Charlie Hebdo

[uwot]

Writing for The Independent on Sunday today, Lord Harries says: “I am a great admirer of the Pope, but when, to make the proper point that we should not insult the faith of others, he said his assistant could ‘expect a punch’ if he cursed his mother, I was aghast. The reference to a punch could easily be taken for a justification of violence in response to insult.” But the crossbench peer adds: “There is no justification for deliberately belittling any community that already feels marginalised and vulnerable, as does the Muslim community in France.”

Political leaders have made it an issue of free speech. In the same article, for instance:

In his interview with Face the Nation, recorded during his visit to Washington last week, Mr Cameron said: “I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone’s religion. I’m a Christian; if someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don’t have a right to wreak vengeance on them.

“We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it’s within the law. That is what we should defend.”

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

[attofishpi]

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

Er, me and everyone that marched in support of free speech!!

Oh, hang on you're talking about spineless politicians, i see your point.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Organizations & individuals should continue to have the right to publish racist or sexist jokes.

It's not in good taste but the freedom needs to exist.



.

[duszek]

I have been shown some distasteful caricatures against the Christians and felt embarrassed (for them).

They were on the brink of going bankrupt and it would have been a good end for them.

Now after the bloodshed they will get subsidies and will go on.

In a free democratic society such magazines should be treated as trolls on internet forums. Ignoring them is the best and the most fair.
And probably the most Christian too.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









..................................................









.

[Impenitent]

censorship is double plus good

you can't have the thought if you can't put it in words - which only leaves peaceful thoughts and language when all "offensive" or "evil" language is removed...

I have a bridge you can buy...

-Imp

[Bill Wiltrack]

.











................................................








.

[talleyrand]

The American government, for instance, always says that the freedom of speech is essential according to the constitution. However, mostly citizens do not have the right to criticize freely the religions. "Charlie Hebdo" is a newspaper dedicated to the caricatures. What does a caricature mean? A caricature denounces facts and behaviors; some ridiculous situations.

[Pluto]

What do you say to those who claim it was another false flag?

[Wyman]

Writing for The Independent on Sunday today, Lord Harries says: “I am a great admirer of the Pope, but when, to make the proper point that we should not insult the faith of others, he said his assistant could ‘expect a punch’ if he cursed his mother, I was aghast. The reference to a punch could easily be taken for a justification of violence in response to insult.” But the crossbench peer adds: “There is no justification for deliberately belittling any community that already feels marginalised and vulnerable, as does the Muslim community in France.”

Political leaders have made it an issue of free speech. In the same article, for instance:

In his interview with Face the Nation, recorded during his visit to Washington last week, Mr Cameron said: “I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone’s religion. I’m a Christian; if someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don’t have a right to wreak vengeance on them.

“We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it’s within the law. That is what we should defend.”

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

[uwot]

I think Chris Rock is making jokes about optional lifestyles, which is probably fair game. On the other hand, there are the cultural and socio-economic factors that can make such a lifestyle difficult to avoid, which, to a bleeding heart liberal, is less funny. Maybe Chris Rock does make racist or sexist jokes, but not in that excerpt, in my opinion.
You make a good point in The French Question (to his credit, so does HexHammer): that we set limits to free speech and it is the position of those limits that is subject to debate, rather than the principle. There is another point you make:

The concern is with protecting the public rather than with punishing the speaker for his intent....The same or similar reasons may support banning the speech in the Hedbo case.

I think a lot of the passion is from people who don't think we should be cowed by fundamentalist nutjobs; quite right too, but the point made by Lord Harries is that even though there are a lot of Muslims in the world, and a frightening number seem easily persuaded that insane brutality is the way to go, in western democracies, there is still a large number of decent Muslims who are vulnerable to abuse or violence stoked by what is perceived as anti-Islam sentiment by those too hard of thinking to get the joke. They are a minority of our society, regardless of what proportion they are of the Muslim community, do they deserve protection?

[Lev Muishkin]

The American government, for instance, always says that the freedom of speech is essential according to the constitution. However, mostly citizens do not have the right to criticize freely the religions. "Charlie Hebdo" is a newspaper dedicated to the caricatures. What does a caricature mean? A caricature denounces facts and behaviors; some ridiculous situations.

The only restrictions of the critique of religion come in the form of rants, and incitement to violence.
We are all perfectly free in the west to criticise religion with perfect freedom, as long as we are not in the business of encouraging people to kill one another.

This is not the case in places like Saudi Arabia.

Give this a read. You can buy it for $8, or read it for free.

http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/hitchens.pdf

[Lev Muishkin]

.



................................................

.

What censorship is that?

I think the internet is protecting you from reality.

[Wyman]

I think Chris Rock is making jokes about optional lifestyles, which is probably fair game. On the other hand, there are the cultural and socio-economic factors that can make such a lifestyle difficult to avoid, which, to a bleeding heart liberal, is less funny. Maybe Chris Rock does make racist or sexist jokes, but not in that excerpt, in my opinion.
You make a good point in The French Question (to his credit, so does HexHammer): that we set limits to free speech and it is the position of those limits that is subject to debate, rather than the principle. There is another point you make:

The concern is with protecting the public rather than with punishing the speaker for his intent....The same or similar reasons may support banning the speech in the Hedbo case.

I think a lot of the passion is from people who don't think we should be cowed by fundamentalist nutjobs; quite right too, but the point made by Lord Harries is that even though there are a lot of Muslims in the world, and a frightening number seem easily persuaded that insane brutality is the way to go, in western democracies, there is still a large number of decent Muslims who are vulnerable to abuse or violence stoked by what is perceived as anti-Islam sentiment by those too hard of thinking to get the joke. They are a minority of our society, regardless of what proportion they are of the Muslim community, do they deserve protection?

On the Hebdo issue, I would vote for free speech. But I was pointing out that reasonable minds (and Hex) can differ on the issue, both as to the law and as to the merits. 'The Idiot' sees all in black and white.

On Chris Rock - I don't know if there may be something lost in translation across the Atlantic, but to me, that is the most racist routine you will ever see. It goes through some of the most common and damaging (because too often true) negative stereotypes of African Americans which, if relayed by a white comedian, would only be acceptable at a KKK rally. However, to your original question, I still support it. Rock is going 'Beyond Black and White' - post racial. If you accept that there are just as many (percentage) 'crappy' black people in the world as there are 'crappy' white people, then it is funny to laugh at and make fun of them, knowing that many are not 'like that.' (I'd say 'most' are not like that, but I am somewhat of a misanthrope). If, on the other hand, you think that most black people are like that, then it becomes mean spirited and racist. At any rate, I would even support free speech protection for the mean spirited type of racist and sexist jokes, although I would not be among the audience.

[uwot]

I don't know what Chris Rock's motives are, nor would I pretend to understand African American sub-cultures, but I do know that there was or is a group called Niggaz With Attitude. I gather that there are some African Americans who are quite happy to live up to some people's prejudices and stereotypes. Several times in the routine Chris Rock contrasts "a black man" with a Nigga; I think the point he was making is that it is racist not to do so.
Personally, I don't see that it is people who make racist or sexist jokes that need protecting.