With the current displeasing events circulating France around the mockery of Islam through some distasteful drawings and the country’s president dismissing the act simply as a form of freedom of speech, I started wondering what exactly constitutes freedom of speech? In fact, what is freedom really? Is it freedom when we ridicule different ethnicities? Is it freedom when we stereotype genders? And is it freedom when we scorn a faith practiced by millions of people around the world? Where do we draw the line between freedom and discourtesy? When does ones freedom stop while another persons begins?

Lets see what the scholars have to say. According to:

Socrates – (Greek philosopher 470 – 399 BC) “To find yourself, think for yourself.”

 John Locke – English philosopher (1632-1704) “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Genevan Philosopher (1712 – 1778) “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” 

Jean-Paul Sartre – French Philosoper (1905 – 1980) “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

So if we start from the very beginning, according to Socrates who is credited as the founder of western philosophy, one of the first forms of human consiousness is thought. In his statement, “To Find yourself, think for yourself.” we understand that through thinking we become self aware and self conscious which makes us accountable for all our actions. Centuries later when we look at what Locke says “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” So we see that respecting another’s life, health and possessions is linked with ones equality and independence. Rousseau, a century later affirms by saying, “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” that there is simply no freedom without restriction. Finally I added Sartre’s statement, “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” which supports the theory that freedom is a form of condemnation as with it comes great responsibility.

These are all western scholars, the last scholar being French, from the very country that ignited this war on freedom. History tells us through scholars and current events that freedom cannot exist without definitive boundries. That with freedom comes great personal responsibility, thought and awareness of ones self and others. That with any freedom be it freedom of speech or expression comes an accountability of what and how we express it and to what extent that affects others. When any freedom threatens the well being of others wether mentally, physically or socially then it is not freedom anymore, it is an invasion. So how could some great modern world leaders today, after all these studies and events made by their own scholars and history, still choose to dismiss the obvious ambushing and disrespect of other people under the name of “freedom of speech”. How could a country so advanced, modern and refined, a country that has undergone wars and revolutions in the pursuit of freedom misdefine the very essence they’ve been fighting for? Are we living in a world where freedom of speech is exempt from any obligations towards the people receiving it as long as those people belong to somewhere else?