Dylan Mulvey argues that Tim Parks' essay advocating for limits on satire is fundamentally flawed. Parks claims satire should encourage positive change or enlightened thinking, but these are arbitrarily defined. He also makes unfair comparisons, such as between offending Catholics in Italy versus France. Parks fails to consider important differences in populations and cultural values between countries. While tolerance is important, censorship should not trump freedom of expression, which is a core Western value and prevents a slippery slope where all groups demand immunity from criticism.

1. College Writing Mulvey 1
Instructor: Andrew MacDonald
Dylan Mulvey
3/10/15
In Defense of Satire
The controversy surrounding the recent Charlie Hebdo incident is both provocative and
important. The atrocity committed against these French comic artists stimulates debate over the
necessity, or lack thereof, of limiting what is acceptable in regards to satire. In the interest of Western
ideals, however, satire should be found to exist outside of the realm of censorship because the rights of
an individual trump the sensitivity of a group. So long as the comics do not incite hatred or violence,
nor spread misinformation, the feelings of one group or individual are negligible in the grand scheme
of upholding freedom of expression. In Tim Parks' essay, “The Limits of Satire,” he uses the recent
tragedy in France to make the case that satire should be limited when it is no longer useful, but his
argument is fundamentally flawed on the grounds of its arbitrary definition of successful satire and
false equivalencies which fail to consider the larger contexts surrounding those which are being
compared.
At the beginning of Parks' article, he states that the purpose of satire is “[to] point toward
positive change, or encourage people to think in a more enlightened way.” Although Parks' view in
many ways does seem reasonable, he in no way offers to outline what exactly constitutes “positive
change” or “a more enlightened way.” The apparent arbitrariness, in addition to the potential for
variation between different people, is a problem for Parks' point because there is essentially no way to
gauge how effective a cartoon is at “enlightening” an individual. Parks later goes on to state that satire
should “produce an enlightened perspective on events, not […] start riots.” This is also an issue

2. Mulvey 2
because Parks implies that for certain individuals in Charlie Hebdo, the intentions of their satirical
magazine is either to incite violence or it is otherwise diluted and incapable of performing its actual
purpose of sharing a new outlook on society. This is clearly unfair because no right-minded individual
would make the claim that the writers at Charlie Hebdo sought out to espouse such animosity and
hostility upon themselves. In regards to the failure to show a new perspective, this is again fairly
arbitrary and the millions of 'Je suis Charlie' protesters would likely disagree. The ability of a piece of
satire to enlighten someone is not the best criteria for deciding if its publication is permissible in
society.
Another problem for Parks' essay arises from his recurring use of false equivalencies regarding
the recent violence against Charlie Hebdo. In the first of these false equivalencies, Parks informs the
reader of a piece of satire he wrote for an Italian paper. The comic had displayed condoms with the
saints on them in protest of the Catholic Church's stance against birth control. This cartoon did not get
published for being too offensive and Parks said on the matter, “Knowing Italy and Italians better now,
I reckon they were right. It was my Protestant background and complete carelessness about images of
saints and virgins that made me unaware of the kind of response the piece would have stirred up.”
Parks' comparison is unfair because the paper would have had no financial incentive to publish the
cartoon because it would have offended too many people within Italy, and thus few people would
actually be inclined to purchase it. For France, where the population of Muslims is far less than that of
ethnic French, the Charlie Hebdo comics have a decent audience to view them. Additionally, the
French nation has valued liberty and freedom of the press since the epoch leading up to the French
Revolution. It is unjust for people of another culture, such as Arab immigrants in France, to attempt to
impose their values on a nation they have emigrated to; however publishing the Charlie Hebdo
cartoons in their Arabic-speaking homelands would arguably make little sense, and here the
comparison with the Italians would hold. Another false equivalency rises in Parks' claim that, “In 2011

3. Mulvey 3
Charlie Hebdo noted that while Muslims had sued the paper only once, the Catholic Church had
launched thirteen cases against it.” Parks does not take into account the fact that France is a Catholic
nation so it naturally follows that the Catholic Church is capable of exerting more influence on policy
there. The population of Muslims in France is also far lower than that of Catholic French so there are
simply less people to press lawsuits in the first place. Because Parks has not considered the logical
fallacies surrounding several of the comparisons he makes throughout his writing, most of his argument
in favor of imposing parameters on satire falls flat.
The debate over the limits of satire still carries on today. Although both parties have a solid case
to make, it is pertinent to Western values that freedom of expression be upheld over an individual's
feelings. Even though Parks' essay does advocate for a more tolerant and sensible society, when put
under scrutiny, it does not allow the reader to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding freedom of
expression. If we, as a society allow for this kind of censorship, a slippery slope will emerge in which
all groups will demand immunity from public criticism, which is counter-intuitive to social progress as
a whole.