11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Valsuelm]

Sure, the caricatures Hebdo drew during the NATO bombing of Serbia were beyond despicable, and I think the magazine is a piece of trash that lives on cheap provocation rather than intelligent humor (of which there is plenty in French comics). But that's besides the point.

 

The point is that this is Paris and not Riyad. If someone doesn't like what the French do in France (unpleasant as it may be), maybe they shouldn't be there? 

 

Well, on that note... it's relatively safe to say that if France wasn't directly and indirectly mucking around in Muslim country X, blowing up people and things, sponsoring coups, assassinating people, etc. over the years, then people from those nations would be less inclined to bring that war to Paris.

 

Would Average Joe care if a group of retards halfway around the world dedicated their careers to 'art' inciting hatred against his nation or peoples? Probably not. However, if that group of people resided in a nation that was actively waging a war upon your nation/people, chances are Average Joe's perspective would change.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Woldan]

I simply love that those terrorists immigrate to Europe, complain about how things are going here and commit their despicable crimes with Western technology. If they were true patriots they would stay in their country where things are awesome, and if they were true believers they'd use halal technology only invented by those who are and were worthy. (Sticks and stones)

 

People simply use religion as an excuse to let their inner barbarian out. 

[Gfted1]

Well, on that note... it's relatively safe to say that if France wasn't directly and indirectly mucking around in Muslim country X, blowing up people and things, sponsoring coups, assassinating people, etc. over the years, then people from those nations would be less inclined to bring that war to Paris.

 

Would Average Joe care if a group of retards halfway around the world dedicated their careers to 'art' inciting hatred against his nation or peoples? Probably not. However, if that group of people resided in a nation that was actively waging a war upon your nation/people, chances are Average Joe's perspective would change.

 

See, another reason to disarm France. That way they wouldn't be able to pick on these poor downtrodden folk.

[Woldan]

That kind of trolling does not contribute to the discussion. 

[Gfted1]

Im solving the worlds problems one armchair general decision at a time. Europe should embrace my ideas and stop brining all this trouble on themselves.

[Namutree]

Major american media refuse to print the caricatures of Muhammad as an act of solidarity, saying that there's "no excuse" to insult tens of millions of muslims. Yet they feel free to insult millions of Christians with Jesus caricatures. *sigh*

 

****ing (pseudo)liberals. Its freedom of expression when they're trampling their own cultural heritage for giggles but censorship when the other guy happens not to turn the other cheek. I don't know who I despise more, but the Islamists are at least consistent in their lunacy.

keep in mind that in America Muslims are a vulnerable minority. Generally Americans would see something like that as fostering ignorance and a hostile attitude towards a minority group. It's generally considered fine to make fun of Christians since they represent an overwhelming majority and thus have nothing to fear from general society.

[Namutree]

Im solving the worlds problems one armchair general decision at a time. Europe should embrace my ideas and stop brining all this trouble on themselves.

HAHAHA!!! Gifted1 you're always a riot.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Im solving the worlds problems one armchair general decision at a time. Europe should embrace my ideas and stop brining all this trouble on themselves.

But when do we get drones?

[Malcador]

 

One side of the CBC's reasoning.

[Gfted1]

 

Im solving the worlds problems one armchair general decision at a time. Europe should embrace my ideas and stop brining all this trouble on themselves.

But when do we get drones?

 

 

[HoonDing]

The gunman who killed 4 people in a Jewish museum in Brussels a year ago was actually apprehended very quickly. And this by the most incompetent police in Yurop.

 

Frenchies blew it.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

One side of the CBC's reasoning.

 

What horse****. He's making an exception on the basis that Islamic faith doesn't condone showing pictures of muhammad (as a form of idolatry). 

 

But when the story of the woman who bashed the satanic temple display in Florida government building the other day aired:

 

 

... pictures of said display (which is obviously intended to provoke and offend) were everywhere. 

 

So, when muslims might be offended, the policy is to respect the tenets of the religion (?), but when its christianity, its a news story to gorge on like any  other and "free speech".

 

Riiight.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Namutree]

 

One side of the CBC's reasoning.

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. 

[ktchong]

The irony is, just a couple months ago, I was given a ban and warning by a BioWare moderator for using a Charlie Hebdo cartoon as my profile picture in the BioWare forum; for "insulting Islam," I supposed.

Edited January 8, 2015 by ktchong

[Shallow]

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. 

 

While your argument in itself is an acceptable reason, let's be honest here, the one and only reason the American news people refuse to show those pictures, they're afraid a couple crazy muslims will kill them.

[Valsuelm]

 

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. 

 

While your argument in itself is an acceptable reason, let's be honest here, the one and only reason the American news people refuse to show those pictures, they're afraid a couple crazy muslims will kill them.

 

 

CBC is Canadian.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

One side of the CBC's reasoning.

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards. 

 

 

The cartoons really aren't necessary to most news stories about this, and would be a waste of space in most news publications.

 

Consider if what we're talking about was a photo from a snuff film or pornography. Would we be calling people cowards for not publishing the material? Were news organizations cowards for not publishing photos from the various beheadings in the last decade?

 

Freedom of the Press exists. You can publish anything you want in the U.S. and many other western nations (but not all (including Canada)), but it doesn't mean you should.

 

'The better part of valor is discretion.'

[Malcador]

Not seeing this is as on the level of showing people dying in sadistic ways or other recordings of torture, though I see your point.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Malcador

[Drowsy Emperor]

The point of publishing the cartoons now is as a way to protest against the violence that happened, a middle finger to those who thought that killing the cartoonists would "shut them up" - not to actually display the content of the cartoons for informational purposes (which are crap by standards of clever satire).

 

In this case they explicitly gave their reasoning and that reasoning is hypocritical at best. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

Sigh. Why do news outlets not show the policeman getting shot in the head but blank/ blur/ pause the footage? Surely, free speech demands that they show him getting executed as well? Of course, some people will get offended and it may upset his relatives but well, asterisk those delicate flowers...

 

Free speech is a great thing, being an arse is not a great thing. If you're indulging in free speech just to be an arse that does not make you some great crusader (hoho) for truth, justice and the American Way though you may be so, incidentally- you're still an arse.

 

Deliberately posting something 1.5 billion people will find offensive is not brave, it's moronic and it would make them an arse. There are better ways to make any point apart from doing something just because you can, ultimately that's masturbatory- primarily done to benefit you and make you feel good, not to make any real point.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Valsuelm]

The point of publishing the cartoons now is as a way to protest against the violence that happened, a middle finger to those who thought that killing the cartoonists would "shut them up" - not to actually display the content of the cartoons for informational purposes (which are crap by standards of clever satire).

 

In this case they explicitly gave their reasoning and that reasoning is hypocritical at best.

 

They aren't shut up, today Charlie Hebdo stated they will continue publication as normal, and Google has donated a quarter million Euros to pay help pay for even wider circulation.

 

Let's put this is a different yet more appropriate perspective for some of you.

 

Let's say that Charlie H was a publication known for publishing anti-black (or anti jew, or anti women, or anti pick a) people material. For over a decade they'd made a point of belittling those who hailed from place X, had color of skin Y, or believed in widely held belief Z, depicting them as subhuman, bafoons, and other unflattering/belittling/insulting ways. They mocked their way of life, they paraded failures of individuals of group X in their publication, took shots of all kinds at them over the years, and so on. They did this under mantra of 'satire', but a real lot of black people as well as a great many who were not black didn't quite see it as satire. We aren't talking about one cartoon here either. We are talking about people at Charlie H dedicating their lives to this 'satire'.

 

Then one day a someone(s) threatens to blow up Charlie H if they don't cease publication of their anti black (or whatever group) 'satire'. Threats are unheeded, dismissed, or ignored, and publication of the 'satire' continues. Threats continue. Warnings continue. Eventually the office is firebombed.The leader of Charlie H stands tall and firm, stating his right to publish the material he's publishing and even say's he'd rather die doing it than not. The treats and warnings continue, and in light of this, as well as the firebombing, the State, which has a vested interest in seeing anti group X 'satire' published as it helps galvanize it's populace to support it's foreign policy/war agenda on group X's homeland, assigns a taxpayer paid for bodyguard to the leader of Charlie H.

 

Some years pass, the publication of the anti-black material (as well as other anti group of people X material, because Charlie H isn't just focused on 'satirizing' blacks, it's got plenty of 'satire' to spread around) continues. Then one day, a couple of masked men walk into Charlie H's office, gun everyone down, and shout 'Freedom for *insert group of people X here, be there blacks, Jews, etc*!!'. 10 people in the office are killed, and so are two police officers, one of which being that bodyguard.

 

Would some be trying to be making this a freedom of the press issue if the 'satire' had been focused on blacks, Jews, gays, women, etc? Sure, some would, but a large majority would think that's vile, and rightly so.

 

I'm a thousand percent for free speech, moreso than most you'll ever meet I'm sure (ie: I'm vehemently against 'hate speech' laws,as well as most moderation I've ever seen on this forum, will defend someone's right to say anything), so don't get me wrong. But saying the Charlie Hebdo murders are a free speech issue really is misguided at best. You can say what you want, but there are consequences. If you tell someone to go bleep themselves or make a point of insulting their mother to their face, don't be surprised if they punch yours. I'm not saying that's right, and I'm certainly not condoning the evil murders of those at Charlie Hebdo. But what those at Charlie Hebdo were up to had no more to do with freedom of expression than the most vile KKK publication ever did.

 

In other words, if the members of the Black Panthers walked into a KKK newspaper that for over a decade had published innumerable 'satirical' pieces targeting blacks in a unflattering at best manner, and mowed all the members of said newspaper down, and killed two cops in the process, would you think it's a free speech issue because some cartoons they didn't like supposedly were their motivation? Would you think the taxpayer should have funded a bodyguard for the leader of the KKK newspaper? Would you think the Black Panthers were terrorists?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Wrath of Dagon]

You analogy isn't exactly right, because the KKK is explicitly a hate organization. This was a satirical magazine that satirized everybody. Christianity is regularly mocked and blasphemed, how would people feel if Christian terrorist murdered the offenders? This is exactly the right analogy here, you can be an atheist and call God a sky fairy and flying spaghetti monster and still no one has the right to touch a hair on your head.

[Valsuelm]

You analogy isn't exactly right, because the KKK is explicitly a hate organization. This was a satirical magazine that satirized everybody. Christianity is regularly mocked and blasphemed, how would people feel if Christian terrorist murdered the offenders? This is exactly the right analogy here, you can be an atheist and call God a sky fairy and flying spaghetti monster and still no one has the right to touch a hair on your head.

 

You miss the point if you're focused on the KKK.

 

Most KKK members certainly wouldn't call the KKK a hate organization, and I only mention them (and the Black Panthers) due to the amount of stigma Average Joe perceives them to have, and in case the point wasn't already clear up until the time I mentioned them.

 

I wouldn't feel any differently if some Christians had done the evil deed (some Christians very well may have), that you even ask me that tells me you completely misunderstand what I was saying.

[Malcador]

Sigh. Why do news outlets not show the policeman getting shot in the head but blank/ blur/ pause the footage? Surely, free speech demands that they show him getting executed as well? Of course, some people will get offended and it may upset his relatives but well, asterisk those delicate flowers...

 

Free speech is a great thing, being an arse is not a great thing. If you're indulging in free speech just to be an arse that does not make you some great crusader (hoho) for truth, justice and the American Way though you may be so, incidentally- you're still an arse.

 

Deliberately posting something 1.5 billion people will find offensive is not brave, it's moronic and it would make them an arse. There are better ways to make any point apart from doing something just because you can, ultimately that's masturbatory- primarily done to benefit you and make you feel good, not to make any real point.

Silly to pause it at that point, as if to tease the viewer with it. Do feel the intention is somewhat relevant, if one cartoon was the problem it's not a problem to point out "They are offended at this", you're not aiming at provoking them but just reporting. It's been done when Christians are offended at something or the other and that was it.

 

Actually CBC showed the cop being executed with his arm raised but blurred out slightly, several times, heh, before they commented on their refusal to show the cartoon.

 

Watching reactions to this online has been interesting, although the sites themselves are probably biased toward more loud and dramatic people.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Malcador

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

You analogy isn't exactly right, because the KKK is explicitly a hate organization. This was a satirical magazine that satirized everybody. Christianity is regularly mocked and blasphemed, how would people feel if Christian terrorist murdered the offenders? This is exactly the right analogy here, you can be an atheist and call God a sky fairy and flying spaghetti monster and still no one has the right to touch a hair on your head.

 

You miss the point if you're focused on the KKK.

 

Most KKK members certainly wouldn't call the KKK a hate organization, and I only mention them (and the Black Panthers) due to the amount of stigma Average Joe perceives them to have, and in case the point wasn't already clear up until the time I mentioned them.

 

I wouldn't feel any differently if some Christians had done the evil deed (some Christians very well may have), that you even ask me that tells me you completely misunderstand what I was saying.

 

You're the one who made the KKK analogy, I was only responding to it. Of course freedom to offend is part of free expression, or are you saying an atheist attacking a religion is not free expression?