedy Coulibaly, when I am no different from Charlie."

Granted, France is not the United States. Granted, actually, that the United States has its own problems tolerating offensive speech. The New York Times' David Brooks made an important point about intolerance from the left on college campuses against speech that fails to toe the politically correct line.

As to France, the country has different laws; a different history, including the murder of its Jews; and a different present, including a large, discontented Muslim population. This has led it to make different choices about how much offensive speech to tolerate.

French law makes an exquisitely fuzzy distinction between speech that insults a religion generally and speech that provokes "discrimination, hatred or violence" based on, among other things, religion. A new law also increases penalties for "apologie du terrorisme," condoning terrorism.

The New Yorker's Alexander Stille offered an example of the difference between what is permitted and what is criminal: Actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in 2006 for having written, about Muslims in France, "We are tired of being led around by the nose by this population that is destroying our country," while writer Michel Houellebecq was acquitted of having called Islam "the stupidest religion."

A democratic society ought to be able to tolerate both sets of statements.

"That's the debate that we have had with our American friends for some time because of your First Amendment," French ambassador to the United States Gerard Araud, told NPR's Melissa Block. "In France, the speech is free, but if it could lead either to a crime or if it could be seen as libel, which is, of course, under the control of the judge, it's to the judge to decide whether the red lines have been crossed."

Up to the judge? What would Charlie say?

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.