Stephen Chapman

The second incarnation of my blog

Reblog: Je suis Charlie

Following the cowardly and evil murders in Paris yesterday, I thought I would share a letter written by Bill Hicks on freedom of speech:


As an outspoken stand-up comedian with strong, unbending views on the most divisive of subjects, the late-Bill Hicks was no stranger to controversy during his all-too-brief career. In May of 1993, less than a year before he succumbed to pancreatic cancer at the age of 32, a live recording of Hicks’ Revelations show was broadcast on television in the UK. Shortly afterwards, deeply offended by its “blasphemous” content, a priest wrote to the broadcaster, Channel 4, and complained about the recent screening. After reading the complaint, Hicks, never one to avoid a discussion, replied to the priest directly by letter.(Source: Love All the People: The Essential Bill Hicks, Revised Edition.)

8 June 1993

Dear Sir,

After reading your letter expressing your concerns regarding my special ‘Revelations’, I felt duty-bound to respond to you myself in hopes of clarifying my position on the points you brought up, and perhaps enlighten you as to who I really am.

Where I come from — America — there exists this wacky concept called ‘freedom of speech’, which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind’s mental development. I myself am a strong supporter of the ‘Right of freedom of speech’, as I’m sure most people would be if they truly understood the concept. ‘Freedom of speech’ means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. (Otherwise, you don’t believe in ‘freedom of speech’, but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.) Seeing as how there are so many different beliefs in the world, and as it would be virtually impossible for all of us to agree on any onebelief, you may begin to realize just how important an idea like ‘freedom of speech’ really is. The idea basically states ‘while I don’t agree or care for what you are saying, I do support your right to say it, for herein lies true freedom’.

You say you found my material ‘offensive’ and ‘blasphemous’. I find it interesting that you feel your beliefs are denigrated or threatened when I’d be willing to bet you’ve never received a single letter complaining about your beliefs, or asking why they are allowed to be. (If you have received such a letter, it definitely did not come from me.) Furthermore, I imagine a quick perusal of an average week of television programming would reveal many more shows of a religious nature, than one of myshows — which are called ‘specials’ by virtue of the fact that they arevery rarely on.

All I’m doing in ‘Revelations’ is giving my point of view in my language based on my experiences — much the same way religious broadcasters might organize their programs. While I’ve found many of the religious shows I’ve viewed over the years not to be to my liking, or in line with my own beliefs, I’ve never considered it my place to exert any greater type of censorship than changing the channel, or better yet — turning off the TV completely.

Now, for the part of your letter I found most disturbing.

In support of your position of outrage, you posit the hypothetical scenario regarding the possibly ‘angry’ reaction of Muslims to material they might find similarly offensive. Here is my question to you: Are you tacitly condoning the violent terrorism of a handful of thugs to whom the idea of ‘freedom of speech’ and tolerance is perhaps as foreign as Christ’s message itself? If you are somehow implying that their intolerance to contrary beliefs is justifiable, admirable, or perhaps even preferable to one of acceptance and forgiveness, then I wonder what your true beliefs really are.

If you had watched my entire show, you would have noticed in my summation of my beliefs the fervent plea to the governments of the world to spend less money on the machinery of war, and more on feeding, clothing, and educating the poor and needy of the world … A not-so-unchristian sentiment at that!

Ultimately, the message in my material is a call for understanding rather than ignorance, peace rather than war, forgiveness rather than condemnation, and love rather than fear. While this message may have understandably been lost on your ears (due to my presentation), I assure you the thousands of people I played to in my tours of the United Kingdom got it.

I hope I helped answer some of your questions. Also, I hope you consider this an invitation to keep open the lines of communication. Please feel free to contact me personally with comments, thoughts, or questions, if you so choose. If not, I invite you to enjoy my two upcoming specials entitled ‘Mohammed the TWIT’ and ‘Buddha, you fat PIG’. (JOKE)


Bill Hicks

2 comments on “Reblog: Je suis Charlie

  1. Raybeard
    January 9, 2015

    The above letter states a shared opinion far more cogently than I and many others could have expressed.

    It sickens me to hear so many politicians saying with confidence that “the terrorists will never win” while simultaneously proudly espousing the Western democratic value of ‘free speech’. Yet anyone can see that the terrorists ARE winning and, perhaps, have already won. Until those same politicians give their full explicit support to EVERYONE who publishes or is going to publish these cartoons or any other criticisms/jokes/mockeries of ANY person/body/religion/organisation/political party it’s going to remain a fatuously false claim to say that “terrorism will never win”.
    Some years ago the BBC cowed down to Muslim indignation and implied consequent by issuing an order that representations of Mahomet are not to be shown on its TV channels. If the BBC’s motivation, or that of any newspaper or organisation, makes the same decision in order to protect its employes and their families rather than wanting to acquiesce to the terrorists’ wishes, the terrorists have still won no matter what the reason – and will be as pleased as Punch that they’ve got their way, and so easily too.
    When the Danish cartoons were published British politicians were scrambling over each other to declare that they should not have done so, with the inference that the creators had only got themselves to blame for any consequences – and all under the cosy idea that we shouldn’t be offending Muslims anyway (pretty uniquely, it seems). Would they have felt the same way if, say, a group of environmental protesters or gays threatened to kill publishers of cartoons or stories that offended us? I somehow doubt it. It seems that it’s not just religion that is worthy of this prerogative of the right not to be offended but it applies most stringently to Islam – and that because there it’s the one that some of its followers make the most threats and is most likely to carry them out. Yes, truly terrorism is winning or has already won. Brings me closer to despair for the outlook of a secular, enlightened future than practically anything else in my lifetime.

  2. Raybeard
    January 9, 2015

    Para 2 above, line 11, should read – “implied consequent VIOLENCE by issuing…..”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on January 8, 2015 by in Misc. and tagged , .

Twitter feed

Past posts

%d bloggers like this: