That a spoiled artist can rap on stage, with better or worse hip swing and fuss, any filthy rubble that comes to mind, it seems to me, no longer fair, but necessary.
Freedom of expression, how tiresome it is to repeat it constantly as if it were the chorus of the summer song on the local radio formula, is for everyone: for the brilliant intellectual and the neighbor of the fifth, for your friend the spabilao and your brother-in-law Piripi on Christmas Eve, for the one who agrees with you and the one who contradicts you. Is for Hasel -how does that accent hurt me- and for the carmine girl of Falange, for the retired commanders who speak in a chat about shooting citizens and for the fugitives who shout “kill a fucking civil guard”, for whom he makes a satirical poem to the minister cuqui and the one who makes a song at Infantas.
If freedom of expression is defended, I mean, it is defended for everyone. Not just for those who say what you like to hear. Because that, in reality, is the opposite: defending freedom of expression only for some is defending the limitation of that right to others. It is attacking freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression cannot be defended just a little bit. Or just for some. Either it defends itself or it does not defend itself. It’s like being pregnant, or you are or you are not. Defending it means doing it for the idiots, the uninformed, the malicious, the ignorant, the opportunists, the self-interested, the underprivileged, the idle retirees, and the slum rappers.
Now that we are clear about what defending freedom of expression is and what is not (I trust you, I am optimistic), let’s complicate it a little more: you can be to death with freedom of expression and understand that Hasél between in jail. Because he does not do it for rapping, not for being more or less funny with the assonance rhyme, not for insults to the Crown. It does so by accumulation of sentences.
If the innocent creature had not threatened, raided, attacked, resisted authority, extolled terrorism and, yes also, slandered and insulted the Crown and other State institutions, if he had not done all that, I mean, feeling unpunished and irresponsible , would not have entered jail to serve a sentence already reduced and after having been suspended another. So yes, you can be in favor of freedom of expression and at the same time in favor of Hasél not placing himself above the law, of that set of norms whose compliance and respect separates us from barbarism.
Let’s make it even more complicated. Going out to defend freedom of expression by burning containers and vehicles, attacking police and the press, smashing shop windows and street furniture, robbing luxury stores, police stations and newsrooms, has very little to defend a fundamental and universal right.
It is pure barbarism and cerrility. And one can never be on the side of the savage, much less from a public office. Much less still if it is part of the Government. Not to condemn these acts is to despise democracy and, of course, it is not to defend freedom of expression. Encourage them from the networks, as you have done Echenique In an exercise of irresponsibility, pettiness and absence of a democratic spirit that is difficult to overcome, he is already miserable.
Public discussion on laws and sentences that enforce the exercise of freedom of expression is necessary and urgent. Cases like that of the retired judge who published a poem about Irene Montero, the one from the satirical magazine Mongolia, that of the collective man Velamine, the columnist Juan Antonio Horrach or the Second Vice President’s claim to control the media, they remind us. But that does not imply that we have to agree that certain characters are above the law or that we must tolerate violence.