Not Charlie, kill. Freedom of speech and its limits

Illustration: Brighton Riviere. Prophet Daniil in front of the lions. Fragment

Here, for example, is a quote from an article dedicated to the march of peace in Paris: “Against the backdrop of the solemn and pathos of the“ march of the world ”, none of the European leaders had said that it was necessary to decide something with the second after the impunity of the media with the culprit of the current tragedy-radical Islamism.” The article is published in a journal claiming a certain intellectualism. It is called, of course, "a march of hypocrisy." This is perhaps the strongest statement of the appearance “to blame” of those - hundreds, alas, what happened to see after the tragedy in Paris. Even the unbending observers of Komsomolskaya Pravda did not have the spirit to rank the dead and killers.

This statement will become a starting point for our little reasoning.

1

What is the difference between an “Orthodox activist” who came to smash the next exhibition, from the “Islamist” who came to the editorial office of the magazine to kill caricaturists? There are two simple answers: 1) a system of confessed views; 2) nothing. The first answer is obviously incorrect: things are more important than declarations, the views of both are given to us in sensations, moreover painful, and these views to unwillingness to endure the very existence of someone else's opinion. The second is true, but not entirely accurate: there is still a difference. Our local activist is more fucked and not ready to die for his views. Fortunately, he is also afraid to kill. But this is for now. In general, it is more or less clear that pretty soon we will see a new generation of local “fighters for traditional values”, which will not be marked for the majority of the population of Russia - not from the Caucasus, not Muslims, etc.

2

The goal, however, is not to scare the reader with a threat - well, I don’t know - “Orthodox terrorism”. It’s just that this seems to be a fairly bright example, and it is easy to move on to a conversation about the skill with which Europe is understanding for not the first hundred years. About the ability to problematize their own values. This is a lasting and not always bloodless discussion, in which Hannah Arendt with Immanuel Kant on one side, and on the other - not only the warriors of the Prophet, but also, for example, writers of denunciations under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on these very warriors of the Prophet.

After all, with the help of a wide variety of arguments, including Kalashnikov assault rifles, is the dispute about whether such a system of values ​​exists, the criticism of which should be prohibited. Quantitative criteria are offered, for example: "One and a half billion people cannot be insulted." Their inferiority is understandable. They easily break about a simple question: how much can it be then? Billion? One hundred million? Three people? From what moment this kind of discrimination becomes possible? And, accordingly, further: can one and a half billion people, feeling like a community, destroy some kind of community less significant? If so, which one, and if not, why?

In the same way, the reference does not work (also in different versions very popular) to the antiquity of a particular system of values. In St. Petersburg, it happened to read, a grandfather lived from the former, who taught neighboring old women to sing hymns of Osiris by a volume of literary monuments. By the way, they sang. I don’t know if an enthusiast is alive, but his faith was obviously fraught with many others. But should this protect his faith from criticism, including psychiatrists?

3 We are told that the ban on criticizing certain values ​​systems is a way to preserve the world between representatives ... Further options. "Different faiths", for example. Well, that is, between different groups of minorities, because even the notorious “one and a half billion Muslims” is still a minority on the planet’s scale. But this is an obvious distortion: endowing some minorities with special rights, we do not retain any world. It's just that all the others are angry. It would be more honest that such a ban is a way to keep the most aggressive minorities from radical actions for a while, obeying their requirements. But this already sounds much less beautiful: as if we are not talking about preserving the world, but about a terrorist act with the capture of hostages. So, the real road to the world is somewhere else, but not here. The dispute simply cannot be fought whose faith is better. All disputes of this kind end the same. Even the famous Jean de Juanville in the no less famous “Book of pious speeches and good deeds of our holy King Louis”, not without enthusiasm, described such a dispute: “... in the Kluni monastery there was a large dispute between clergy and Jews. There was one knight, to whom the abbot served the bread for Christ for; And he asked the Abbot to allow him to say the first word, and the Abbot reluctantly allowed him. And then the knight stood up, leaned on his crutch and said that the chief priest and chief master of the Jews would be brought to him, which they did. And he asked the Jew the following question: “The master,” the knight said, “I ask you, do you believe that the Virgin Mary, who brought God in his womb, and then in her hands, gave birth to him, being a virgin, and that she is the mother of the Lord?” And the Jew replied that he did not believe in all this. And the knight noticed him that he was acting as a wicked, when, not believing and not loving her, he enters her temple and her abode. “And truly,” said the knight, “you will pay for it.” And then he raised his crutch and hit the Jew on the head and dumped it to the ground. And the Jews took to flight and took their master all the wounded: this is how the dispute ended. "
4 And if we collect the world, then we should not reason about which animals are more equal to others, but about where the reasonable limits of conventions regarding the notorious insults of feelings. There are two options for the answer: either we admit that there is no such system of values ​​that could be criticized, and we silent forever, or, on the contrary, we say that there is no system of values ​​that would have immunity. And no, respectively, a system of values, the preaching of which could be prohibited. Yes, you did not misheard. You can say everything. Any ideas, regardless of how they correlate with the “traditional” morality (quotes are inevitable here, because any tradition is convention) can be voiced. You can demand the immediate construction of socialism on Earth. Resurrection of the dead. Justify the superiority of one race over the other. Yes, at least the need to devour babies, having previously abused them. And then the business of society is already deciding exactly where you will find yourself with your ideas. Society for the society, in Russia, for example, are quite anti-human speeches, can lead to a warm chair of the leading weekly information and analytical program on the state channel. True, modern Russia in the aspect of interest to us is imperfect. And, worse, ideal states do not yet exist in principle. 5 Note, the development of attitude to certain values ​​systems is the matter of society, not the state. If we want to get out of a hopeless dispute about which of the cash minorities is better and more beautiful than others, we must come to terms with the fact that the ban, the monopoly on which the state remains in the mental sphere, is impossible at all. The ban begins where they move from words to action. Just because you can’t honestly agree on the degrees of responsibility when you operate with the concepts of ephemeral, like “insulting feelings”. Here are heavy bodily from incompatible with life to distinguish much easier and agree on subsequent punishments is also more or less simple. What to do to Muslims Grozny, whose feelings are offended by caricatures in the previously little -known French magazine? Never buy this magazine. To call on all other potential buyers from Makhachkala, Magas and Baghdad to never buy this magazine. Draw offensive caricatures on caricaturists and values ​​of caricaturists. If possible, if employers for some reason do not mind, go to a multimillion-dollar rally in the morning of the working day. But not to demand a ban, because there can simply not be a ban. Vegans can picket meat shops, Christians - abortions, and Navalny fans - daily burn the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper daily, having previously honestly bought it in a kiosk. Anti -Semites - defiantly devour the pork at the door of the Jewish Museum of Tolerance, not forgetting about the correct first toast, and Russophobes - pray to the statue of the golden Chubais Vauchea. Saint Jihad, the boundless and sacrificial love for his neighbor, the role of Comrade Stalin in victory over Hitler Germany - all topics are permissible, and reasoned analysis, crushing criticism, or unbridled combination of these topics are also acceptable. But the appeal to the state with a demand to ban abortions, meat shops and KP should become impossible. The state simply should not have tools for prohibitions in this area. It is another matter if someone, offended by beyond measure, from the world of ideas will try to go into the world of things with a brand or automatic. Here the state is a green light and handcuffs in the hands. (And yes, the general note to paragraphs 4 and 5: the state around, as already noted, is not ideal; much of the above in this state, where it is customary to punish for thought, is prohibited by law. And I have to emphasize - all the examples are illustrative, and I do not urge anyone to anything, because I do not urge anyone, I just argue about anything about it, I just argue about The limits of intellectual freedom.) 6 All this may seem like a postmodern paradox, an attempt to impede the absence of values ​​for value. But this is not so. The lack of a ban in the field of thought suggests that everyone can adhere to any views, including considering their values ​​absolute and universal. Why not. Real difficulty in another. A certain courage is required to get out of the limits of any community and, having left with the world alone, begin to ask questions not to the world, but to yourself. To see around is not a herd waiting for the shepherd, but free people who, like me, have the right to their own views. Even if I know that they are wrong (a believer, for example, always knows that the unbeliever is wrong, otherwise what is the price of his faith). They are not right, but this is their business - to destroy themselves, shaving a beard, devouring the imminent in the post or arguing about the Surah "Cow". I can try to convince them, but nothing more. Including, by the way, riding their views. It’s not such a bad way to conduct a dialogue, especially if the opponent remembers that we have a dispute, and not a shootout. After all, Socrates still taught himself questions to ask himself, for which, by the way, he paid. 7 Personally, for example, I am wildly annoyed by the discussions fashionable in certain circles about the slave essence of the Russian people. I can try to reasonably convince lovers to speculate about my slave essence, it is a shame to joke on their account or simply, shrugging their shoulders, to pass by, because what a demand is with fools and what a dispute with fools. But I can not write a face or write a complaint to the committee of victories and overcoming. I can’t, that's all. Haram. 8 Not everyone read Huntington, but many, and without bothering to read, love to speculate about the clash of civilizations. They choose the right one that for real freedom, and offers to throw all the enemies of freedom away, somewhere in Africa, sung by the poet Gumilev. Or transplant. Or kill. This is stupidity, and this is terrible stupidity. Freedom cannot impose on anyone. Freedom ceases to be freedom when freedom is imposed. Only within each particular person is the question and the answer. The conflict of civilizations, of course, is in full swing and for a long time, only the border of the conflict is determined incorrectly. The border is not between those who force women to wear a burden, and those who put up with mini-skirts. Although, too, why is it “put up”? Do not mini-skirts delight the eye? The border between those who are able to problematize their own values, and those who have not yet felt the importance of this skill. Who is ready to pursue, poison and kill for unpleasant glances. For the wrong caricature, the wrong shirt, and at least for the denial of the Holocaust. Here the content is just not important at all. And it seems that those who are capable of problematizing their values ​​have a very weak position. Only words, only a personal choice, and to impose their values. Otherwise, they mutate, these very values. They will cease to be what, in fact, is the struggle. But, you know, history knows different examples. It was a long time ago, two thousand years ago, a man in Israel, who spoke more about freedom, better and worse than others. And for a long time his followers had only one way to defend their values. They walked under the executioner’s sword for their values, they were tormented by wild animals in a fun to the public in Roman amphitherators. And then nothing, gradually everything worked out. In places even too much. In some places, they still manage the prison two-legged to get the bearers of unpleasant views. By sorrow, presumably the first one who spoke of freedom is better and worse than others. 9 This is only words, agree with them or disagree - the matter for everyone is personal. But, choosing a side in a complicated conflict of civilizations, remember: there are no values ​​that at least someone, but they would not insult. Each of your steps and each of your sneezes certainly insult some radical. And who knows how far he is ready to go in revenge for this unbearable insult. And justifying the opportunity to punish for words, it doesn’t matter for which words - you do not justify yourself, but the one who once comes to kill you. And here we come to an unexpected conclusion: but yes, they themselves are to blame for freedom. The choice of a free person is a responsible choice, and he must understand what his choice is fraught with. Here and now, and alas, not only in Russia or North Korea.