Media Solidarity for Charlie Hebdo?

K4t

suicide_circus wrote: »

The line is where the publication incites violence and its a line Chalie Hebdo never crossed.

They obviously did incite violence seeing as how they were murdered. There is no line when it comes to freedom of expression. That is dangerous.

The notion that the cartoonist were murdered because they "poked the beehive" is extremely dangerous.

I could not agree with this more. A lot of people still fail to understand this key point.

My name is URL

Streetwalker wrote: »

Thought the cartoons where pretty distasteful tbh.

The cartoons are fairly shite imho. I looked through a load of them today and there's nothing particularly shocking or comedic about them after you've seen a few.

I know satire doesn't really need to be funny or done well since you're supposed to view it through the eyes of the artist, but still.

You see better, funnier and more controversial stuff in Private Eye all the time.

Still doesn't mean anyone should have lost their life over it though!

Donkey Oaty

My name is URL wrote: »

You see better, funnier and more controversial stuff in Private Eye all the time.

No you don't, at least not as far as the Islamic world is concerned.

The Eye doesn't do depictions of the Prophet, and will not reproduce the Danish cartoons or others.

Egginacup

conorh91 wrote: »

This is wrong.

Freedom of expression does not rely, for its survival, on people carrying Nígger banners.

If it does, it's one fcuked-up "freedom".

Instead, freedom of expression contains a guarantee that nobody shall arbitrary interfere with your right to express an opinion or publish words, even if those words and opinions shock and disturb others.

It is just plain wrong to claim that freedom of expression ever relies upon gratuitous insults for its survival. The fact is, most decent people simply find the N-word disturbing. Even if they agree with the freedom for it to be published, they probably would consider it unreasonable or un-neighbourly to do so with banners on O'Connell Street.

I believe newspaper editors feel the same about the Mohammad cartoons.

Sure, it is legal to reproduce them. But insofar as your ordinary Muslims would be hurt by this publication, they may consider it unreasonable, unwise and un-neighbourly to do so.

Fine, but why are you asking me whether freedom of expression should be curtailed in law by banning certain tee shirts?

That suggests that you suspect I favor such curtailment. I'm not sure how you could have got that idea, unless you have misinterpreted the last few posts.

You know, the powers that be must be absolutely loving this debate. Freedom of expression, in case anyone has forgotten, is a concept, a tenet, a credo, an institution...if you will that allows anyone, whether powerful or weak to say what he fells regardless of the discomfort it causes to those who rule over him. Freedom of assembly, habaeus corpus and other rights are also sacrosanct, albeit merely on paper of late.

Freedom of speech does not cover passive insults, nor hate speech. It does not cloak one from verbal or visual harassment. One could argue that a bunch of vindictive bitches inline tormenting the class nerd or girl with the big feet, cheap jacket, bad skin, is freedom of speech. Then she eventually commits suicide.
People should stop talking about "free speech" and in the next breath call for Edward Snowden to be abducted, taken back to the States and shot, because he actually exercised freedom of speech that people didn't like.

Again, there are many here who are sticking to their stance purely out of stubborness, or intransigence and that's wholly because they can't relate to someone else's sensitivities. But I'm quite certain that in my somewhat outlandish quest for controversy and notoriety I weekly published cartoons depicting tasteless cartoons, jokes and video mashed of children with Down's, autism, epilepsy, autism, etc, I would be enjoying the fruits or aforementioned freedom of speech but hurting the sensitivities of the parents of the subjects of my ridicule to the point of hatred.

suicide_circus

Egginacup wrote: »

You know, the powers that be must be absolutely loving this debate. Freedom of expression, in case anyone has forgotten, is a concept, a tenet, a credo, an institution...if you will that allows anyone, whether powerful or weak to say what he fells regardless of the discomfort it causes to those who rule over him. Freedom of assembly, habaeus corpus and other rights are also sacrosanct, albeit merely on paper of late.

Freedom of speech does not cover passive insults, nor hate speech. It does not cloak one from verbal or visual harassment. One could argue that a bunch of vindictive bitches inline tormenting the class nerd or girl with the big feet, cheap jacket, bad skin, is freedom of speech. Then she eventually commits suicide.
People should stop talking about "free speech" and in the next breath call for Edward Snowden to be abducted, taken back to the States and shot, because he actually exercised freedom of speech that people didn't like.

Again, there are many here who are sticking to their stance purely out of stubborness, or intransigence and that's wholly because they can't relate to someone else's sensitivities. But I'm quite certain that in my somewhat outlandish quest for controversy and notoriety I weekly published cartoons depicting tasteless cartoons, jokes and video mashed of children with Down's, autism, epilepsy, autism, etc, I would be enjoying the fruits or aforementioned freedom of speech but hurting the sensitivities of the parents of the subjects of my ridicule to the point of hatred.

There is no human right that says you should not be insulated. There is a human right that says you should not be murdered.

K4t

Egginacup wrote: »

Freedom of speech does not cover passive insults, nor hate speech. It does not cloak one from verbal or visual harassment. One could argue that a bunch of vindictive bitches inline tormenting the class nerd or girl with the big feet, cheap jacket, bad skin, is freedom of speech. Then she eventually commits suicide.

I'd be more concerned that the class nerd wasn't able to turn off her computer..

Again, there are many here who are sticking to their stance purely out of stubborness, or intransigence and that's wholly because they can't relate to someone else's sensitivities.

Freedom of speech is not a position. It is a human right. I can relate to someone else's sensitivities but sometimes I choose not to.

But I'm quite certain that in my somewhat outlandish quest for controversy and notoriety I weekly published cartoons depicting tasteless cartoons, jokes and video mashed of children with Down's, autism, epilepsy, autism, etc, I would be enjoying the fruits or aforementioned freedom of speech but hurting the sensitivities of the parents of the subjects of my ridicule to the point of hatred.

Yes you probably would, and if they murdered you they would hopefully be arrested.

Donkey Oaty

Egginacup wrote: »

People should stop talking about "free speech" and in the next breath call for Edward Snowden to be abducted, taken back to the States and shot, because he actually exercised freedom of speech that people didn't like.

Yes, that's what this thread is all about - it's the constant calls for Edward Snowden to be abducted, taken back to the States and shot that annoy me.

Hey, everyone on here, stop doing that!

crockholm

Egginacup wrote: »

You know, the powers that be must be absolutely loving this debate. Freedom of expression, in case anyone has forgotten, is a concept, a tenet, a credo, an institution...if you will that allows anyone, whether powerful or weak to say what he fells regardless of the discomfort it causes to those who rule over him. Freedom of assembly, habaeus corpus and other rights are also sacrosanct, albeit merely on paper of late.

Freedom of speech does not cover passive insults, nor hate speech. It does not cloak one from verbal or visual harassment. One could argue that a bunch of vindictive bitches inline tormenting the class nerd or girl with the big feet, cheap jacket, bad skin, is freedom of speech. Then she eventually commits suicide.
People should stop talking about "free speech" and in the next breath call for Edward Snowden to be abducted, taken back to the States and shot, because he actually exercised freedom of speech that people didn't like.

Again, there are many here who are sticking to their stance purely out of stubborness, or intransigence and that's wholly because they can't relate to someone else's sensitivities. But I'm quite certain that in my somewhat outlandish quest for controversy and notoriety I weekly published cartoons depicting tasteless cartoons, jokes and video mashed of children with Down's, autism, epilepsy, autism, etc, I would be enjoying the fruits or aforementioned freedom of speech but hurting the sensitivities of the parents of the subjects of my ridicule to the point of hatred.

Eggus,ol chum,I just posted a Little earlier about one of my kids afflictions,sure,it may well sting,but it is a World that he is going to grow up in.iT is for the greater good for all.

My name is URL

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

No you don't, at least not as far as the Islamic world is concerned.

They've had plenty of scribblings and cartoons about the Muslim world and Islamism =/

The Eye doesn't do depictions of the Prophet, and will not reproduce the Danish cartoons or others

Is 'doing depictions of the Prophet' a requisite for satirical publications? I never claimed they did that, I just commented on the general quality and comedic values of one paper as opposed to the other.

Egginacup

darkpagandeath wrote: »

err when did 1 billion become 1/4 of the worlds population now ?

1.6 billion.
I'm not an anthropologist and I'm not sure if the population of the planet is 6 billion or 6.5 billion. Sufficeth to say that if my numbers only account for a fifth or even a sixth of all humans who live on the planet then I extend my sincerest apologies.

Donkey Oaty

My name is URL wrote: »

They've had plenty of scribblings and cartoons about the Muslim world and Islamism =/



Is 'doing depictions of the Prophet' a requisite for satirical publications? I never claimed they did that, I just commented on the general quality and comedic values of one paper as opposed to the other.

Well, I'm a long-term Eye reader and supporter, and I'm on your side about their values. On hard news, they have good lawyers and often balls of steel.

But the point I make is that in the context of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they are not "controversial" as far as Islamists or Muslim fundamentalists are concerned when it comes to the specific act of depicting the prophet.

Editorially it's for security reasons, not a reverence for Islam. Readers are divided on this, but it's a pragmatic approach.

Muslims could learn a lot from the way Private Eye lampoons things - especially Christianity, considering their editor is a fairly devout Anglican.

The Showstopper

First of all, obviously the murders are sickening and completely inexcusable, and against the teachings of Islam.

However this a thread on the media and tbh anyone publishing those cartoons is a rag. I'm sure there are plently of ways to make a joke at the expense of Islam with out depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Remember this is an insult to ALL Muslims. The difference between this and making a joke about Christians by using a drawing of Jesus should be obvious. Walk into a church and there are depictictions of Jesus all over the place. I'm all for freedom of speech but also for having some basic respect for people. Excellent article here explaining why the New York Times did not publish the cartoons http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-publication-debate/?_r=0&referrer=

Donkey Oaty

The Showstopper wrote: »

. I'm all for freedom of speech but

Stopped reading at that point.

conorh91

The Showstopper wrote: »

I'm all for freedom of speech but also for having some basic respect for people.

That's really it, in a nutshell.

Here's a similar article along the same lines

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.

If people are incapable of understanding the above concept, they are either irredeemably incapable of joining an adult conversation, or else they have some other axe to grind, and are using 'free speech' as a mask.

The Showstopper

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Stopped reading at that point.

Fair enough, lets be allowed to spread any ideas and end up with another holocaust.

Donkey Oaty

The Showstopper wrote: »

Fair enough, lets be allowed to spread any ideas and end up with another holocaust.

Or: let's be free allowed to spread any ideas, and the ideas that we don't like can be countered with our arguments against those ideas, thus preventing another holocaust or atrocity by those who seek to stifle debate.

conorh91

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Or: let's be free allowed to spread any ideas, and the ideas that we don't like can be countered with our arguments against those ideas, thus preventing another holocaust or atrocity by those who seek to stifle debate.

Perhaps you should have read the NYT article s/he posted, if you think the above point is relevant.

Donkey Oaty

conorh91 wrote: »

Perhaps you should have read the NYT article s/he posted, if you think the above point is relevant.

I'm missing your point here, so maybe you can explain.

Just as background, I'm inclined to agree with the ACLU stance in the quote that you posted, and also with Noam Chomsky's aphorism: "If you are not in favour of free speech for everyone, you're not in favour of it at all."

If you are saying we should be nice and respectful to each other, well, I have no problem with that either. But that's social etiquette, and nothing to do with free speech.

The Showstopper

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Or: let's be free allowed to spread any ideas, and the ideas that we don't like can be countered with our arguments against those ideas, thus preventing another holocaust or atrocity by those who seek to stifle debate.

Jesus, it would have been great if somebody thought of doing that the first time. Admitally the Holocaust is an extreme example, just makimg the point that freedom of speech shouldn't mean been allowed to spread blatant lies about people, hence why people had to be held accountable for the lies about Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough.

And honestly, I'm not sure you understood my main point in the original post. I said that surely there are other ways to poke fun at Islam without depicting Muhammed, which everyone knows to be offensive, bit of creativity maybe.

Donkey Oaty

The Showstopper wrote: »

just makimg the point that freedom of speech shouldn't mean been allowed to spread blatant lies about people, hence why people had to be held accountable for the lies about Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough.

And honestly, I'm not sure you understood my main point in the original post. I said that surely there are other ways to poke fun at Islam without depicting Muhammed, which everyone knows to be offensive, bit of creativity maybe.

Yes, we seem to be on common ground here, and I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational (it's been a tough day) as I agree with the points you make here.

But blatant lies are not the same as opinion. As for depicting the Prophet - the vast majority of editors agree with you, albeit with a gun to their head.

The Showstopper

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Yes, we seem to be on common ground here, and I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational (it's been a tough day) as I agree with the points you make here.

But blatant lies are not the same as opinion. As for depicting the Prophet - the vast majority of editors agree with you, albeit with a gun to their head.

Yes, that's the point I'm making, people seem to think that freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything they want, even if its entirely lies being used to discredit others.

Just I've taught Islam to kids in school and as part of that is telling them that depicting the Prophet is Muhammed is deeply offensive for Muslims, especially in France with all the problems they have with different ethnic communities. So it's all well and good wanting to publish the cartoons as an act of solidarity with the victim and to oppose the attackers, but what seems to be lost on people (not you btw) is that it offends the ordinary Muslim who understands that it's not worth killing over and gets on with their everyday life while ignoring the bigots publishing these cartoons.

DeadHand

The Showstopper wrote: »

Yes, that's the point I'm making, people seem to think that freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything they want, even if its entirely lies being used to discredit others.

Just I've taught Islam to kids in school and as part of that is telling them that depicting the Prophet is Muhammed is deeply offensive for Muslims, especially in France with all the problems they have with different ethnic communities. So it's all well and good wanting to publish the cartoons as an act of solidarity with the victim and to oppose the attackers, but what seems to be lost on people (not you btw) is that it offends the ordinary Muslim who understands that it's not worth killing over and gets on with their everyday life while ignoring the bigots publishing these cartoons.

It's so much more important to show solidarity to the victims and oppose the attackers than it is to avoid offending ordinary Muslims or anyone else.

People can't seem to grasp how dangerous any submission to radical Islam is. Today we stop lampooning Islam, what tomorrow? Do we keep losing ground and abandoning Western principles until eventually we're made to stop sending girls to school and publicly hang homosexuals?

The spirit of submission, cowardice, victim blaming and appeasement we've seen on the boards since this atrocity took place is depressing.

So many here seem so much more upset at Charlie Hebdo for insulting Islam than at the people who are ACTUALLY MURDERING others and trying to bend all of us to their will. Some are expressing far more concern about the feelings of the Muslim community over this whole thing than they are about the fact that innocent, good people (at least one themselves a Muslim) were murdered yesterday.

People just can't seem to grasp the grave importance of how Western civilisation reacts to this, how dangerous a surrender to religious fascism would be now and how utterly essential a defiant attitude is, not only in memory of those who died but for the future of freedom, enlightenment and tolerance in the West.

No group should be allowed to use violence to put themselves above criticism and satire.

Mat the trasher

Mat the trasher wrote: »

Why didn't every media outlet in Europe publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons yesterday as a defiant act of solidarity for those that died and to show we take our freedom of speach seriously?I understand that the cartoons may upset some but they don't injure anybody.

Firstly i love your name 'Mat the thrasher' A famous Kickham Character. Secondly im not sure I agree with your assessment in full. Its hillarious the way we have so much freedom of speech when it suits us and so much political correctnesss when its suits us. Freedom of speech is all well and good but by that logic when you put it in a Northern Ireland context, we'd never have peace if people could just express what they so wished. In fact it hasnt fully gone away up there.

I must stress my sympathy for each and every victim of these atrocities but i dont believe for a second that free speech has been 'oppressed' in any way. Rather that i believe that we still cant seem to find common ground in terms of building a world where we can all live peacefully regardless of our religious beliefs.

DeadHand

The Showstopper wrote: »

Fair enough, lets be allowed to spread any ideas and end up with another holocaust.

It was the stifling and restriction of ideas and their replacement with a single dogma that led to the holocaust.

HerrScheisse

This is beyond surreal. Christianity used to have an iron grip on Europe as recent as 50 years ago, yet freedom of expression was not suppressed (completely that said). Science flourished, ideas exchanged, a European culture thrived with open borders, shared commercial interests, reduction of nationalism and petty militarism. That genial prophet Dave Allen was lampooning the church way before bald Sinead tore up that picture of the Pope on MTV. Nobody died in either case. Outrage somewhat, deaths, not a chance.

What is shocking, disturbing and disruptive to society, is the threat that religious philosophy can have when it tries to change society. Everything is an exercise in thought unless physically acted upon. And that is what makes Islamic extremism so dangerous, what draws people to the middle east to establish Sharia, to kill others of the same belief but of a different historical variance. It can exceed dogma and conquer territory and alter the way we live our lives. A small group with large ambition holed up in the caves in Tora Bora to Raqqa to the extent of a feeble Iraq held together by the unholy alliance of US airstrikes and Iranian Republican Guard boots on the ground preventing Bagdad from falling.

All ideas have consequence. But only if acted upon. If not resisted, they will become law and the world will keep on turning. The lack of response from the journalistic corps is the most shameful surrender.

conorh91

DeadHand wrote: »

many here seem so much more upset at Charlie Hebdo for insulting Islam than at the people who are ACTUALLY MURDERING others and trying to bend all of us to their will.

Can you quote the people who have said the cartoons are more upsetting than the murders?

c_man

The Showstopper wrote: »

However this a thread on the media and tbh anyone publishing those cartoons is a rag. I'm sure there are plently of ways to make a joke at the expense of Islam with out depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Remember this is an insult to ALL Muslims.

All? The history of the ban on depicting is far more complicated than most people appreciate and mainly lies with the Sunni, not Shia muslims. There's plenty of pictures of him in Muslim holy places.

And calling that article 'excellent' is a bit much in fairness

c_man

The Showstopper wrote: »

...the bigots publishing these cartoons.

Annnd you've lost all credibility.

conorh91

c_man wrote: »

Annnd you've lost all credibility.

Just so we're all aware what social-media outrage/AH posters presently demand, is it necessary to think that the cartoonists were virtuous in all of the content they published?

Or are we allowed disagree with the content, like the Muslim cop who died on the pavement, presumably disagreed with it, but defended their right to publish?

Maybe Ahmed had no credibility either.

HerrScheisse

If their beliefs were robust enough, they would not need to kill or as was propagated centuries ago, "defended" by the sword.

I follow the path of peace, I know that God buried those dinosaur fossils and neanderthal skulls deep into the earth to test my faith.