Paris terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo

tbradman

Sadly there has been a terrorist attack on the offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris resulting in the deaths of 12 people (so far).

Over the coming days there will be a lot of discussion of who, why and what should happen next.

My question is will anything change in Europe in relation to Muslims and how they interact with Europeans (and vice-versa). As Charlie Hebdo (and the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten) have been threatened and attacked in the past over their commentaries on Islam, does free speech and the right to comment need to be limited to allow peaceful integration of Muslims into western countries. Or should Muslims be required to change their willingness to accept the division of church/state and the primacy of Western values.

Will this reinforce Marie Le Pen and the Front National party in France and the recent anti-Muslim protests in Germany? Will it also reinforce Nigel Farage’s UKIP in this years British elections?

As I post this, I realise that this is the Internet and as such statements and insults can spiral out of control quickly. If so I am sure the Mods will shut down the thread quickly if this happens.

BoJack Horseman

tbradman wrote: »

My question is will anything change in Europe in relation to Muslims and how they interact with Europeans (and vice-versa).

That is & alway has been up to the Muslim community.

Or, to put it another way, nothing will happen.

Tabnabs

Interesting to see the Socialist Workers Party take on this tragic and heinous mass murder

Socialist Workers Party

The French killings are a tragedy. No journalist should be murdered. The Western ruling class bears responsibility for this - as long as they are bombing thousands to death, maiming children and murdering civilians in the Middle East, as long as they continue to support the rotten Apartheid state of Israel, as long as they continue to scapegoat minorities to distract people from their greed - as long as all these outrages continue desperate people will commit acts of stupid cruelty in return. No victimisation of Muslims in response.

https://www.facebook.com/SWPIreland

It reminds me of the quote from Moe Szyslak: Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

FreudianSlippers

What's worse is this islamic cleric in Ireland threatening to sue Irish publications who publish or tweet the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo.

This is why we need to get these idiot religious but bags out of government, have a referendum and repeal blasphemy laws

BoJack Horseman

Tabnabs wrote: »

Interesting to see the Socialist Workers Party take on this tragic and heinous mass murder

The Party of TD Paul Murphy take pride in being next level bonkers.

Connemara Farmer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's worse is this islamic cleric in Ireland threatening to sue Irish publications who publish or tweet the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo.

This is why we need to get these idiot religious but bags out of government, have a referendum and repeal blasphemy laws

There's only one reply to that. Everyone tweet the cartoons. BZBerlin had two pages full of them, UK rags show a cop being murdered.

Manach

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, it would be an opportunity to understand what the context of the assailants actions and place this in context of French history and the dynamic of how Islamic integration has been handled. To use it to score domestic points and made broad generalisations so as to support anti-religious/migrant sentiment would of course too much of an opportunity for some to pass by.

WakeUp

tbradman wrote: »

Or should Muslims be required to change their willingness to accept the division of church/state and the primacy of Western values.

when in Rome.

jmayo

tbradman wrote: »

Sadly there has been a terrorist attack on the offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris resulting in the deaths of 12 people (so far).

Over the coming days there will be a lot of discussion of who, why and what should happen next.

My question is will anything change in Europe in relation to Muslims and how they interact with Europeans (and vice-versa). As Charlie Hebdo (and the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten) have been threatened and attacked in the past over their commentaries on Islam, does free speech and the right to comment need to be limited to allow peaceful integration of Muslims into western countries. Or should Muslims be required to change their willingness to accept the division of church/state and the primacy of Western values.

They live by our rules plain and simple.
Our freedoms were often hard won over centuries and many generations.
Either they like it or lump it.

Your question about changing our values and laws to suit frankly totally backward views should not even be contenanced.
It is the thin end of the wedge.
Just look at the recent proposals on education floated by the media favourite Clonskeagh mosque spokesman and Trinity lecturer, dr ali selim.
A fair chunk of a certain religion would gladly revoke a lot of the rights hard won by women over the decades.

tbradman wrote: »

Will this reinforce Marie Le Pen and the Front National party in France and the recent anti-Muslim protests in Germany? Will it also reinforce Nigel Farage’s UKIP in this years British elections?

In fact you will probably find some politicans (the likes of richboy boyd barratt as per his mealy mouthed release from yesterday) actually thinking about changing our laws to suit some and it really shows why right wing parties are really gaining traction in the West at the moment.

tbradman wrote: »

As I post this, I realise that this is the Internet and as such statements and insults can spiral out of control quickly. If so I am sure the Mods will shut down the thread quickly if this happens.

You mean the thread will be shut down ala the ones yesterday in case some overly sensitive types are offended ?

Godge

Manach wrote: »

To use it to score domestic points and made broad generalisations so as to support anti-religious/migrant sentiment would of course too much of an opportunity for some to pass by.

I take it you are against the Socialist Workers Party using the tragedy to heap blame on the ruling classes?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlouth15

RTE Reporter on the scene in Paris yesterday : "...and it will also increase the debate in France about freedom of speech: how far should a magazine or publication go to challenge sacred religious beliefs. And that debate will obviously be a more critical one in the wake of this attack."

I thought this was an interesting comment.

Palmach

dlouth15 wrote: »

RTE Reporter on the scene in Paris yesterday : "...and it will also increase the debate in France about freedom of speech: how far should a magazine or publication go to challenge sacred religious beliefs. And that debate will obviously be a more critical one in the wake of this attack."

I thought this was an interesting comment.

I thought it was shocking. The debate should be: how much more should we be doing to meeting head on people who beliefs are the opposite of the enlightenment.

tbradman

Tabnabs wrote: »

Interesting to see the Socialist Workers Party take on this tragic and heinous mass murder


https://www.facebook.com/SWPIreland

It reminds me of the quote from Moe Szyslak: Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

I'm not a big fan of Facebook, but I logged on and left a comment on their page objecting to their half hearted attempt at showing concern. I worry about this PC deflection of saying its terrible and then blaming the West for provoking Islam. This murder should be unreservedly condemned in my opinion.

Sometimes Irish people (me included) try to walk a middle ground of understanding both sides of an argument and finding some way of "squaring the circle". In cases like this, its just not possible, yet the Socialist Workers Party and others seem to think blaming the West will solve all problems.

I'd forgotten about Irish Blasphemy laws... Do they apply to all of the Gods or just the Christian ones? Can an Irish media outlet criticise/satirise Islam or would it be prosecuted?

FreudianSlippers

tbradman wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Facebook, but I logged on and left a comment on their page objecting to their half hearted attempt at showing concern. I worry about this PC deflection of saying its terrible and then blaming the West for provoking Islam. This murder should be unreservedly condemned in my opinion.

Sometimes Irish people (me included) try to walk a middle ground of understanding both sides of an argument and finding some way of "squaring the circle". In cases like this, its just not possible, yet the Socialist Workers Party and others seem to think blaming the West will solve all problems.

I'd forgotten about Irish Blasphemy laws... Do they apply to all of the Gods or just the Christian ones? Can an Irish media outlet criticise/satirise Islam or would it be prosecuted?

The government in their wisdom in 2008/2009 legislated for the constitution in the Defamation Act 2009:

36.— (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.


On touch site so sorry I can't make it pretty

Radiosonde

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Party of TD Paul Murphy take pride in being next level bonkers.

Paul Murphy is not in the SWP.

BoJack Horseman

Radiosonde wrote: »

Paul Murphy is not in the SWP.

Sorry, Judean Peoples Front...... bunch of splitters

Radiosonde

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Sorry, Judean Peoples Front...... bunch of splitters

They split, but not from the SWP. The Socialist Party was founded by former Labour party members.

ireland.man

Why is it wrong to explore all political issues in trying to understand the Paris attacks?

It's a complex political situation and while the blame lies at the feet of the actual terrorists themselves, why is it so offensive to mention French intervention in Chad, Mali (which I support), Libya, etc, etc in order to understand the wider political context of terrorism?

SamHarris

ireland.man wrote: »

Why is it wrong to explore all political issues in trying to understand the Paris attacks?

It's a complex political situation and while the blame lies at the feet of the actual terrorists themselves, why is it so offensive to mention French intervention in Chad, Mali (which I support), Libya, etc, etc in order to understand the wider political context of terrorism?

Because the political situation may well be complex but the motivations of the attack yesterday were not and trying to use the tragedy (after shedding some crocodile tears, of course) to further their childish position on world affairs is at least a little off, to say the least.

And yes, placing the blame for an attack not on the people who carried it out or even on the thing the people who carried it out said was the reason but instead deflecting it towards their own pet issues in the region where the original ideology of the people who carried out the attacks is most dominant. And yes, the reasoning behind their post is convoluted as I just made it out to be. Really can't see how any adult finds much of what these people come out with in any way persuasive.

ireland.man

SamHarris wrote: »

Because the political situation may well be complex but the motivations of the attack yesterday were not and trying to use the tragedy (after shedding some crocodile tears, of course) to further their childish position on world affairs is at least a little off, to say the least.

And yes, placing the blame for an attack not on the people who carried it out or even on the thing the people who carried it out said was the reason but instead deflecting it towards their own pet issues in the region where the original ideology of the people who carried out the attacks is most dominant. And yes, the reasoning behind their post is convoluted as I just made it out to be. Really can't see how any adult finds much of what these people come out with in any way persuasive.

The problem (and the reason why AH is more crowded than the politics forum) is that critical thinking is not valued or welcomed on emotive issues. I was accused of supporting terrorism yesterday because I mentioned the French military's interventions in Mali as something to consider, an intervention which I support by the way.

People are being encouraged to see the sole motivations and the sole provenance of a terrorist's attack as being on the individual - that neuters any chance to truly understand the world and consequently prevent future outrages. To dismiss the role of the War on Terrorism and it's history as if it's somehow inconsequential is madness.

I'm going now to a vigil here in France and I'll be spending time with the organisers so I won't be online for the evening to reply. We'll more than likely discuss the role of the French state overseas, the welfare system, immigration, culture, French secularism, other terrible Muslim acts of terror here, etc, etc and I would be very surprised if anyone dismisses anyone else as "childish" for trying to take a holistic approach to understanding terrorism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

ireland.man wrote: »

The problem (and the reason why AH is more crowded than the politics forum) is that critical thinking is not valued or welcomed on emotive issues. I was accused of supporting terrorism yesterday because I mentioned the French military's interventions in Mali as something to consider, an intervention which I support by the way.

So let me get this straight, are you somehow intimating because the French government have decided the French military can fight in Mali, Chad, etc and usually with the governments/rulers against certain fundamentalist organisations, that it is somehow an excuse for people to go into a French magazine/satirical paper HQ in Paris and slaughter journalists, cartoonists, editors ?

If these guys want to fight the "French establishment" then let them have the balls to attack an army base.
Why don't they attack the French Foreign Legion HQ in Aubagne for argument sake.

Will they do that, will they hell. :rolleyes:

ireland.man wrote: »

People are being encouraged to see the sole motivations and the sole provenance of a terrorist's attack as being on the individual - that neuters any chance to truly understand the world and consequently prevent future outrages. To dismiss the role of the War on Terrorism and it's history as if it's somehow inconsequential is madness.

This is a bloody attack on the fundamentals of what we call Western democracy and western freedoms, the right to free speech and the right to voice opinions.

Long before the war on terrorism, we had terrorist attacks from muslim fanatics.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.


On touch site so sorry I can't make it pretty

Would "oppressive psychological manipulation" include "be good or you go to hell" or "to get into heaven, you must do this" or "if you are a woman, you must wear a veil"?

dlouth15

Palmach wrote: »

I thought it was shocking. The debate should be: how much more should we be doing to meeting head on people who beliefs are the opposite of the enlightenment.

More on the debate and the legal aspects in this RTE Radio item featuring Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre as well as well as Prof. Colm Kenny of DCU.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0108/671209-charlie-hebdo-reaction/

Dr Selim repeats his threat to bring publishers of the cartoons to court. Prof. Kenny explains the Defamation Act 2009 and possible defences. Apparently if there's literary, artistic, scientific or political aspects to the publication then this can be used as a defence in Ireland.

Prof. Kenny thinks publishers in Ireland need to think twice about possible offence that may be caused, but that the sort of violent reaction that happened in Paris was in no way justified.

AlekSmart

dlouth15 wrote: »

More on the debate and the legal aspects in this RTE Radio item featuring Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre as well as well as Prof. Colm Kenny of DCU.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0108/671209-charlie-hebdo-reaction/

Dr Selim repeats his threat to bring publishers of the cartoons to court. Prof. Kenny explains the Defamation Act 2009 and possible defences. Apparently if there's literary, artistic, scientific or political aspects to the publication then this can be used as a defence in Ireland.

Prof. Kenny thinks publishers in Ireland need to think twice about possible offence that may be caused, but that the sort of violent reaction that happened in Paris was in no way justified.

With all due respect to Prof Kenny,I would suggest that he reassess his advice to Irish publishers in the light of these events.

With Dr Selim,unashamedly assuming his,by now traditional,hectoring stance on how he wishes Irish people and their institutions to percieve Islam,I would have expected somebody of Prof Kenny's proffessional stature and acumen to advise Dr Selim that he would see him in whatever Court the good Dr wished.

It would appear that Dr Selim would have little time for his Gay or Lesbian co-religionists,who would surely face a decidely uncertain future in the Doctor's chosen Utopia...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/islamic-scholar-threatens-irish-publications-with-legal-action-if-they-publish-offending-cartoon-30891821.html

Dr Selim and his decidely shonky view most certainly needs to be called out for what it is......A desire to Dominate and subdjugate those who do not wish to buy into his belief structure.

"Je Suis Charlie-Je suis Ahmed"

Palmach

ireland.man wrote: »

Why is it wrong to explore all political issues in trying to understand the Paris attacks?

It's a complex political situation and while the blame lies at the feet of the actual terrorists themselves, why is it so offensive to mention French intervention in Chad, Mali (which I support), Libya, etc, etc in order to understand the wider political context of terrorism?

If the attackers were Chadians who has lost loved ones to the French military (even though it was UN mandated) I might be able to get my head around it but these were Algerian born French men. I am sick and tired of western military intervention being used as an excuse to explain this. Buddhist aren't blowing up Chinese restaurants because of what China did in Tibet. Mosques are not being attacked by Christians of the Eastern rite because of what is being done to them in the ME (far worse than anything being done to Muslims). SO why is this lame pathetic reasoning trotted out?

Nodin

A satirical paper was attacked because some people resented its humorous take on some matters related to their religion. Chad etc has nothing to do with it.

In the unlikely event somebody did think that by attacking cartoonists they were, in some manner. getting revenge for some act of French foreign policy, it's a rather striking comment on their level of intelligence.

K4t

Nodin wrote: »

A satirical paper was attacked because some people resented its humorous take on some matters related to their religion.

A satirical paper was attacked because some people wanted to kill the people working there.


A crime is a crime is a crime.

K4t

Just watched Dr Ali Salim speaking on primetime. He speaks well, with great conviction and is courteous. Which makes him all the more terrifying.

He compared freedom of expression to water at one point, warning how if you drink too much water you will end up in hospital. What a truly evil statement.

Good to have him on air though. I only wish RTE had covered his face with the image of the cartoon for a moment.

riffmongous

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is free speech really a cornerstone of european society though? In the country where I live and Germany also you may not 'speak freely' about one topic in particular and I think this is also possibly the case in France for holocaust denial?

K4t

riffmongous wrote: »

Is free speech really a cornerstone of european society though?

Absolute free speech is the cornerstone of any society which dares to call itself enlightened.

In the country where I live and Germany also you may not 'speak freely' about one topic in particular and I think this is also possibly the case in France for holocaust denial?

It is completely 100% wrong that you cannot deny the holocaust in those countries.

riffmongous

K4t wrote: »

Absolute free speech is the cornerstone of any society which dares to call itself enlightened.



It is completely 100% wrong that you cannot deny the holocaust in those countries.

I'm not sure when I last heard a society refer to itself as enlightened..

Then please by all means come over here and tell everyone how great Hitler was journal.ie

And are you sure about France? Is there not 'denial of crimes against humanity' legislation?
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/la-justice-ordonne-a-dieudonne-de-retirer-deux-passages-d-une-video-sur-internet_1323138.html

K4t

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not sure when I last heard a society refer to itself as enlightened..

And yet we still do not have absolute freedom of expression..

Then please by all means come over here and tell everyone how great Hitler was journal.ie

No thanks, I'm too pretty to go to prison. However, that doesn't change the fact that the laws are wrong.


Every time we impose a limit on freedom of expression we are taking a step backwards as a society.

riffmongous

K4t wrote: »

And yet we still do not have absolute freedom of expression..

No thanks, I'm too pretty to go to prison. However, that doesn't change the fact that the laws are wrong.


Every time we impose a limit on freedom of expression we are taking a step backwards as a society.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood what you were referring to as wrong. You can ignore my last post

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gringo180

K4t wrote: »

Good to have him on air though. I only wish RTE had covered his face with the image of the cartoon for a moment.

What would that achieve?

SamHarris

riffmongous wrote: »

Is free speech really a cornerstone of european society though? In the country where I live and Germany also you may not 'speak freely' about one topic in particular and I think this is also possibly the case in France for holocaust denial?

It is. But the main country of the West, the US is entirely dedicated to freedom of speech, including holocaust denial, so there is some differences. I don't think that changes it's centrality to collective Western culture though.

K4t

Gringo180 wrote: »

What would that achieve?

Maybe nothing. Maybe something. Maybe everything.

micosoft

riffmongous wrote: »

Is free speech really a cornerstone of european society though? In the country where I live and Germany also you may not 'speak freely' about one topic in particular and I think this is also possibly the case in France for holocaust denial?

You can't be serious? You think telling an abject and absolute lie that slanders the memory of six million murdered people is freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech does not, as famously found in the US Supreme court, mean that you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You are free to shout fire if there is a fire but if there is not you will be held responsible for what happens. That is not "free speech" just idiocy.

But even regardless of that, telling an abject denial of Fact (holocaust denial) is NOT covered by freedom of speech in any manner or form in any country i.e. Libel. Denying the Holocaust in Germany or France (and lets be clear it's only ONE thing) is denying an absolute fact in order to pursue a hateful ideology.

There is NO equivalent when it comes to satire or fair comment that Charles Hebdo stood for. Your comment is unconsidered at best and fellow traveller at worst and I have no time for it.

K4t

micosoft wrote: »

You can't be serious? You think telling an abject and absolute lie that slanders the memory of six million murdered people is freedom of speech?

Yes. And you have the freedom to say I'm wrong.

Freedom of speech does not, as famously found in the US Supreme court, mean that you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You are free to shout fire if there is a fire but if there is not you will be held responsible for what happens..

And it is just as ludicrous a decision today as it was then.

That is not "free speech" just idiocy.

Without absolute free speech, idiocy will remain, and frequently prevail.

But even regardless of that, telling an abject denial of Fact (holocaust denial) is NOT covered by freedom of speech in any manner or form in any country i.e. Libel. Denying the Holocaust in Germany or France (and lets be clear it's only ONE thing) is denying an absolute fact in order to pursue a hateful ideology.

I admire your passion but I admire more a person's freedom to challenge your assertions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

riffmongous

micosoft wrote: »

You can't be serious? You think telling an abject and absolute lie that slanders the memory of six million murdered people is freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech does not, as famously found in the US Supreme court, mean that you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You are free to shout fire if there is a fire.

But even regardless of that, telling an abject denial of Fact (holocaust denial) is NOT covered by freedom of speech in any manner or form in any country. Denying the Holocaust in Germany or France (and lets be clear it's only ONE thing) is denying an absolute fact in order to pursue a hateful ideology.

There is NO equivalent when it comes to satire or fair comment that Charles Hebdo stood for. Your comment is unconsidered at best and fellow traveller at worst and I have no time for it.

You can deny many other absolute facts in public and you wont go to jail for it.

Edit 2: Oh the irony

micosoft

K4t wrote: »

Yes. And you have the freedom to say I'm wrong.

And it is just as ludicrous a decision today as it was then.
Without absolute free speech, idiocy will remain, and frequently prevail.

I admire your passion but I admire more a person's freedom to challenge your assertions.

How is it ludicrous decision? If someone shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre or stadium and causes death and injury due to the consequence of that act you think the person who shouted it should face no penalty? It has stood in the US since 1919 in a country with the best constitutional protection for freedom of speech. Saying freedom of speech is absolute is an extreme view and depreciates meaningful freedom of speech and free comment. They key part being speech that is clearly and manifestly false which Holocaust denial is demonstrably so. Just to be clear - I am less convinced about legally restricting hate speech (opinion) and certainly can't understand blasphemy as clearly it is opinion.

SamHarris

micosoft wrote: »

You can't be serious? You think telling an abject and absolute lie that slanders the memory of six million murdered people is freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech does not, as famously found in the US Supreme court, mean that you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You are free to shout fire if there is a fire but if there is not you will be held responsible for what happens. That is not "free speech" just idiocy.

But even regardless of that, telling an abject denial of Fact (holocaust denial) is NOT covered by freedom of speech in any manner or form in any country i.e. Libel. Denying the Holocaust in Germany or France (and lets be clear it's only ONE thing) is denying an absolute fact in order to pursue a hateful ideology.

There is NO equivalent when it comes to satire or fair comment that Charles Hebdo stood for. Your comment is unconsidered at best and fellow traveller at worst and I have no time for it.

Actually the "fire in a crowded theatre" was a dissenting opinion of one of the judges. That is to say it was not adopted. It was also in connection with censorship during wartime - it is not a case that would even have bearing on what should or shoulgnt be said or done in times of peace.

Yes, denial of whatever you want is protected by freedom of speech. PEople are free to be stupid.

ARe people honestly saying that peoples feelings should be the barometer by which speech is allowed or not? Do they not see how that means no free speech at all - speech that everyone agrees with does not even need protecting to begin with.

SamHarris

Sorry, the case was overturned it was not a dissenting opinion. But here you go if your interested. And was not a binding law to begin with. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

micosoft

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a facetious argument. Firstly there actually is an interesting (albeit quite academic) discussion to be had around who wrote many of Shakespeare plays (there is no significant doubt on his actual existence). Records on Shakespeare's life and others who could have written/contributed his plays are limited given the time period and records of that time. Let's be clear, there is no doubt and massive documentary evidence on the murder of six million people in Europe between 1933 and 1945 by the Nazi regime. This has been found by many courts of law - David Irvings been the last significant one. Your example is in no way comparable. Aside from that is the substantial difference in impact between Shakespeare denial and holocaust denial which is the specific and quite unique example that for some reason a poster decided to raise as, you know, an example of how freedom of speech is limited in Europe. Germany and France have decided to make specific examples of enforcing this denial because of the serious consequences that came from it and other libels on the Jewish community in Europe during the that period. If they felt Sharespeare denial had the same impact (or any other denial) they would do the same but haven't because it's not consequential to society even if it were manifestly untrue.

micosoft

SamHarris wrote: »

Actually the "fire in a crowded theatre" was a dissenting opinion of one of the judges. That is to say it was not adopted. It was also in connection with censorship during wartime - it is not a case that would even have bearing on what should or shoulgnt be said or done in times of peace.

Yes, denial of whatever you want is protected by freedom of speech. PEople are free to be stupid.

ARe people honestly saying that peoples feelings should be the barometer by which speech is allowed or not? Do they not see how that means no free speech at all - speech that everyone agrees with does not even need protecting to begin with.

People are free to be stupid unless the consequences of their stupidity lead directly to other people being severely injured. There has to be some accountability with the right to free speech. I don't buy the slippery slope fallacy that some restriction means total restriction.

micosoft

SamHarris wrote: »

Sorry, the case was overturned it was not a dissenting opinion. But here you go if your interested. And was not a binding law to begin with. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

As is the case with constitutional law it was further refined and restricted (as is often the case with constitutional law) to mean "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". It's in the article you posted. There is still a limit to free speech.

You can argue (as I would) that holocaust denial is clearly inciting or producing imminent lawless action (and this is US law without the historical context German and France judiciary would operate in).

For the record - I absolutely support the right to be offensive and even mock the holocaust and it's victims. These are matters of freedom of speech/expression. It's when it moves to the denial of same that we enter dangerous territory. David Irving and his "academic" approach to denial was and is far more dangerous then some skinhead shouting abuse.

Areyouwell

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just a pity some use it to deliberately troll, provoke & incite hate towards people of other races or creeds.

ireland.man

Why is the politics forum discussion on Islam so much shorter than the After Hours one?