Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media Solidarity for Charlie Hebdo?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    K4t wrote: »
    Should be happy that you have the freedom to wear the shirt? Of course.


    The shirt itself probably wouldn't fill the person with joy.

    Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech. But let's be grown and rational here. These cartoons were known to cause offense and still this magazine published them. The guys who thought it would be a great giggle to insult and humiliate a QUARTER of the world's population played with fire and got burnt. Publishing the cartoons is legal and will continue to be so. And getting killed for publishing them is ILLEGAL and will continue to be so. That's not an issue. But there are many people especially on here who demonstrate great contradiction when waxing philosophical about action, responsibility, cause and effect. It's legal to smoke cigarettes, but, they will argue, you know it's bad for you and you should be denied treatment if and when you get ill.
    If the demonstrated the same consistency with regard to this affair the would recommend the police say to these publishers "look it's you right to publish offensive material again and again. But we advise against it. You know it's detrimental to your health and safety. We will certainly attempt to apprehend your killers when you are inevitably murdered, but we will not waste police resources and taxpayer money providing you with an armed security and protection detail when you are blithely creating the conditions for the need of such protection. Bon chance, monsieur!"


  • Options
    #63
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    conorh91 wrote: »
    You have missed the point.

    It is axiomatic that newspaper editors and private individuals should never publish statements or carry banners which they consider to be unwise or unreasonable.

    Why? Who gets to define unwise or unreasonable?

    What if a newspaper in Uganda had a headline that said "Its ok to be gay"? That would be offensive to the Ugandan government and probably land the journalist in jail for being offensive. If people don't push boundaries, nothing will change and the immoral powerful will remain unquestioned and in power forever. Is this the society you want?


  • Options
    #64
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    conorh91 wrote: »
    In my hypothetical example, is it wise or reasonable to carry banners that say "Nígger"?

    You'll have the militant Irish language focalistas after you on the grounds that it is a disgraceful prostitution of the proud and noble fada.


  • Options
    #65
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Hazys wrote: »
    Why? Who gets to define unwise or unreasonable?
    The individual themselves.

    Why are you not answering the simple question?

    I am shot for carrying a banner that reads "Nígger". Do you consider it reasonable or wise that others should carry banners down O'Connell Street that read "Nígger". Should the Irish Times carry headlines that refer to "Níggers" in my defence?


  • Options
    #66
    Bootros Bootros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Bootros Bootros


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech. But let's be grown and rational here. These cartoons were known to cause offense and still this magazine published them. The guys who thought it would be a great giggle to insult and humiliate a QUARTER of the world's population played with fire and got burnt. Publishing the cartoons is legal and will continue to be so. And getting killed for publishing them is ILLEGAL and will continue to be so. That's not an issue. But there are many people especially on here who demonstrate great contradiction when waxing philosophical about action, responsibility, cause and effect. It's legal to smoke cigarettes, but, they will argue, you know it's bad for you and you should be denied treatment if and when you get ill.
    If the demonstrated the same consistency with regard to this affair the would recommend the police say to these publishers "look it's you right to publish offensive material again and again. But we advise against it. You know it's detrimental to your health and safety. We will certainly attempt to apprehend your killers when you are inevitably murdered, but we will not waste police mines and taxpayer money providing you with an armed security and protection detail when you are blithely creating the conditions for the need of such protection. Bon chance, monsieur!"

    That "quarter of the worlds" population is upset by free speech is more reason to upset them.

    Quarter of the population of the world is Catholic. ( At least nominally) I doubt this would stop you criticising the Pope.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    People are missing the point here spectacularly.

    It's not about insulting people, all about freedom of expression and defying those who seek to use violence to make the rest of us submit to them.

    Once certain groups can be above criticism and parody that is a dangerous road to go down. When we allow those who use fear as a weapon to dictate to us what we can and can't read or write that is a dark, slippery slope to find ourselves on.

    Western civilisation needs to take a stand here. It needs to defend itself for our sake and the sake of future generations. There can be no appeasement of fascists, no surrender to savages.

    Those Islamist barbarians who despise us, our way of life, our principles, our freedom must be made to see we are unafraid.

    I believe reprinting and reproducing these cartoons as much as possible would be an excellent way to do this. The more who do it the more effective the message will be and the safer the messengers.


  • Options
    #68
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    K4t wrote: »
    Not at all. I could care less about your imaginary person's happiness. As is my right. I made my point clearly. Address it or stop wasting my time.

    "I COULD care less" ... Now you know the mentality you're dealing with, haha.


  • Options
    #69
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,170 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    conorh91 wrote: »
    The individual themselves.

    Why are you not answering the simple question?

    I am shot for carrying a banner that reads "Nígger". Do you consider it reasonable or wise that others should carry banners down O'Connell Street that read "Nígger". Should the Irish Times carry headlines that refer to "Níggers" in my defence?

    Not the same thing. But carry on, sir!


  • Options
    #70
    GerB40
    Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭GerB40


    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.

    Cowardice.


  • Options
    #71
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    conorh91 wrote: »
    The individual themselves.

    Why are you not answering the simple question?

    I am shot for carrying a banner that reads "Nígger". Do you consider it reasonable or wise that others should carry banners down O'Connell Street that read "Nígger". Should the Irish Times carry headlines that refer to "Níggers" in my defence?

    If the freedom of speech is seriously threatened and nobody will be free to say what they want in the future, then Yes.

    Answer my question then:
    What if a newspaper in Uganda had a headline that said "Its ok to be gay"? That would be offensive to the Ugandan government and probably land the journalist in jail for being offensive. Where the Ugandan government right to jail the journalist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bootros Bootros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Bootros Bootros


    Hazys wrote: »
    Why? Who gets to define unwise or unreasonable?

    What if a newspaper in Uganda had a headline that said "Its ok to be gay"? That would be offensive to the Ugandan government and probably land the journalist in jail for being offensive. If people don't push boundaries, nothing will change and the immoral powerful will remain unquestioned and in power forever. Is this the society you want?

    Indeed. It would upset the liberals.

    The thing is the "left" response to this is not just timid weak hypocritical whataboutary it's based on the insane premise that the only thing that upsets Islamic fanatics is cartoons. No. Lots of stuff liberals take for granted upsets the fanatics and I wonder how liberalism would survive an attack in a gay bar.

    But the existence of the gay bar is in fact offensive to some. I wouldn't start down that road.


  • Options
    #73
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Hazys wrote: »
    If the freedom of speech is seriously threatened and nobody will be free to say what they want in the future, then Yes.
    So you think carrying banners reading "Nígger" is reasonable in these circumstances. Right. Good to know the lack of ordinary human decency you're bringing to the table.
    Hazys wrote: »
    What if a newspaper in Uganda had a headline that said "Its ok to be gay"? That would be offensive to the Ugandan government and probably land the journalist in jail for being offensive. Where the Ugandan government right to jail the journalist?
    Of course not. All of my posts on the topic of Charlie Hebdo have been in defence of the right to cause offense, and the need to liberally defend and uphold freedom of expression in our laws and in our actions.

    I appreciate the right of freedom of expression, but I think that carrying a banner reading "Nígger" down O'Connell Street is unwise and unreasonable, even if it is in response to a shooting.


  • Options
    #74
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    They shouldn't give in to them no matter what, today its it "blasphemous" cartoon who knows what it will be tomorrow.


  • Options
    #75
    Bootros Bootros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Bootros Bootros


    conorh91 wrote: »
    The individual themselves.

    Why are you not answering the simple question?

    I am shot for carrying a banner that reads "Nígger". Do you consider it reasonable or wise that others should carry banners down O'Connell Street that read "Nígger". Should the Irish Times carry headlines that refer to "Níggers" in my defence?

    How about this. A gay man is shot for wearing a tee shirt which shows two men kissing. It offends the sensibilities of a religious nut. Should we not offend religion from then on? Would we ban the tee shirt?

    Note that my thought experiment is about religion ( an ideology) yours is about an inescapable race.

    So mine is better. More apt. At least on some level you must understand this.


  • Options
    #76
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Bootros Bootros wrote: »
    How about this. A gay man is shot for wearing a tee shirt which shows two men kissing. It offends the sensibilities of a religious nut. Should we not offend religion from then on? Woukd we ban the tee shirt?
    Of course not.

    You have spectacularly misinterpreted the point.

    I am not claiming that freedom of expression should be outlawed or further restricted.

    I am claiming that even where a legal right of expression exits, it is wise to refrain from exercising that right in circumstances where you disagree with the content of the controversial expression.


  • Options
    #77
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    conorh91 wrote: »
    So you think carrying banners reading "Nígger" is reasonable in these circumstances. Right. Good to know the lack of ordinary human decency you're bringing to the table.

    Wow ok. You brought up this ridiculous example and focus on the word in quotes that you seem to love posting and i tell you its not about the word itself, that it is about protecting freedom of expression. In your example if i didn't march down the street, we would lose freedom of expression, then i would march in that case. In the Charlie Hebdo case, i feel freedom of expression is seriously under threat as nobody will post those cartoons again out of fear so thats why people should post them to show we are not afraid.

    Of course not. All of my posts on the topic of Charlie Hebdo have been in defence of the right to cause offense, and the need to liberally defend and uphold freedom of expression in our laws and in our actions.

    I appreciate the right of freedom of expression, but I think that carrying a banner reading "Nígger" down O'Connell Street is unwise and unreasonable, even if it is in response to a shooting.
    .


  • Options
    #78
    Bootros Bootros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Bootros Bootros


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Of course not.

    You have spectacularly misinterpreted the point.

    I am not claiming that freedom of expression should be outlawed or further restricted.

    I am claiming that even where a legal right of expression exits, it is wise to refrain from exercising that right in circumstances where you disagree with the content of the controversial expression.

    I haven't misinterpreted your point. You are bringing race into a religious argument. I am reverting to religion.

    I don't agree that insulting a man who has no magical powers and who founded a religion is wrong or should be controversial in democracies no matter how many people take offence. That could be Jesus or Mo. Or anybody else.


  • Options
    #79
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Hazys wrote: »
    In your example if i didn't march down the street, we would lose freedom of expression, then i would march in that case.
    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.
    Bootros Bootros wrote: »
    I haven't misinterpreted your point. You are bringing race into a religious argument. I am reverting to religion.
    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.


  • Options
    #80
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    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.

    Lad, seriously?

    You're reading nothing I'm writing or even trying to understand the point I'm making and throw in a couple of petty insults too...this is going nowhere, I'm out.


  • Options
    #81
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Hazys wrote: »
    Lad, seriously?

    You're reading nothing I'm writing or even trying to understand the point I'm making and throw in a couple of petty insults too...this is going nowhere, I'm out.
    He is far more of a danger to freedom of expression than any Muslim extremists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    signostic
    Registered Users Posts: 5,878 ✭✭✭signostic


    News
    World news
    Charlie Hebdo attack
    Muslims in Europe fear anti-Islamic mood will intensify after Paris attacks
    Anti-immigrant politicians from Germany to Sweden citing Charlie Hebdo killings as support for their position

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/muslims-europe-fear-escalation-anti-islamism-paris-attacks


  • Options
    #83
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Hazys wrote: »
    Lad, seriously?
    You said, using my example, that if you didn't march down the street carrying a racist banner, "we would lose freedom of expression"

    So yes, 'lad', I think your claim is pure BS.


  • Options
    #84
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Bootros Bootros wrote: »
    That "quarter of the worlds" population is upset by free speech is more reason to upset them.

    Quarter of the population of the world is Catholic. ( At least nominally) I doubt this would stop you criticising the Pope.

    And HALF the world's population are female. Coming out a saying women are filthy vermin is also freedom of speech but it's going to offend billions of women and garner you a significant slice of ire from the males who love them too. This discussion, as I have tried already to elucidate, is not about free speech as so many non thinkers try to stick to, it's about offense just to prove a point.
    People are yammering on about Muslims trying to force their traditions on the countries where they live. This is absurd. Muslims for the most part don't drink alcohol but they're not trying to abolish wine making in France or anywhere. They believe in modesty but they're not trying to burn down the Moulin Rouge or have erotic literature, sex clubs, nude beaches, etc., in France, or anywhere. They don't eat pigmeat, and like Jews and Hindus, they're not trying to force the world to ban the rasher and the pork chop. They just want to live their fcuking lives and not be prostrated by people who think it's great craic to bully and insult them for cheap laughs.

    Why not just leave them alone? Why the need to find the one thing that will upset them and kick it into their faces just to make yourself feel big and then come all sanctimonious when they react explosively at your childish taunting?


  • Options
    #85
    Streetwalker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭Streetwalker


    Thought the cartoons where pretty distasteful tbh.


  • Options
    #86
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


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


  • Options
    #87
    crockholm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    In solidarity with Charlie Hebdo,I will make a joke of something which may be a taboo, I have a Child with Cerebral palsy.Funny thing about it is his initials are C.P.,sometimes when he looks at me,it looks like he is giving me gang signals with his hands.

    That actually took a lot to write,as it is so Close to home,but there is no reason why this,or anything similar should be off-topic.Don't let them win.

    Allez Charlie!


  • Options
    #88
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Paz-CCFC wrote: »
    Showing the cartoons aren't the only way of showing solidarity. Many of them gave messages in support. If that's as far as they wish to go, that's their own business.

    It's laughable, given all that's happened, the level of criticism some of the Irish media outlets are getting for exercising their freedom of expression by not showing such cartoons.

    Those cartoons are an intrinsic part of an absolutely enormous news story. To deliberately exclude them from publication is an absolute cop out. However, they are free to do this, just as we are free to criticise them for not doing it. Nothing laughable about it at all.


  • Options
    #89
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Bootros Bootros wrote: »
    Indeed. It would upset the liberals.

    The thing is the "left" response to this is not just timid weak hypocritical whataboutary it's based on the insane premise that the only thing that upsets Islamic fanatics is cartoons. No. Lots of stuff liberals take for granted upsets the fanatics and I wonder how liberalism would survive an attack in a gay bar.

    But the existence of the gay bar is in fact offensive to some. I wouldn't start down that road.

    Whoa!

    The existence of a gay bar is offensive to morons who are bigoted. Much like the existence of a mosque or a synagogue is to similar knuckleheads.

    If calling a homosexual a f*ggot repeatedly or a Jew a kike is done just to provoke a reaction then you are an asshole.

    Gay men or women meeting up in a club or bar to meet other gays isn't an affront to anyone except the hatefilled dickheads. They're not actively going out of their way to hurt peoples' feeling and challenge their dignity, are they?


  • Options
    #90
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Whoa!

    The existence of a gay bar is offensive to morons who are bigoted. Much like the existence of a mosque or a synagogue is to similar knuckleheads.

    If calling a homosexual a f*ggot repeatedly or a Jew a kike is done just to provoke a reaction then you are an asshole.

    Gay men or women meeting up in a club or bar to meet other gays isn't an affront to anyone except the hatefilled dickheads. They're not actively going out of their way to hurt peoples' feeling and challenge their dignity, are they?
    It's a cartoon, not a challenge to anyone's dignity. If you don't like it, don't read it. You don't find me on the Stormfront website but I believe the Stormfront website should be allowed to exist. The line is where the publication incites violence and its a line Chalie Hebdo never crossed. No one has the right not to be offended. If you want to live in a country in which publishing images of the prophet is illegal, you can access the proper democratic channels to have the law changed to that end. Alternatively you can go and live in another country where it is already illegal.
    The notion that the cartoonist were murdered because they "poked the beehive" is extremely dangerous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    If you want to live in a country in which publishing images of the prophet is illegal, you can access the proper democratic channels to have the law changed to that end. Alternatively you can go and live in another country where it is already illegal.

    Or possibly stay in Ireland.

    The courts have yet to rule on that one.


Advertisement