I Am Not Charlie Hebdo Analysis

With the events surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre firmly planted into the age - old concepts of freedom of speech and censorship are discussed once again. In this The New York Times opinion piece entitled I Am Not Charlie Hebdo. The author David Brooks takes a different approach to the ideas of censorship. Some are calling these journalist at Charlie Hebdo sufferers for a cause for standing up for freedom of speech and ultimately dying for what they believed. This publication spoke with rarely any words and mostly through images mocking their point and the massacre at Charlie Hebdo that day ironically spoke for itself without words and the violence generates mass media censorship dispute. Brooks attempts to persuade the audience that though the journalists at Charlie Hebdo,

Pathos appeals to the emotions of the reader. After the massacre that killed almost a dozen staffers at the French satire publication, individuals and mass social outlets shouted "I Am Charlie Hebdo" out of solidarity. Satirists divulge information about those who are unable of laughing at themselves and they teach the rest of us that we probably need to see the humor. The title of Brooks' piece I Am NOT Charlie Hebdo already stands as a stark contrast with emphasis added. Perhaps one may think the article would have a stance that would be sympathetic to the aggressors in this situation, but it is this slight of hand that Brooks uses to his advantage. Using comparison and contrast, Brooks relates a seemingly hyperbolic, but true action of censorship abroad, to the more subdued yet still effective forms of censorship that occurs on the home front. He presents this relationship as a patch of hypocrisy. In paraphrasing one of his arguments, Brooks says that Americans may support the actions of Charlie Hebdo but simultaneously deny an individual with equally controversial views a forum to share that persons