The Bn Nsns case ↪ reveals something deeper than the fate of one public figure. It reveals how many Moroccans understand freedom. And no, I'm not talking about freedom of speech (that's a different discussion). I'm talking about the freedom to simply live your life the way you choose, as long as you're not genuinely harming others.
Forget Bn Nsns for a moment. My question is much simpler: should something become illegal simply because it makes us uncomfortable?
I've always described us as "cha3b 7assas" when it comes to freedom because many of us seem overly sensitive to other people's freedom. We constantly ask for more freedom, yet it's often the same people who celebrate someone else's imprisonment for exercising a freedom they personally disagree with, even calling for "a9sa l3o9obat". That's where the contradiction lies. It makes me wonder whether we truly believe in freedom as a principle, or whether we see it as a privilege that should only apply to people we agree with.
Before asking for more freedom, we should first agree on what freedom means. If we don't have a shared understanding of the principle we're defending, our calls for freedom become selective and contradictory. We also need to become less sensitive about other people's freedom. A free society isn't one where everyone lives according to my standards or yours. It's one where people can make different choices without constantly facing demands for punishment just because those choices make others uncomfortable. Accepting that my idea of a free life may be different from yours is a necessary condition for genuine freedom.
I also think we often mix "legal freedom" and "social acceptance." There's nothing wrong with disliking someone's choices or disagreeing with how they live. That's part of living in a diverse society. Unfortunately, we often jump from "I don't like this" to "this should be illegal". We shouldn't expect or ask the law to intervene every time something offends us or makes us uncomfortable.
This leads to a more fundamental question: should freedom have limits? And if so, who gets to define those limits? Religion? The law? The majority? Or each individual?
Personally, I do think freedom has limits, but I believe that limit should simply be harm. Even then, harm needs to be clearly defined. The word "harm" is often used so broadly that it ends up justifying restrictions on almost anything. There's an important difference between real harm and disagreement or discomfort. At the same time, living in society means being aware of social norms and context, and treating others with respect. That's a personal responsibility, not a legal obligation.
At the end of the day, the moment I give myself the authority to define the limits of your freedom based on my personal preferences, I'm also giving you the authority to define the limits of mine. If we truly want freedom, we have to defend it as a universal principle, not as something we keep for ourselves while denying it to others. Otherwise, freedom stops being freedom and becomes nothing more than a selective privilege.
Maybe before asking for more freedom, we need to become less sensitive about how other people choose to use theirs.