Jesús Poveda and the silenced protest: Where are the limits of the defense of life?As a result of the controversial image shown by Lalachus in the chimes of Spanish Television, I remembered a letter to the editor that I published in El País May 16, 2016. It read as follows (sorry for the self-quote):
"We have a problem in this country when it comes to understanding freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not the right to insult, nor the right to freely offend the feelings of others.
One can be against the Church, nationalism, homosexuals or stamp collectors, but that does not give the right to express anything, anywhere and in any way. Storming chapels half-naked in the middle of liturgical ceremonies, whistling a hymn at the moment it is officially played, mocking others' religion with caricatures, or calling someone a faggot because of their sexual orientation, do not seem to be ways of rationally expressing a contrary opinion. Rather, they seem to show a desire to insult others.
To disagree on any of these issues there are more appropriate contexts and forms, especially if we intend to build an open and tolerant society. As Aristotle said, "anyone can get angry, that's very easy. But getting angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way, that is certainly not so easy".
Eight years have passed since this publication, but unfortunately, it seems that we have not made progress in this matter, quite the contrary.
Recently, the Spanish government has proposed to eliminate the crime of offenses against religious feelings and insults to the Crown. Although it may be argued that this measure seeks to strengthen freedom of expression, in practice it seems to open the door to the normalization of gratuitous insult and mockery of institutions and beliefs that are meaningful to many citizens.
It is deeply sad to observe how, as a society, we have made remarkable progress in sensitivity to sexist, racist or homophobic language, but we do not apply the same standard to other contexts. We strive to protect certain groups from vexatious language, and that is a commendable achievement. However, why don't we extend that same principle of respect to other areas? Why does offense towards a religious faith, an institution or a cultural symbol seem to enjoy special protection?
It is not a matter of restricting legitimate criticism or debate on issues of public relevance. On the contrary, a truly free and plural society needs spaces for dissent and questioning, but always with respect and rationality.
Confusing the freedom of expression with the right to humiliate not only distorts its meaning, but also erodes the values that should sustain peaceful coexistence.
Editor of Omnes. Previously, he has been a contributor to various media and a high school philosophy teacher for 18 years.
