read the article here | Read an interview with CSSH editors about this article

The “Danish cartoons controversy” has often been cast as a paradigm case of the blindness of liberal language ideologies to anything beyond the communication of referential meaning. This article returns to the case from a different angle and draws a different conclusion. Following recent anthropological interest in the way legal speech grounds the force of law, the article takes as its ethnographic object a 2007 ruling by the French Chamber of the Press and of Public Liberties. This much-trumpeted document ruled that the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s republication of the cartoons did not constitute a hate speech offense. The article examines the form as well as the content of the ruling itself and situates it within the entangled histories of French press law, revolutionary antinomianism, and the surprisingly persistent legal concern with matters of honor. The outcome of the case (the acquittal of Charlie Hebdo) may seem to substantiate a view of liberal language ideology as incapable of attending to the performative effects of signs. Yet, a closer look challenges this now familiar image of Euro-American “representationalism,” and suggests some broader avenues of investigation for a comparative anthropology of liberalism and free speech.