The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?

238 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
So, recently there was the issue with the alleged North Korea threat to theaters to not show the movie The Interview. The movie is now being shown in defiance of that threat. However, now that some terrorists attacked the paper and cartoonists who mocked the "prophet", most media outlets won't show the cartoons. Should they? Is not showing them just giving in to the threats, this time much more real than the one from whomever made the threat against the theaters.

As news organizations reported on Wednesday's attack on Charlie Hebdo, many made a point of not showing the cartoons that apparently angered the gunmen who killed 12 people at the satirical newspaper's Paris offices. (Some Muslim traditions prohibit visual depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the strictest interpretations of the religion's anti-idolatry laws ban images of people altogether.) A few places took it a step further by obscuring images of Charlie Hebdo's work.
News Outlets Aren

One big online media site, Huffington Post, has shown them on the front page for days now.

These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    I thought the cartoons where aimed at the radicals much more so then at Islam.
    I also think that the majority of Muslims would see that also.
    They're not really mocking the prophet as much as mocking the terrorist.
    I'm startimg to repeat myself, so ya show the comics.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797583].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author discrat
      Yeah, wonder what moderate Christians would think if a media group started doing caricatures of Jesus to mock some of the hardcore radical Christians like the late great Tim McVeigh and his repugnant sorts ?

      Not trying to say one way or the other or whether it is even comparable but it is an interesting parallel to consider.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797750].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

        Yeah, wonder what moderate Christians would think if a media group started doing caricatures of Jesus to mock some of the hardcore radical Christians like the late great Tim McVeigh and his repugnant sorts ?

        Not trying to say one way or the other or whether it is even comparable but it is an interesting parallel to consider.
        A better example would be mocking WBC. After all McVeigh didn't commit his act in the name of God or Christianity.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797793].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

        Yeah, wonder what moderate Christians would think if a media group started doing caricatures of Jesus to mock some of the hardcore radical Christians like the late great Tim McVeigh and his repugnant sorts ?

        Not trying to say one way or the other or whether it is even comparable but it is an interesting parallel to consider.
        I thinks that's been done hundreds, or thousands even, of times already Robert. Here's an example that comes to mind from the Onion. Warning: graphic and offensive image.

        No One Murdered Because Of This Image | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797827].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          I thinks that's been done hundreds, or thousands even, of times already Robert. Here's an example that comes to mind from the Onion. Warning: graphic and offensive image.

          No One Murdered Because Of This Image | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

          The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are child's play compared to that disgusting garbage of a cartoon that you link to on the Onion.

          I agree with freedom of speech and freedom of expression but that cartoonist needs medical attention asap.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809835].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
            Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

            The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are child's play compared to that disgusting garbage of a cartoon that you link to on the Onion.

            I agree with freedom of speech and freedom of expression but that cartoonist needs medical attention asap.
            Yup.

            How much hate has to be seething inside of someone to want to attack other people's beliefs in such a vile, disgusting manner?

            Discuss, yes. Debate, yes. Challenge, absolutely. Heated arguments, sure. Art, without a doubt. Joke, why not?

            But just because we can be as dark and offensive to others as possible, does it really mean we have to be? Is that really the best we have to offer? We can't express ourselves and convey our thoughts any better than that?

            What a shame.

            At some point the conversation really needs to move beyond "we should" to "should we?"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809959].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cali16
              Originally Posted by Midnight Oil View Post

              How much hate has to be seething inside of someone to want to attack other people's beliefs in such a vile, disgusting manner?

              Discuss, yes. Debate, yes. Challenge, absolutely. Heated arguments, sure. Art, without a doubt. Joke, why not?

              But just because we can be as dark and offensive to others as possible, does it really mean we have to be? Is that really the best we have to offer? We can't express ourselves and convey our thoughts any better than that?
              I couldn't agree with you more. Freedom of speech is one thing. It's fine to voice one's opinion, have discussions and heated debates, and speak out against things we believe are wrong. But to publicly mock, ridicule, and be intentionally offensive and constantly disrespectful of others' beliefs is, IMO, taking freedom of speech too far. It's unnecessary and, far too often, it incites anger and hate - and in the worse case scenario - violence and bloodshed.

              I value my freedom of speech dearly. However, I don't feel the need (or believe that it's acceptable) to publicly mock or ridicule, in the most vile manner possible, the ideas or people that I dislike or with whom I disagree - just because I can. I can speak my mind quite well without dragging others through the absolute depths of the gutter in the process.
              Signature
              If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810131].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    We have freedom speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion here in the U.S. That said, each individual outlet can make their own choice and that's the beauty of our system. IMO if you are going to show video of the murderers committing the act then you should be showing some of the cartoon artwork that supposedly caused the act to be committed.

    We have plenty folks bashing Christians in the U.S. and some of those people are quite popular. Here is a story at a relatively large media outlet as an example:

    Bill Maher Absolutely Trashes the Bible and ‘Psychotic Mass Murderer’ God | Mediaite

    On top of that I think it is best to show solidarity with those that believe in freedom of expression and freedom speech at times like this. A few of the outlets that have decided to show some of the cartoons along with The Huffington Post are: BuzzFeed, Business Insider, Gawker and The Daily Beast.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797831].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?

      Yes!

      And...

      have the cartoons tattooed on the foreheads of the terrorists... with a branding iron.


      Joe Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797868].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

        have the cartoons tattooed on the foreheads of the terrorists... with a branding iron. Joe Mobley
        If I weren't so concerned about my boyish good looks, I'd get one tattooed on my forehead while scarfing down a hot roast pork sandwich with one hand and sipping a cold brewski with the other.

        Cheers. - Frank
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797999].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

          If I weren't so concerned about my boyish good looks, I'd get one tattooed on my forehead while scarfing down a hot roast pork sandwich with one hand and sipping a cold brewski with the other.

          Cheers. - Frank
          Could it be that we are on the same page about this?

          have the cartoons tattooed on the foreheads of the terrorists... with a branding iron.
          Made from the finest Jewish steel and tempered with a nice sausage gravy.

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798077].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            Could it be that we are on the same page about this? Joe Mobley
            I'm quite sure of it. Sometimes I expose more of myself than I care to, mainly because this side of my nature infuriates far fewer people.

            Where the hell is the fun in that???

            Cheers. - Frank
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798089].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author discrat
              To me I say freedom of Speech all the time , everywhere. My World view is If you don't agree with me then your welcome to Protest peacefully.

              That being said , lets get down to the real issue. In my opinion these Cowards are criminal psychopaths ( and so we need to quit referring to them as over zealous fanatics) . And the fact remains that if people continue to post Cartoons like this there will be more of this senseless, heinous and intolerable cowardly acts.

              I am not saying do not post them. All I am saying is there will be more of this stuff happen. If you want to be a Martyr for Free Speech by all means be my guest.

              In my own dealings with violent psychopaths, you can't reason with them. You really just have to destroy them. As they DON"T 'feel' like you or me. You can't scare them or intimidate them or convince them what they are doing is wrong.

              They are LITERALLY a foreign species as their hard-wiring in the prefrontal cortex of the brain is underdeveloped as it pertains to emotion and empathy.

              These people are just pure evil, bad seeds and should be discontinued
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798107].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by discrat View Post


                I am not saying do not post them. All I am saying is there will be more of this stuff happen. If you want to be a Martyr for Free Speech by all means be my guest.

                (
                I'm kinda yea and Kinda nay on this one. Yeah if you have a reason to show them then do so but if you are just showing them because some terrorists said not to show them...meh....I pass. there are some muslim that have nothing to do with the violence you are offending too.

                Free Speech shouldn't be an excuse to do things just to make mockery. it shouldn't over ride decency. If you have a very good reason for showing Mohammed as gay then fine if its just shock value because you know it will get publicity then you have issues yourself.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798164].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                That being said , lets get down to the real issue. In my opinion these Cowards are criminal psychopaths ( and so we need to quit referring to them as over zealous fanatics) . And the fact remains that if people continue to post Cartoons like this there will be more of this senseless, heinous and intolerable cowardly acts.
                Robert; I disagree. I don't think their acts are cowardly at all. They have the courage of their faith..their dogma. A coward would kill from a distance, or not at all. And I do think that they are over zealous fanatics. They can be psychopaths, as well. this kind of an act takes a level of Certainty that typically comes from religious fanaticism. They really feel that it's their duty to do what they do. they feel that they are in the right. This unwavering certainty looks like insanity to most people. Anyway, it's an opinion.


                Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                In my own dealings with violent psychopaths, you can't reason with them. You really just have to destroy them. As they DON"T 'feel' like you or me. You can't scare them or intimidate them or convince them what they are doing is wrong.

                They are LITERALLY a foreign species as their hard-wiring in the prefrontal cortex of the brain is underdeveloped as it pertains to emotion and empathy.

                These people are just pure evil, bad seeds and should be discontinued
                You are right about not being able to reason with psychopaths. You can't cure them either.
                Violent psychopaths have prefrontal lobe damage that hurts decision making and impulse control. But the emotions are in the temporal lobes and the hippocampus & amygdala. It's called the Lymbic system...or mid brain.

                And non-violent psychopaths have damage in the Lymbic system, but not the prefrontal cortex. So they lack empathy and emotion, but have planning skills...and are almost never violent. (aren't I clever?)

                As a high functioning psychopath, I can tell you that it would be nearly impossible for a functioning psychopath to commit these crimes. Why? They don't have the empathy required to want to belong to the religious group. They would get nothing out of the camaraderie, the Cause.They wouldn't identify with the group.

                What a violent psychopath would do, is murder because they find it stimulating. but they wouldn't be part of a group....fighting for a cause (no matter how perverted). They are sharks...predators. Monsters. Alone.

                I do in depth studies of case histories of psychopaths. Did you know that almost no Nazi's were psychopaths? They were family men. patriots. Loyal to their country. But their need to follow their leader..their tribe, was stronger than any rational thinking about what they were doing.

                And religious fanatics aren't psychopaths. They are believers. They are certain. There is no room for doubt. And if they happen to believe that it is their mission to kill the enemies of their faith? They do it.

                And a certain pro-social psychopath sits in his chair, thinking these people are insane.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800054].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author discrat
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  Robert; I disagree. I don't think their acts are cowardly at all. They have the courage of their faith..their dogma. A coward would kill from a distance, or not at all. And I do think that they are over zealous fanatics. They can be psychopaths, as well. this kind of an act takes a level of Certainty that typically comes from religious fanaticism. They really feel that it's their duty to do what they do. they feel that they are in the right. This unwavering certainty looks like insanity to most people. Anyway, it's an opinion.
                  Claude,
                  There is big difference between Courage and Guts !! Yes, those Terrorists had Guts and nerves of steel that I cannot even identify with. But Courage is having guts and the honor along with it. They were a far cry from that, imo
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800077].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                    Claude,
                    There is big difference between Courage and Guts !! Yes, those Terrorists had Guts and nerves of steel that I cannot even identify with. But Courage is having guts and the honor along with it. They were a far cry from that, imo
                    I get it. But to you, the word "honor" means something different than what it means to them. They are honoring their deity and their other faithful. If you told them that they had no honor, they wouldn't know why you were saying that. They think they are on a holy mission. What could be more honorable that that? They have a code. We see it as insane, but it's a code they live by.
                    Imagine if the world were full of demons and vampires. The Vatican chooses you to go into a nest of vampires, and destroy them. Would you feel like you were in the wrong? Wouldn't you feel like you have honor? In fact, you would feel honored to be chosen.

                    That's how they see us. We are demonized in their view.


                    By the way, I saw the Richard Kuklinski interview. He did love his family. And he showed signs of mild remorse in how he killed a few people. To me, he didn't show the manic inability to plan, that I see in violent psychopaths. But there are degrees.... and I only saw one interview.

                    Bundy was pure psychopath. I saw the last interview too. He was still selling. Still trying to play the repentant mentally ill victim. All mask, no face.

                    Ottis Toole and his partner are pure psychopaths. When I see movies like The Hills Have Eyes...I picture him. Our worst nightmare.


                    I don't really study the violent cases. Mostly the nonviolent ones.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800207].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author discrat
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Bundy was pure psychopath. I saw the last interview too. He was still selling. Still trying to play the repentant mentally ill victim. All mask, no face.


                      .
                      Exactly what I thought. For a second though, I was thinking to myself he seemed a little remorseful and actually had some humility and awareness of the degree of pain he had inflicted on so many.

                      Then I slapped myself in the face and realized Bundy's own psychopathy was just kicking in as he was just 'mimicking' these emotions in this interview as to illicit a certain response or in his case
                      illicit a certain outcome that would benefit him i.e. a stay of execution .

                      You can notice at times during the interview the disconnect between what he is saying and his actual body language.

                      The psychopath is always doing something that in the end will benefit him. Obviously, that was the case here. Just go back and look at the earlier videos in Court. He was a arrogant, mean as hell little SOB

                      He knew how to wear the mask and performed brilliantly; well I guess that could be up for debate considering his outcome !
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800254].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author discrat
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  I do in depth studies of case histories of psychopaths. Did you know that almost no Nazi's were psychopaths? They were family men. patriots. Loyal to their country. But their need to follow their leader..their tribe, was stronger than any rational thinking about what they were doing.
                  Yeah me too. It is really fascinating
                  Recently, been studying Bundy's last video before his Execution. Saw it a few years ago and just revisiting. Observing some of his body language. Also Ottis Toole and Henry Lee Lucas.

                  That Ottis Toole is probably one of the scariest human beings I have ever seen interviewed. He laughs about everything in this sinister way in one video. Just freaky and exactly like the laughing looney brother in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Eeery resemblance.

                  Have to disagree about the family men. Ice Man psychopath Richard Kuklinski cared for his wife and daughter dearly. He was a hitman but you can see in his interviews he was a cold blooded psychopath who loved "seeing people's eyes roll back in their heads" in their final moments.

                  Also on a side note gotta luv those Corporate Psychopaths. They just about do as much damage in their own right as the axe wielding psychopaths.





                  P.S. One more thing and I will stop lol . Dr. Hare who developed the Psychopath Checklist (which is the closet scientific tool for assessing whether someone is a psychopath or not ) was talking to a group of Corporate leaders and going through the specific Checklist with them just to provide awareness and education.

                  After the seminar one of these Corporate Leaders came up to him and asked 'where could he find Candidates to interview that had these qualifications ' . Thats not a joke either.

                  Psychopath Checklist includes things like ambitious, cut throat, detached, ruthless etc...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800099].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

              Sometimes I expose more of myself than I care to
              Thats a whole other matter and this is still a family oriented forum
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    South Park. They will knock anything and everything. Yes, Jesus gets characterized.

    We need to run those videos now. Our hand has been forced. If you let the terrorists think that violence will stop free speech, then it's pretty much a done deal that you have to run whatever it was they committed the violence for and run it widely. Make every act of terrorism backfire on them.

    Today there's Islam jokes running rampant on Facebook. I think that should be done after any act of terrorism committed by the people claiming to be Islam. I've yet to hear any of the "moderates" speak against them, but we have to or every time we turn around we'll be getting death threats over anything and everything they want to control. Enough is just damned enough. I live in a country with freedom of both speech and religious choice........and I damned well intend for it to stay that way. If I wanted to be Islamic, I'd move to a country where it was the law. Real simple.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797852].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ryzon
      You forgot the fact that this attack has been condemned by almost every Muslim country in the world
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9817237].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Ryzon View Post

        You forgot the fact that this attack has been condemned by almost every Muslim country in the world
        OK, SORRY. Last I heard only one publicly did so. I never claimed to be good in geography, let alone what countries are recognized as muslim. I mean I know about a number, but not all.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9818198].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

    Is not showing them just giving in to the threats, this time much more real than the one from whomever made the threat against the theaters.

    Not necessarily. It's obviously an editorial decision, but choosing not to publish the cartoons isn't giving in to the terrorists. Deciding not to risk offending the sensibilities of part of your readership isn't the same thing as censorship. If some maniacs were to shoot down the staff of a pornography publisher, would everyone still be clamouring for the offending pictures to be published for all to see?

    The point is, it doesn't matter what was published or what "cause" might have driven this act of violence. Any act like this has to be abhorred and categorically denounced by a free society.

    But we should focus on the crime, not on the supposed cause. That's giving the perpetrators too much respect and their cause too much unwarranted credence.


    Frank
    Signature
    TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797942].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

      Not necessarily. It's obviously an editorial decision, but choosing not to publish the cartoons isn't giving in to the terrorists. Deciding not to risk offending the sensibilities of part of your readership isn't the same thing as censorship. If some maniacs were to shoot down the staff of a pornography publisher, would everyone still be clamouring for the offending pictures to be published for all to see?

      The point is, it doesn't matter what was published or what "cause" might have driven this act of violence. Any act like this has to be abhorred and categorily denounced by a free society.

      But we should focus on the crime, not on the supposed cause. That's giving the perpetrators too much respect and their cause too much unwarranted credence.


      Frank
      I wholeheartedly disagree with this, Frank. We're seeing more and more murders done in the name of ....... all the time. We've been hiding. We've been politically correct - and they take it as weakness. I think the best way to stop this crap now that it is getting so prevalent is to make every act of violence in the name of ....... backfire to hell and back on them.

      This situation is not the same as a publicity stunt of Kimmy having a tantrum and threatening people. Real murders are going on. There is a psychotically violent, and very large group infiltrating countries across the globe with no respect for the laws of the country they invade. They move in groups then expect everyone in that country to obey THEIR laws. If not, people are beheaded, murdered, raped, etc, and so on. It has to be stopped. If it meant kicking every one of them out of the country to stop the violence, then that is what should be done. These people have been allowed to go too far already. It's time to stop the PC crap and recognize that some groups are violent. Just because they hide behind a name that they can use to yell "discrimination" if we don't bend, doesn't mean they aren't violent and dangerous. You cannot co-exist with people who insist on either owning you or killing you.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798001].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        You cannot co-exist with people who insist on either owning you or killing you.
        That's perfectly true. The problem is that France could never remove 6M people from their country.

        There is nothing that can be done about this situation by people outside the faith. It is the sole responsibility of Muslims to eradicate these vermin. They need to find every one of them, kill them and present their severed heads to the rest of the world.

        To my way of thinking that is the only possible way that they are ever going to convince me that they truly want to coexist in peace with persons of other faiths and world views.

        Cheers. - Frank
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798076].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        I wholeheartedly disagree with this, Frank. We're seeing more and more murders done in the name of ....... all the time. We've been hiding. We've been politically correct - and they take it as weakness. I think the best way to stop this crap now that it is getting so prevalent is to make every act of violence in the name of ....... backfire to hell and back on them.
        I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with, Sal. I'm all for eradicating those who use violence and intimidation to either promote a cause or to suppress legitimate free speech. The thread posed the question of whether the media should now publish the cartoons. I see that as an editorial decision, best left to the publication or media outlet. But even if they were published everywhere, the fanatics who supported this action would probably just see that as vindication.

        Fighting this war on the terrorists' terms by acknowledging any claimed motivation for such wanton killing gives them and their cause an unnecessary and ill-deserved legitimacy. Our society has laws against terrorism. It has laws protecting freedom of expression. That ought to be reason enough to seek out and remove those who would destroy our values.

        Anything more risks romanticising the conflict.


        Frank
        Signature
        TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798167].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Exactly - we prosecute according to OUR laws - we display what we want in the name of freedom of speech but should not be goaded into "showing" something just to prove we can.

          We don't provide hysterial over reactions as that gives "them" what they want. We don't condemn an entire religious group because there are extremists in that religion.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I'm going to work on being less condescending
          (Condescending means to talk down to people)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798202].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with, Sal. I'm all for eradicating those who use violence and intimidation to either promote a cause or to suppress legitimate free speech. The thread posed the question of whether the media should now publish the cartoons. I see that as an editorial decision, best left to the publication or media outlet. But even if they were published everywhere, the fanatics who supported this action would probably just see that as vindication.

          Fighting this war on the terrorists' terms by acknowledging any claimed motivation for such wanton killing gives them and their cause an unnecessary and ill-deserved legitimacy. Our society has laws against terrorism. It has laws protecting freedom of expression. That ought to be reason enough to seek out and remove those who would destroy our values.

          Anything more risks romanticising the conflict.


          Frank
          I would think by not running the cartoon you're giving their cause an unnecessary and ill-deserved legitimacy.
          If you look at those cartoons it's very easy to see they are mocking the terrorist and not Islam.
          What I see happening that I think will make things worse is people attacking Islam (with cartoons) in response. All I can see happening from those types of things is in driving a wedge deeper into dividing Muslims from the rest of the world and leading some to join terrorist groups. After all, if that's who you say I am then that's who I'll be.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798207].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

      If some maniacs were to shoot down the staff of a pornography publisher, would everyone still be clamouring for the offending pictures to be published for all to see?
      It's not legal for media outlets to show porn to minors here in the U.S. (and many other places), so publishing porn for all to see would not be an option. To the matter being discussed here, which is satire, it is interesting that you have mentioned pornographers.

      Here in the U.S. it was Larry Flint (the pornographer) who won the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing (upholding) the publication of satire as a First Amendment right. That decision went against Jerry Falwell, the well known pastor, founder of Liberty University, and co-founder of the Moral Majority

      THE MOTHERSHIP OF ALL SATIRE V DEFAMATION LAWSUITS

      The best-known satire v defamation U.S. legal showdown is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell – a lawsuit immortalized in Oliver Stone’s “The People v. Larry Flynt”.

      One minute synopsis of the case: Falwell sued Larry Flynt for publishing a satirical advertisement in Flynt’s nudy gentlemen’s magazine, Hustler. The faux ad implied that Falwell got it on with his own mom in an outhouse. At first, Falwell won; but, the issue made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. And, in a ground-breaking, unanimous decision, all 7 justices ruled — albeit a few reluctantly — in favor of the pornographer. According to the court, the ad was pure satire/parody protected by the First Amendment.
      Satire v Defamation: What You Need To Know

      No, publishers did not publish Larry's porn in places where it is not appropriate to publish porn, but people still do refer to the decision, and people have more clarity on the legal publication of satire because of that First Amendment ruling. The case was a very well known and has been lauded by countless many over the years.

      As mentioned above, this case was chronicled in a movie that was quite well received by critics and movie goers alike.

      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/people_vs_larry_flynt/


      For those not familiar with the case:

      Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell
      No. 86-1278
      SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
      485 U.S. 46
      February 24, 1988, Decided

      REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      And I think lots of people are getting freedom of speech mixed up with freedom to offend.
      The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that we do have the freedom to offend with free speech (with some limitations).

      "The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."
      Hustler v. Falwell

      Falwell v Flynt Trial (1984)

      I believe many of the large media outlets are not publishing the cartoon(s) because they fear correspondents may be attacked in certain parts of the world. That said, USA Today's Editorial Board has also published the cartoons:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ates/21417099/

      The Washington Post has published the cartoon that lead to the 2011 firebombing of Charlie Hebdo's offices in London. It's the same cartoon I posted from Wikipedia above.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-app...024.jpg&w=1484

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800274].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        It's not legal for media outlets to show porn to minors here in the U.S. (and many other places), so publishing porn for all to see would not be an option. To the matter being discussed here, which is satire, it is interesting that you have mentioned pornographers.

        Here in the U.S. it was Larry Flint (the pornographer) who won the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing (upholding) the publication of satire as a First Amendment right. That decision went against Jerry Falwell, the well known pastor, founder of Liberty University, and co-founder of the Moral Majority

        Satire v Defamation: What You Need To Know

        Cheers

        -don
        Everyone was rallying behind Sony (a Japanese Corporation) to stand up for them and their right to free speech, or like Liberator said, the right to insult. If you have the right to insult, make sure that your insult is worth the consequences. Quite a few people died because of these insulting cartoons.

        France is not the US and does not have the same laws by a long shot. Just as I didn't back up Sony for their insulting another country's leader, I don't stand behind a magazine that uses a religious icon to insult people. If they used satirical cartoons to insult them based on their acts of terrorism and brutality, I'd be more for it. In fact, I saw one cartoon that did just that, that I still think is hilarious to this day (below). These cartoons aren't hilarious.


        The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.

        Freedom of the press

        The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several prohibitions. Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights in some cases.

        Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.

        La loi du 29 juillet 1881 allows the public prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against a violator of the law either upon the complaint of a victim or upon his own initiative. A victim may choose to undertake a civil action against a violator. Such a civil action must obey rules prescribed for a criminal proceeding, and a court may assess both civil damages and criminal penalties at the same time. Article 48-1 permits civil-rights organizations to seek damages for violations of the law.
        In 2008, legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for the fifth time for inciting hatred. The Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP) filed the charge against Bardot because, in a letter to the government about the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir, she complained about "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country."
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800411].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I've never thought that freedom of speech needed to include disparaging other people's beliefs, particularly about religion. Obviously, these people who killed the people in France are terrorists. Why poke a stick at them over their religious beliefs? I personally don't see anything comical about those comics. They are just intended to infuriate, and they got what they wanted. They infuriated the terrorists. With 12 people dead, was that such a great idea? Why not attack them with cartoons on their brutality and inhumanity rather than their religion? I could understand that kind of satire, but I don't really understand the need for an attack on their religious beliefs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798242].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Yes, we do tend to look at the outcome and not what initiated it in the first place!

      The Mohammid cartoons were in bad taste, well some were, but you are supposed to create a banner and walk around in circles outside, singing a monotonous song, and have a speech trashing the company.

      Not storm the place and open fire!

      I agree l would be p**** if l was them, but l wouldn't go on a killing spree!

      I suppose they are thinking we will avenge our god, but knocking them off, or something like that?

      No brains and lethal weapons is never a good mix!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    They have a cartoon with Mohammad being naked with the genitals seen from behind. I think reproducing that would be highly insensitive.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798555].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    JE SUIS CHARLIE


    If the terrorists thought they were going to curb this type of satire they have failed miserably. Charlie Hedbo usually prints aaround 60,000 copies and has a circulation of somewhere between 30K and 45K. This next print run will be by far their largest ever at 1,000,000 copies with some help from French newspapers and The Fund For Digital Innovation, which is an independent trade group funded by Google.

    Charlie Hebdo will publish one million copies next week with help from Google-backed fund | The Verge

    Subscriptions are available through Amazon.com.

    Charlie Hebdo: Amazon.com: MagazinesCharlie Hebdo: Amazon.com: Magazines

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800062].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      JE SUIS CHARLIE


      If the terrorists thought they were going to curb this type of satire they have failed miserably. Charlie Hedbo usually prints about 60,000 copies and has a circulation of somewhere near 30,000. This next print run will be by far their largest ever at 1,000,000 copies with some help from French newspapers and The Fund For Digital Innovation, which is an independent trade group funded by Google.

      Charlie Hebdo will publish one million copies next week with help from Google-backed fund | The Verge

      Subscriptions are available through Amazon.com.

      Charlie Hebdo: Amazon.com: Magazines


      Cheers

      -don
      Yea, but will they ever deliberately antagonize Muslims again with stuff like a naked pic of Muhammad?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800085].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Yea, but will they ever deliberately antagonize Muslims again with stuff like naked pics of Muhammad?
        They are a left-wing publication that has been an equal opportunity offender since 1969. They folded in 1981 and were resurrected in 1992. They suffered a terrorist attack in 2011 and continued on, and I have no doubt they will continue doing what they do after this attack.



        Note: The translation is: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

        But the magazine, launched in 1969, has been an equal-opportunity offender, skewering celebrities, the French police, and Catholic and Jewish as well as Muslim figures. "Above all," Charbonnier, the editor since 2009, told Reuters in 2012, "it is a secular and atheist newspaper."

        In other words, the publication's enemies could include politicians, extremist nationalist groups and non-Muslim religious groups.

        Charlie Hebdo's New Year's Eve cover showed French President François Hollande being humped by a dog, and on Dec. 20, it published a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to a pig-nosed Jesus, reported NBC.
        Jewish and Muslim figures were not Charlie Hebdo’s only religious targets. Among the many anti-Catholic images it featured, often taking on the church for its cover-up of pedophilia scandals, one of the most eye-poppingly lewd covers depicted a cartoon of God being sodomized by Jesus who is receiving, as one publication put it, “a special anointing by the Holy Spirit.” It was in response to the Catholic church’s official stance on gay marriage.
        Charlie Hebdo's Most Controversial Covers: French Satirical Magazine Was An Equal-Opportunity Offender

        "This is a satirical paper produced by left-wingers and when I say left-wingers that goes all the way from anarchists to communists to Greens, Socialists and the rest." (Reuters)
        "When we attack the Catholic hard right...nobody talks about it in the papers. It's as if Charie Hebdo has official authorisation to attack the Catholic hard right. But we are not allowed to make fun of Muslim hardliners. It's the new rule...but we will not obey it," (Reuters)
        “We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than to live like a rat,” murdered editor Stéphane Charbonnier said in 2012. (Reuters)
        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800100].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          They are a left-wing publication that has been an equal opportunity offender since 1969. They folded in 1981 and were resurrected in 1992. They suffered a terrorist attack in 2011 and continued on, and I have no doubt they will continue doing what they do after this attack.



          Note: The translation is: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"





          Charlie Hebdo's Most Controversial Covers: French Satirical Magazine Was An Equal-Opportunity Offender







          Cheers

          -don




          And I think lots of people are getting freedom of speech mixed up with freedom to offend.

          But we will see.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800263].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Je Suis Charlie
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            But we will see.
            We will be seeing Mohammed cartoons in the 1,000,000 issue print run due out on Wednesday. Charlie Hedbo refuses to crumble in the face of terrorism!

            The first edition of satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo to be published since its offices were attacked by terrorists Wednesday will feature its cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, according to its attorney.

            Richard Malka told French radio station France Info that the caricatures will appear in the one-million-copy print run due out Wednesday.

            "We will not give in. The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme," Malka said, as quoted by Reuters.
            Charlie Hebdo's New Issue Will Include Muhammad Cartoons

            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806602].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Hogre
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806642].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              Je Suis Charlie


              We will be seeing Mohammed cartoons in the 1,000,000 issue print run due out on Wednesday. Charlie Hedbo refuses to crumble in the face of terrorism!



              Charlie Hebdo's New Issue Will Include Muhammad Cartoons

              Cheers

              -don
              I hear the cover will feature a pic of someone whose's supposed to be Muhammad saying...

              "I am Charlie."

              But will see if they have any extra inflammatory pics - like him naked etc., in this edition.


              For the record...

              I support free speech and the dead and their families have my sympathies but I am not Charlie since I don't agree with what they're doing.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808100].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                I support free speech and the dead and their families have my sympathies but I am not Charlie since I don't agree with what they're doing.
                That's kind of where I am. I agree fully with free speech, agree with Alexa that we don't really have full freedom of speech, rather within the law, but I don't think either side can see the others point of view.

                For us there is satire/ridicule, whatever you want to call it. All other religions, though not approving of the cartoons about themselves don't rise up and plan attacks. We all value that freedom of speech and think murdering people that draw cartoons is awful.

                Here's the kicker.

                For them you have the prophet. For them just drawing his image is a crime and is disgusting. So disgusting for some of them they want to kill over it. So disgusting that the deaths that disgusted us, are nothing compared to the disgust caused to them by the cartoons.

                We think the cartoons are a right and the deaths are wrong.

                They think the cartoons are wrong and the deaths are right.

                Charlie Hebdo can publish what it likes, it has that right and will be defiant in the face of terrorism. Having said that, if they publish it, it's a fair assumption that if there are not people already planning further attacks, they will be come the publication of this issue.

                That's simply a fact. Those cartoons are encouraging terrorism whether they mean to or not. Just drawing an innocent picture of Mohammed is enough for some of them to want to get to you.

                Don, I agree, they won't crumble in the face of terrorism but by doing this, they will encourage some people to carry out further attacks. It's red rag to a bull. I know where you're coming from too Don and I wish it wasn't like that. Sadly it is.
                Signature

                Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808132].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                I hear the cover will feature a pic of someone whose's supposed to be Muhammad saying... "I am Charlie."

                But will see if they have any extra inflammatory pics - like him naked etc., in this edition.
                Right, I had posted the upcoming cover photo to a different thread yesterday.



                "All Is Forgiven","I Am Charlie"

                Mahomet en une du «Charlie Hebdo» de mercredi - Libération

                FWIW --> The French abolished blasphemy across most of the country as an offense in 1791, but it is still an offense in Alsace and Moselle where Articles #166 & #167 forbid blasphemy against God. No conviction under those articles has ever been made. The French religious membership statistics below are from Wikipedia.


                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808986].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      JE SUIS CHARLIE


      If the terrorists thought they were going to curb this type of satire they have failed miserably. Charlie Hedbo usually prints aaround 60,000 copies and has a circulation of somewhere between 30K and 45K. This next print run will be by far their largest ever at 1,000,000 copies with some help from French newspapers and The Fund For Digital Innovation, which is an independent trade group funded by Google.

      Charlie Hebdo will publish one million copies next week with help from Google-backed fund | The Verge

      Subscriptions are available through Amazon.com.

      Charlie Hebdo: Amazon.com: Magazines

      Cheers

      -don
      JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE


      I'll save my money for cartoons that are funnier and wittier.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cam Connor
    Interesting subject line:

    "The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France"

    I'm pretty sure it was crazy people deciding to go into Charlie Hebdo and slaughter the innocent which was the cause of the attack... not a cartoon.

    I've seen a lot of cartoons in my life, none of which made me kill someone.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Taste is taste, opinion is opinion, and satire is satire. The publication has been operating in France for decades so we can assume they are abiding by French law.

    The U.S. press is allowed to report on offensive material and that's the way it is. They report on on all sorts of offensive material and discrimination, and often times they show the discriminatory statements, events, images etc. The press trashes the Korean leaders, the Iranian leaders, radical Muslims etc. etc. quite frequently and it's well within their right to do so.

    Have a listen to President Obama on the matter --> between the 40 second and the 1:20 mark he gets straight to the point of freedom of the press and freedom of expression:


    And the French president:

    "This is a terrorist operation, by terrorists, against a newspaper that has been threatened several times - and that's why we have to give it the protection it needs,"

    I strongly agree with both the U.S. president and the French president.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800441].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Taste is taste, opinion is opinion, and satire is satire. I sure hope you are not watching Bill Maher and listening to some of the others! The publication has been operating in France for decades so we can assume they are abiding by French law.

      Cheers

      -don
      The French have a long history of acquitting defendants of hate speech against Muslims but you'd better not utter a single insult against Jewish people in France. Sounds to me like a bit of judicial racism, much like our own country.

      I don't care what the French and US presidents have to say. That magazine was firebombed years ago and they well knew the risk they were taking and decided that those poorly done cartoons were more important than the lives of their staff. The French government has more than once warned the magazine about the laws of France regarding hate speech.


      Yet one could fairly ask what they were rallying around. The greatest threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on free speech.

      Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been conditioned on being used "responsibly" in France, suggesting that it is more of privilege than a right for those who hold controversial views.

      See what the French President had to say in 2006

      In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against such "obvious provocations."
      The British designer John Galliano has been given a suspended fine of €6,000 (£5,200) by a Paris court for racist and antisemitic rants at people in a Paris bar. The former couturier was found guilty of "public insults" based on origin, religion, race or ethnicity after two incidents in February 2011 and last year.

      In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for "glorifying a crime" after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to school wearing a shirt that said "I am a bomb."

      Last year, Interior Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, declaring that he was "no longer a comedian" but was rather an "anti-Semite and racist."

      Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, "We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized." The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn't feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was "making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites." The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.

      and then we have this glowing example of freedom of speech in France

      Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google -- for her negative review of a restaurant.

      While France long ago got rid of its blasphemy laws, there is precious little difference for speakers and authors in prosecutions for defamation or hate speech. There may also be little difference perceived by extremists, like those in Paris, who mete out their own justice for speech the government defines as a crime. To them, this is only a matter of degree in responding to what the government has called unlawful provocations. As the radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary wrote this past week, "Why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims?"

      .....

      It was the growing French intolerance of free speech that motivated the staff of Charlie Hebdo -- and particularly its editor, Stéphane Charbonnier -- who made fun of all religions with irreverent cartoons and editorials. Charbonnier faced continuing threats, not just of death from extremists but of criminal prosecution. In 2012, amid international protests over an anti-Islamic film, Charlie Hebdo again published cartoons of Muhammad. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault warned that freedom of speech "is expressed within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts."
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800494].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Dieudonné M’bala M’bala is a real character.

        Dieudonné M'bala M'bala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        In-fact he is not allowed into the UK as of 2014.

        French comedian Dieudonne responds to British ban with 'quenelle' to Queen - Telegraph

        Neither are these people:

        People banned include firebrand US pastor Terry Jones and the US anti-Muslim political bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, all of whom were planning to attend rallies by the far-right English Defence League.
        Even Michael Savage and Snoop Dogg can't get in...

        List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        It appears as if Snoop can't visit Australia or Norway either...

        Leader of the Banned: Snoop Dogg Adds Norway to the List of Places He May Not Visit | SPIN | Music News

        Another person that couldn't gain entry was Amy Winehouse, she was on the barred from the U.S list....


        List of people barred or excluded from the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Amy Winehouse Banned From the U.S. (Again) | E! Online

        Even PETA is standing with Charlie Hedbo. Their lead cartoonist Cabu was a vegetarian animal rights protectionist, and the publication runs a weekly animal rights column.

        CHARLIE HEBDO's 10 Best Animal Rights Cartoons | PETA's Blog | PETA



        “Small and deforested … the zoo has recreated my natural habitat.”


        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800737].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          Dieudonné M’bala M’bala is a real character.

          Dieudonné M'bala M'bala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          In-fact he is not allowed into the UK as of 2014.

          Neither are these people:

          Even Michael Savage and Snoop Dogg can't get in...

          Another person that couldn't gain entry was Amy Winehouse, she was on the barred from the U.S list....

          Even PETA, the animal rights extremist organization known most for killing animals, who doesn't operate a single animal shelter is standing with Charlie Hedbo. Their lead cartoonist Cabu was a vegetarian animal rights protectionist, and the publication runs a weekly animal rights column.


          Source: whypetakills.org

          A supermarket dumpster full of garbage bags. When police officers looked inside, they found the bodies of dead animals -- animals killed by PETA. PETA described these animals as "adorable" and "perfect." A veterinarian who naively gave PETA some of the animals, thinking they would find them homes, and examined the dead bodies of others, testified that they were "healthy" and "adoptable."


          Source: whypetakills.org

          A mother cat and her two kittens, all perfectly healthy and adoptable and none in danger of being killed until they were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told by PETA employees that they would have no problem adopting them out. After PETA lied to him and the mother and her kittens were entrusted to their care, they reportedly killed them, within minutes, in the back of a van.


          Source: Associated Press

          An Ahoskie Police Detective dressed in a hazmat suit prepares to bury a puppy killed by PETA. This puppy and dozens of other animals including cats and kittens were found by police throughout June of 2005 after PETA employees dumped them in a garbage bin in North Carolina.
          Cheers

          -don
          Don ... who cares who can or can't go to the UK or US? What possible relevance is it to this story? The fact is, under France's own hate speech laws, those cartoons should never have been published. They allowed it ... turned a blind eye to their own laws, so now they've paid a certain price for that.

          The only relevant name you mentioned is Dieudonné and is a perfect example of France's anti-hate speech laws and exactly what I was saying ... if you disparage Jewish people in France, you will be prosecuted.

          I personally would not like Dieudonné's brand of entertainment any more than I like Charlie's anti-muslim cartoons, but the law should be applied equally, whether the "hate speech" is against Jews or Muslims, if you're going to have such a law.

          Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known by his stage name Dieudonné (French: [djø.dɔ.ne]), is a French comedian, actor, and political activist. His father is from Cameroon and his mother is French. Some of his performances and associations have been controversial and he has been convicted for antisemitism.

          Dieudonné initially achieved success with a Jewish comedian, Élie Semoun, humorously exploiting racial stereotypes. He campaigned against racism and was a candidate in the 1997 and 2001 legislative elections in Dreux against the National Front, the French far-right political party that he perceived as racist. On 1 December 2003, Dieudonné performed a sketch on a TV show about an Israeli settler whom he depicted as a Nazi. Some critics argued that he had "crossed the limits of antisemitism" and several organizations sued him for incitement to racial hatred. Dieudonné refused to apologize and denounced Zionism and the Jewish lobby.

          Dieudonné approached Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front political party that he had fought earlier, and the men became political allies and friends.[4] Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson appeared in one of his shows in 2008.[5][6] Dieudonné described Holocaust remembrance as "memorial pornography". Dieudonné was convicted in court eight times on antisemitism charges. Dieudonné subsequently found himself with increasing frequency banned from mainstream media, and many of his shows were cancelled by local authorities. Active on the internet and in his Paris theater, Dieudonné has continued to have a following. His quenelle signature gesture became notorious in 2013, particularly after footballer Nicolas Anelka used the gesture during a match in December 2013.

          After Dieudonné was recorded during a performance mocking a Jewish journalist, suggesting it was a pity that he was not sent to the gas chambers, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls stated that Dieudonné was "no longer a comedian" but was rather an "anti-Semite and racist" and that he would seek to ban all Dieudonné's public gatherings as a public safety risk. The ban on his shows has been upheld by French courts.
          Apparently, some think that spreading hate and ridiculing other countries leaders and religious icons are entertainment. You can stand with them. I won't.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801218].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Don ... who cares who can or can't go to the UK or US?
            The first point is some people are considered a threat to society, like the dude you mentioned, and it isn't only France that thinks that dude is a threat. The second point is life is not always fair. You are not the decider of what the people in power believe may or may not be a threat to their society.

            What possible relevance is it to this story?
            Please do not talk to me about relevance here in the off-topic forum. You are the one of the members that likes to take threads far off topic --> Monsanto is great example of what I am talking about.

            http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ml#post9797845

            http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ml#post9782370

            The fact is, under France's own hate speech laws, those cartoons should never have been published. They allowed it ... turned a blind eye to their own laws, so now they've paid a certain price for that.
            It's called satire and it's allowed. You have nothing to do with French law so please don't pretend you do. You like to condemn cops, you condemn the French, and you seem to think you know everything and are the picture perfect example of everything honorable. Good grief...you are not the morality police, a judge, or a lawmaker.

            The only relevant name you mentioned is Dieudonné and is a perfect example of France's anti-hate speech laws and exactly what I was saying ... if you disparage Jewish people in France, you will be prosecuted.
            That's bull. Even Charlie Hedbo produced satirical Jewish cartoons.

            I personally would not like Dieudonné's brand of entertainment any more than I like Charlie's anti-muslim cartoons, but the law should be applied equally, whether the "hate speech" is against Jews or Muslims, if you're going to have such a law.
            Life is not always fair and you know it. Get over it. That' said, your understanding and definition of freedom seems to be a bit narrow sometimes.

            Apparently, some think that spreading hate and ridiculing other countries leaders and religious icons are entertainment. You can stand with them. I won't.
            It's not hate and you may not understand why some satire and critical opinion is presented.

            FTR, I am not a fan of PETA but I wanted to show you a few of the other cartoons done by Charlie Hedbo. I should have known better...you think you know everything, and for some unknown reason you think you are the standard of morality and honor here on the Warrior Forum.

            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801914].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              The first point is some people are considered a threat to society, like the dude you mentioned, and it's isn't only France that thinks that dude is a threat. The second point is life is not always fair. You are not the decider of what the people in power believe may or may not be a threat to their society.
              yeah ... Amy Winehouse. Scary. lol.

              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              It's called satire and it's allowed. You have nothing to do with French law so please don't pretend you do. You like to condemn cops, you condemn the French, and you seem to think you know everything and are the picture perfect example of everything honorable. Good grief...you are not the morality police, a judge, or a lawmaker.
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              That' said, your understanding and definition of freedom seems to be a bit narrow sometimes.

              It's not hate and you may not understand why some satire and critical opinion is presented.
              Your understanding of freedom is apparently limited to the US version, which you seem to automatically assign to every other country, whether they enjoy the same freedoms as the US or not. France does not enjoy the same protection of speech as the US by a very long shot and with a little research you could certainly find that out on your own. France's laws do not allow speech that defames or insults, including in print ....

              Hate Speech Laws in France: Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.
              My favorite case involves a Frenchman who sought free-speech protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

              Denis Leroy is a cartoonist. One of his drawings representing the attack on the World Trade Centre was published in a Basque weekly newspaper ... with a caption which read: "We have all dreamt of it ... Hamas did it". Having been sentenced to payment of a fine for "condoning terrorism", Mr Leroy argued that his freedom of expression had been infringed.

              The Court considered that, through his work, the applicant had glorified the violent destruction of American imperialism, expressed moral support for the perpetrators of the attacks of 11 September, commented approvingly on the violence perpetrated against thousands of civilians and diminished the dignity of the victims. Despite the newspaper's limited circulation, the Court observed that the drawing's publication had provoked a certain public reaction, capable of stirring up violence and of having a demonstrable impact on public order in the Basque Country. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10.
              Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been conditioned on being used "responsibly" in France, suggesting that it is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial views.
              In relation to the terrorist attacks in France, keep in mind that in Europe, insults to religions are illegal and/or prosecuted in: Finland (Blasphemy), Germany ("Insulting of Faiths ... if it could disturb public peace"), Greece and Italy, (Insults against religions), Poland (insults to religious feeling of the Roman Catholic Church), Spain ( "vilification" of religious "feelings", "dogmas", "beliefs" or "rituals") Switzerland (insult or mockery of religious convictions of others) Iceland (blasphemy), Austria (Vilification of Religious Teachings), Denmark (Blasphemy, but the law is dormant), Norway(insults based on religion but few prosecutions); Ireland (Blasphemy), Russia (insulting religious beliefs) UK (Incitement of religious hatred often used to prosecute speech of anti-religious nature).
              In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against such "obvious provocations."
              France: "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided," he said. "Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility."
              Today, the Charlie Hebdo staff is being mourned as "courageous chroniclers" by President Hollande. But yesterday, it was the French state, not extremists, who sought to "avenge the prophet," through hate-speech charges against the magazine and its editor for other irreverent Mohammad cartoons. Those charges were lodged in 2006-07 at the urging of then-president Jacques Chirac, who recommended the services of his personal lawyer to the Muslim complainants.
              In 2008, the EU mandated religious hate-speech laws, with European officials indignantly declaring that there is "no right to religious insult." More revealingly, one official European commission delicately explained that this measure was taken to "preserve social peace and public order" in light of the "increasing sensitivities" of "certain individuals" who "have reacted violently to criticism of their religion."
              Writing in the Guardian today, Jason Farago praises France's women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, for demanding that Twitter help the French government criminalize ideas it dislikes. Decreeing that "hateful tweets are illegal", Farago excitingly explains how the French minister is going beyond mere prosecution for those who post such tweets and now "wants Twitter to take steps to help prosecute hate speech" by "reform[ing] the whole system by which Twitter operates", including her demand that the company "put in place alerts and security measures" to prevent tweets which French officials deem hateful. This, Farago argues, is fantastic, because - using the same argument employed by censors and tyrants of every age and every culture - new technology makes free speech far too dangerous to permit:
              Laws throughout Europe forbid any expression that "minimizes," "trivializes," "belittles," "plays down," "contests," or "puts in doubt" Nazi crimes. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic extend this prohibition to communist atrocities. These laws carry jail sentences of up to five years. Germany adds two years for anyone who "disparages the memory of a deceased person."

              Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of "insulting" or "defaming segments of the population." The Netherlands bans anything that "verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap." It's illegal to "insult" such a group in France, to "defame" them in Portugal, to "degrade" them in Denmark, or to "expresses contempt" for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it's illegal to "demean" them even with a "gesture." Canada punishes anyone who "willfully promotes hatred." The United Kingdom outlaws "insulting words or behavior" that arouse "racial hatred." Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic "symbols."
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              You have nothing to do with French law so please don't pretend you do. You like to condemn cops, you condemn the French, and you seem to think you know everything and are the picture perfect example of everything honorable. Good grief...you are not the morality police, a judge, or a lawmaker.
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              FTR, I am not a fan of PETA but I wanted to show you a few of the other cartoons done by Charlie Hedbo. I should have known better...you think you know everything, and for some unknown reason you think you are the standard of morality and honor here on the Warrior Forum.

              Cheers

              -don
              lol. Up to your old tricks of getting personal and attacking those who don't share your opinions, however misinformed they are. I give my opinions like everyone else. I assume that I still have a right to free speech here on the WF? Maybe I should strive to be the standard for immorality. You likeee that better?

              Nowhere did I malign the French people as a whole. Their idea of "freedom of speech" is not my idea of freedom of speech, but if it is the law, it should be applied equally to all. I don't condone anyone, including comedians like Joan Rivers who make their living off of engaging in deliberately offensive humor or ridiculing and insulting other people. That's just me. I don't find it in the least bit entertaining... and that includes the Charlie cartoons.

              Now, let's see ... you present PeTA as an example of an organization that "Stands for Charlie," and expect that to be an influential reference?

              The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don't actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

              We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to "épater la bourgeoisie," to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people's religious beliefs.

              But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/op...ebdo.html?_r=0
              Free speech vs. hate speech: Why is it legal to insult Muslims but not Jews?

              France's censorship demands to Twitter are more dangerous than 'hate speech' | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | The Guardian

              The biggest threat to French free speech isn
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802258].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Here's how some Muslim newspapers in Muslim countries are responding. Arab Newspapers React to the Charlie Hebdo Terrorist Massacre and It’s Not What You’d Expect

                These newspapers have now made themselves targets of radical Islamists. And as countries like Lebanon are faced with the very real threat of being invaded by ISIS, it's good to know that they have the courage to join the rest of the world in supporting freedom of expression and saying "Screw jihadism!"
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802296].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Here's how some Muslim newspapers in Muslim countries are responding.
                  Yeah, I have been reading some of this the past few days. Many Muslim outlets lampoon and/or mock Western culture, Western society, Western religion, Western decadence and the like. Fair is fair.

                  I also took note of this from the Grand Mosque of Paris...

                  We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation.
                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6429710.html

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802336].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                yeah ... Amy Winehouse. Scary. lol.
                My point exactly, life does not always seem to be fair or proper.

                Your understanding of freedom is apparently limited to the US version, which you seem to automatically assign to every other country, whether they enjoy the same freedoms as the US or not.
                Not true at all, the French have allowed comedic satire for a very ling time. They do enjoy the freedom to produce it under French law, it is fact.

                France does not enjoy the same protection of speech as the US by a very long shot and with a little research you could certainly find that out on your own. France's laws do not allow speech that defames or insults, including in print.
                Sure they have tighter restrictions on free speech, this is very well known. But they do allow comedic satire, and obviously Charlie Hedbo is operating within French law. You seem to be confusing defamation with comedy.

                Up to your old tricks of getting personal and attacking those who don't share your opinions, however misinformed they are.
                No tricks and nothing personal at all, you just don't seem to understand French law. Charlie Hedbo is allowed to produce the cartoons because it's legal to do so in France.

                I give my opinions like everyone else. I assume that I still have a right to free speech here on the WF?
                Nobody has the right to unlimited free speech on the Warrior Forum...it is a private forum and we play by their rules.

                Maybe I should strive to be the standard for immorality. You likeee that better?
                Whatever floats your boat!

                Nowhere did I malign the French people as a whole. Their idea of "freedom of speech" is not my idea of freedom of speech, but if it is the law, it should be applied equally to all.
                Very little is applied exactly equally to all if it is being dispensed by humans, that's life. Let us not forget that France also bans certain head coverings, and the do so because they think they have a good reason to do so. Security and identification is said to be part of the reason, but many say it goes well beyond that...

                THE FRENCH breathed a collective sigh of relief on July 1st when the European Court of Human Rights upheld the country's 2010 ban on the wearing of full-faced veils in public places. It followed a separate ruling in June by a top French appeals court that a private day-care nursery was within its rights when it sacked an employee who refused to take off her Muslim headscarf at work. In France, such rules generate relatively little controversy. Yet they are often misunderstood in countries where liberal multiculturalism is the established creed. Why are the French so strict about Islamic head coverings?

                France adheres to a strict form of secularism, known as laïcité, which is designed to keep religion out of public life. This principle was entrenched by law in 1905, after fierce anti-clerical struggles with the Roman Catholic church. Today, the lines are in some ways blurred. The French maintain, for instance, certain Catholic public holidays, such as Ascension. But secular rules on the whole prevail. It would be unthinkable in France, for example, to hold a nativity play in a state primary school, or for a president to be sworn in on a Bible.
                The Economist explains: Why the French are so strict about Islamic head coverings | The Economist

                Allowing fun to be poked at religion via satirical means in France is not the least bit surprising.

                I don't condone anyone, including comedians like Joan Rivers who make their living off of engaging in deliberately offensive humor or ridiculing and insulting other people. That's just me. I don't find it in the least bit entertaining... and that includes the Charlie cartoons.
                That's your prerogative.

                Now, let's see ... you present PeTA as an example of an organization that "Stands for Charlie," and expect that to be an influential reference?
                Influential reference? Nope. I told you before I wanted to show you some other Charlie Hedbo cartoons since you have declared the CH cartoons to be "not funny or witty". I understand, you didn't like any of those cartoons either.

                The influential references that I have cited are the president of France, the president of the U.S., and the Prime Minister of France. I posted a couple of very compelling videos and a quote above.

                I have a few more influential references as well:

                Mr Cameron told MPs: “This House and this country stand united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism, and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy. These people will never be able to take us off those values.”
                The Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: “The murder of journalists and writers at their place of work is a direct attack on the basic values of freedom of speech and of tolerance. That this should have happened in a city and a country which for centuries have been leaders in the international struggle for human rights is a particular outrage.”
                Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said: “The European Union stands side by side with France after this terrible act. It is a brutal attack against our fundamental values, against freedom of expression which is a pillar of our democracy. The fight against terrorism in all its forms must continue unabated."
                Mrs Merkel said: “In this very desperate hour, we stand by the French people. We stand up for the freedom of the press in such a resolute way as for the other basic freedoms that we hold dear in all of our countries.”
                The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said: “Acts of terror like this will never ever shake our commitment to freedom of speech and civil liberties. It will never stop us from being a tolerant and liberal society. We will stick together and defy any attempts by radical extremists to gag or intimidate us.”
                Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, expressed his “horror and outrage” over the killings. He added: “We stand in solidarity with the people of France against this evil terrorist attack by people intent on attacking our democratic way of life and freedom of speech.”
                Charlie Hebdo attack: World leaders unite in condemning 'barbaric' Paris killings - Europe - World - The Independent

                And this one, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon...

                “I am appalled and deeply shocked by the attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris this morning,” Mr. Ban said. “This act of violence can in no way be justified. This is an attack against freedom of expression and freedom of the press - the two pillars of democracy.”
                This horrific attack is meant to divide. We must not fall into that trap,” he said. “This is a moment for solidarity. Around the world, we must stand strong for freedom of expression and tolerance and stand against forces of division and hate.”
                And this one, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein...

                “If this attack is allowed to feed discrimination and prejudice, it will be playing straight into the hands of extremists whose clear aim is to divide religions and societies. With xenophobia and anti-migrant sentiments already on the rise in Europe, I am very concerned that this awful, calculated act will be exploited by extremists of all sorts.”
                He stressed that freedom of expression and opinion are cornerstones of any democratic society and said those trying to divide communities on grounds of religion, ethnicity or any other reason must not be allowed to succeed.
                And this one, Irina Bokova, Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

                ...she was horrified by the “attack against the media and against freedom of expression.”
                “UNESCO is more determined than ever to protect the free and independent press,” she said. “The international community cannot let extremists sow terror and prevent the free flow of opinions and ideas.
                http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...1#.VLGg7CvF98E

                The thought that you can't satirize Jews in France is just not the case. Here is collage of Charlie Hedbo cartoons that may be offensive to Jews:

                http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AODOnj8Rqv...ebdo%2Bjew.png

                What provoked this attack is the psychopathic mindset and ideologies of the killers.

                We get it, you think France discriminates, and you are free to think that.

                Maybe we can agree to disagree on what should be allowed (and is allowed) with regards to free speech, freedom of expression, satire, and comedy.

                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802321].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                  Not true at all, the French have allowed comedic satire for a very ling time. They do enjoy the freedom to produce it under French law, it is fact.

                  Sure they have tighter restrictions on free speech, this is very well known. But they do allow comedic satire, and obviously Charlie Hedbo is operating within French law. You seem to be confusing defamation with comedy.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  My entire point was that France does have laws that could put the staff of Charlie in prison, if they chose to enforce them in that case. But they haven't. But they have indeed harassed and warned them numerous times. When the magazine was first created it was Hara-Kiri Hebdo and it was banned for making a joke about de Gaulle.... so no freedom of speech allowed there.

                  1970: De Gaulle Cover: Before the magazine was taking shots at Muhammad, it was taking shots at de Gaulle. Charlie Hebdo was founded in 1970 when its predecessor--Hara-Kiri Hebdo--was shut down by the government for a joke at the late general's expense.
                  The words they use allow their interpretation of hate speech to be very broad. Many people could be arrested if they choose to implement their laws. They use the words "speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation" ... that would be inclusive of cartoons that insult, if they chose to enforce it against Charlie Hebdo.

                  Hypocritically even Charlie Hebdo, the magazine at the centre of the controversy, those 'champions of free speech', sacked a journalist in 2009 for making anti-Semitic comments.

                  Charlie Hebdo fired cartoonist for anti-Semitism in 2009 | Europe | Worldbulletin News
                  Here's a good article on the Hypocrisy of Free Speech in France

                  https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/ch...r-26aff1c3e998

                  ... and another good article that gives a different perspective on Charlie Hebdo magazine.

                  In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism « The Hooded Utilitarian

                  ... and more on France's restrictive speech law.

                  France has the largest number of restrictions on freedom of speech out of any nation in Europe--a fact which Hollande hypocritically ignored.

                  The French government still enforces a law made in 1881, the "Law on the Freedom of the Press" (French: Loi sur la liberté de la presse du 29 juillet 1881, often called the Press Law of 1881). Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to "discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap."

                  The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights.

                  In 1972, the French Parliament passed a law, the Loi no 72-546 du 1st juillet 1972 relative á la lute contre le racism" which allows the government to ban any group that advocates the deliberately ill-defined term of "racism." This has of course, allowed the government to ban almost anybody who dares to speak out about nonwhite immigrant crime, or any related matter.

                  Furthermore, in 1990, the French government passed the "Gayssot Act" (named for its sponsor in the National Assembly) which made it a criminal offense for anyone to question the veracity of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II, or to even suggest that it has been exaggerated in the slightest.

                  This law was used to prosecute the former deputy leader of the Front National, Bruno Gollnisch, who in an interview in 2006: "I do not question the existence of concentration camps but historians could discuss the number of deaths. As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to speak their minds ("de se déterminer").

                  For this mild statement, Gollnisch was sentenced in January 2007 to a three-month suspended prison-term and a fine of €5,000. The French court also ordered him to pay €55,000 euros in damages to the plaintiffs (a Jewish organization) and to pay for the judgment to be published in the newspapers that originally printed his remarks.

                  Naturally, these laws are subjectively implemented, because the gratuitous insults and derogatory propaganda put out by Charlie Hebdo's Communist publishers and cartoonists never resulted in any legal action.

                  President Hollande's claim that France has a "tradition of freedom of speech" is therefore a deliberate lie--but one which is completely in keeping with the rest of his "democratic" posturing.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802504].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          I think lots of people are getting freedom of speech mixed up with freedom to offend.
          I think some people are.

          I think some people would like "freedom to offend" to be implicit within "freedom of speech". It can be, of course, and it's perhaps especially relevant to cartoonists. There's also a spectrum of these things. Inciting racial hatred (which is illegal in most countries) is also "offending people", though, isn't it? So nobody should be saying that "freedom to offend people" is necessarily absolute, either. That's clearly illogical.

          I think some people (both in America and in Europe) like - especially at times like this - to imagine that we really have "freedom of speech", too.

          We don't, of course. And you don't, either.

          Anyone imagining that we have "freedom of speech" should try running into a packed cinema and screaming "Fire!", or standing on a soap-box in the local park and making a speech that incites racial hatred, and they'll see how much "freedom of speech" we have: what we have is "freedom of speech within the law". People who imagine that "freedom of speech" is absolute haven't thought it through very clearly, have they?


          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802018].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression is not an absolute but here in the U.S., but it has been fairly well defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and the First Amendment. Sure we do have limitations, but when discussing comedy and satire, those limitations rarely come into play. We do have the freedom to offend and that's what satirists and comedians do best, and it's perfectly within their right to do so.

            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802048].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

              We do have the freedom to offend
              You have freedom to offend within the law, just like you have freedom of speech within the law. We do, too: we just have it as a "rule of the common law" rather than as an amendment to a Constitution. The principle, and the ways it works, are the same. It can be tested in law, and the final arbiter is our Supreme Court just like it's your Supreme Court. (No, actually, that's probably not quite right: sometimes our final arbiter would probably be the European Court of Human Rights. Damn, we can't even reliably interpret our own laws any more, here ... ).


              .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802071].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Sure, and that's why I noted that most "limitations" rarely come into play with respect to comedy and satire. Some of those "limitations" can be based upon local or state law, and of course if pressed, the Supreme Court becomes the ultimate decider.

                The Chaplinsky case is one example of that:

                For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."
                Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                Of course a great many disagree with the law and the ruling, and that includes the Marquette University law department.

                Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire should be overruled explicitly and the
                fighting words doctrine to which it gave birth repealed. Sixty-two years of
                error is enough! The decision was ill-conceived in an opinion which
                endangers freedom of expression.
                http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...6&context=mulr

                That said, I can't remember the last time I heard or read about a comedian or satirist that shouted "fire" in a theater, or yelled "I am a hijacker" on a Boeing 767.

                Again, the words of the U.S. Supreme Court....

                "The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."
                Being offensive in itself is not reason enough to deny freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression in the U.S. I think this Libby Nelson quote below is right on point with regards to this matter.

                The real provocation for the attack was not the cartoons or any offense they may have given, but rather the psychopathic minds and ideologies of the killers.
                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802131].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Satire ---> let's hear what a the darling liberal Bill Maher has to say on this matter.


    Jokes are jokes! You gotta be able to take a joke. Go ahead and insult and joke on my president, go ahead and joke on my religious icons, go ahead joke on my heroes...it's your right to do so! I am not going to freak out and start killing people! If you can't handle satire and/or a little criticism without feeling the need to kill someone then you have a personal problem or worse.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Now let's have a listen to what a couple of the other contemporary comedic icons have to say on the subject.

    Conan O'Brien


    Jon Stewart


    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801939].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    @ Suzanne

    We can agree to disagree. I think Charlie Hedbo was within their legal right to publish the satire, and I agree with France in allowing them to do so. They have been allowed to publish satire legally as Charlie Hedbo across 5 decades. Hate speech, defamation, etc. --> and satire are entirely different matters. I stand with the leaders of many free nations including Prime Minister Cameron, German Chancellor Merkel, President Obama, the French president François Hollande, the Secretary General of U.N. as well as with the free speech, free press, and freedom of expression advocates around the world.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802560].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      @ Suzanne

      We can agree to disagree. I think Charlie Hedbo was within their legal right to publish the satire, and I agree with France in allowing them to do so. They have been allowed to publish satire legally as Charlie Hedbo across 5 decades. Hate speech, defamation, etc. --> and satire are entirely different matters. I stand with the leaders of many free nations, President Obama, the French president, the U.N. as well as with all of the free speech, free press, and freedom of expression advocates around the world.

      Cheers

      -don
      Of course we can agree to disagree. That's what free speech is. lol.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802574].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      @ Suzanne

      We can agree to disagree. I think Charlie Hedbo was within their legal right to publish the satire, and I agree with France in allowing them to do so. They have been allowed to publish satire legally as Charlie Hedbo across 5 decades. Hate speech, defamation, etc. --> and satire are entirely different matters. I stand with the leaders of many free nations, President Obama, the French president, the U.N. as well as with all of the free speech, free press, and freedom of expression advocates around the world.

      Cheers

      -don
      The magazine was in the legal right - but that's not the point. The point is just because someone "offends" you - it doesn't give you the right to run a terror campaign and start slaughtering people. It doesn't give you the right to "force" respect of your ideology. If people want to think your ideology is derisive, they are going to think so.

      To disallow humor of any subject is to curtail free speech. It's not the speech that is the problem -- it's people that try to dictate what you can and can't say.

      So I say something that offends someone. They tell me. It's my choice to say "oh, sorry, I was out of line" or "so freaking what? I could care less how you feel about it". Supporting laws about speech just because someone might be offended is tantamount to supporting fascism. Saying that it is illegal to say something because someone might get bent out of shape and go crazy and kill people is not a logical position. Anyone killing over being offended needs to be put down as the rabid dog they are.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802595].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        The magazine was in the legal right - but that's not the point. The point is just because someone "offends" you - it doesn't give you the right to run a terror campaign and start slaughtering people.
        ... and no one has said that it does give you a right. Terrorists don't give a damn about the right to kill. They just do it.

        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        To disallow humor of any subject is to curtail free speech. It's not the speech that is the problem -- it's people that try to dictate what you can and can't say.

        So I say something that offends someone. They tell me. It's my choice to say "oh, sorry, I was out of line" or "so freaking what? I could care less how you feel about it". Supporting laws about speech just because someone might be offended is tantamount to supporting fascism. Saying that it is illegal to say something because someone might get bent out of shape and go crazy and kill people is not a logical position. Anyone killing over being offended needs to be put down as the rabid dog they are.
        Well Sal, it's good you live in the US ... sort of, because our speech laws are, in theory, a lot less restrictive than France's are, and that was my point. According to France's own laws ... not ours ... Charlie Hebdo could be shut down by law if they chose to do that ... which they did when the magazine first started and made a joke about Charles de Gualle. And then in 2006,after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against such “obvious provocations.”

        I'm not going to cite the French laws all over again, but I first heard of the French and their free speech problem when I was reading about fashion designer John Galliano, who was found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris cafe.

        Now here in the US, you could insult 3 people at a cafe to your heart's content, but not in France.

        The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the government.

        Everyone wants to jump on the free speech bandwagon and the "I Am Charlie" bandwagon. It seems a very popular stance and the "politically correct" thing to do. Thing is, I checked out Charlie Hebdo and decided that they don't stand for what I stand for, and that I Am Not Charlie, and don't want to be in that herd. As long as France continues to turn a blind eye to their breaking of their laws against insulting people based on religion, or in a less restrictive government, they can continue to do what they do, but that doesn't mean that what they do deserves my respect or my support, and you can disrespect what a cartoon magazine stands for without supporting terrorism, by the way.

        I would never put those cartoons on a blog that I own. While I champion freedom of speech, I choose what speech I will promote and those cartoons do not make the cut.

        I would post one of the most offensive pics, but it would likely be censored out in WF, so I will just quote

        In reality, some of Charlie Hebdo’s most offensive cartoons would not be published in most parts of the world. Few media outlets would print a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad crouched on all fours with his genitals bared or show the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sodomizing each other.
        There are several articles that sum up how I feel about those cartoons

        #JeSuisCharlie? No, I'm Really Not Charlie Hebdo: Here's Why
        In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism
        You don’t have to support Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons to support free expression

        I think of myself as a staunch supporter of freedom of expression but I realize the disquieting truth that I could never publish some of the cartoons Charlie Hebdo did. It would go against every fiber of my being. But I will defend their right to exist and condemn what happened to them with every fiber of my being as well. But I just cannot say #IAmCharlieHebdo.
        EDIT: Just saw this article and thought I'd post it
        Kosher grocery employee, a Muslim, hailed as hero for hiding customers

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802619].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        The magazine was in the legal right - but that's not the point. The point is just because someone "offends" you - it doesn't give you the right to run a terror campaign and start slaughtering people.

        To disallow humor of any subject is to curtail free speech. It's not the speech that is the problem -- it's people that try to dictate what you can and can't say.
        I know exactly what the "point" is...but the topic of this thread is:

        The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?
        ...and the discussion turned to the legal right to publish satire in France and so that is where many of my replies on this thread have been focused. Of course the terrorists don't have the right to kill someone because a cartoon offends them, and we can't be intimidated by the terorists.

        Prior to you quoting me on this thread I wrote:

        Jokes are jokes! You gotta be able to take a joke. Go ahead and insult and joke on my president, go ahead and joke on my religious icons, go ahead joke on my heroes...it's your right to do so! I am not going to freak out and start killing people! If you can't handle satire and/or a little criticism without feeling the need to kill someone then you have a personal problem or worse.
        I also wrote:

        What provoked this attack is the psychopathic mindset and ideologies of the killers.
        Prior to your quote I had posted several videos including the President Obama video where he says terrorists don't have the right to murder or intimidate because they are offended by satire. The Bill Maher video I posted also got straight to that same "point", as did the video I posted of the French president. I think you may have also noticed Jon Stewart and Conan O'Brien got to the "point" as well. I had also posted quote after quote of world leaders expressing that same "point". I am am a very, very strong freedom of speech and freedom of expression supporter (and not being killed for it), and I know exactly what the "point" is. That said, the question asked on this thread was "should the media show the cartoons" and the discussion turned to the legal right to publish, and what types of speech and expression are considered to be legally "free".

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809920].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    It's been almost a decade since the London tube bombings, when most Londoners (and people across the country) determined that we would do our best not to give the terrorists the satisfaction of letting it change the way we did things, or have it pit us against each other to the point where we were doing their dirty work for them by shedding each other's blood on our streets because of each other's religion.

    If you're a media outlet and going to alter your plans in order to publish a potentially inflammatory cartoon that was probably barely on your radar in the first place, aren't you just offering the terrorists a massive WIN on both the above counts?
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804226].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      The terrorists are trying to suppress these types of images (in other words, change things) --> and more outlets publishing the images is not suppression. In-fact it has been said that it shows the terrorists that are committing these cowardly acts of murder (to attempt suppression) that murder does not work, and may actually cause the opposite effect.

      The only people that want to shed blood on the streets over satire are the terrorists.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804569].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
        Banned
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        it shows the terrorists that are committing these cowardly acts of murder (to attempt suppression) that murder does not work, and it may have the opposite of the desired effect. Cheers -don
        Unfortunately that would require both logical and rational thinking. Epic fail.

        Cheers. - Frank
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804579].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          JE SUIS CHARLIE


          Most terrorists are not logical or rational in ways that are conducive to modern civil society. That said, we must not let the murderers chip away at our freedoms with their murderous ways.

          What provoked this attack is the psychopathic mindset and/or the ideologies of the killers. Thankfully, France has declared war on radical Islam, jihadism, terrorism, and the rest of the killer nutjobs.

          Solidarity is a great thing at times like these, and it's good to see so many standing with Charlie Hedbo.

          French Premier Declares ‘War’ on Radical Islam as Paris Girds for Rally

          PARIS — Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at war with radical Islam after the harrowing sieges that led to the deaths of three gunmen and four hostages the day before. New details emerged about the bloody final confrontations, and security forces remained on high alert.

          “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in Évry, south of Paris.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/wo...acks.html?_r=0

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804588].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Diana Lane View Post

      It's been almost a decade since the London tube bombings, when most Londoners (and people across the country) determined that we would do our best not to give the terrorists the satisfaction of letting it change the way we did things, or have it pit us against each other to the point where we were doing their dirty work for them by shedding each other's blood on our streets because of each other's religion.

      If you're a media outlet and going to alter your plans in order to publish a potentially inflammatory cartoon that was probably barely on your radar in the first place, aren't you just offering the terrorists a massive WIN on both the above counts?
      WELL SAID! I said the US should do that WAY BACK in 2001! ALAS, Saddam succeeded. ISLAM is the ONE religion I never saw widely and publicly parodied, and it is because of this garbage.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidCameron
    Terrifying activity done by the terrorists. Shameless act.
    Nothing more to say.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805074].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      One fact we can't escape whether we think we've free speech or not is there is a Salafist sect of Islam that will want to get revenge by killing you if you mock their prophet. That's just a fact so print away but there will be a response. In fact these same people harbour quite serious goals of world domination and the return of the Caliphate only this time ruling the entire world. They believe in getting 72 virgins upon the entrance of paradise for simply strapping up a bomb vest and blowing up as many people they've never met before.

      You can talk of the right to publish them or not but these people are as offended by these cartoons as I am about the Taliban walking into a school to massacre children while screaming God is great.

      That's what we're dealing with. I assure you there isn't a single member of ISIS or any group of Al Qaeda etc. that wouldn't have shot the magazine people if they had the chance.

      Really what we're saying is should we have the right to publish something that absolutely will cause some people to want and plan to actually murder you?

      Charlie Hebdo printed endless cartoons about Jesus, Jews and just about everyone, Including Muslims but it's only ever been the extremist element of Islam that has decided to take physical action against it.

      A part of me wants them to be able to publish them, people shouldn't die over a cartoon but, BUT, I'm also well aware if you do something to offend the prophet, shit will hit the fan. So it's a difficult one and if it helps recruit more people to the extremist way of thinking, I'm afraid I'm not sure I do want them published

      For me there were 3 heroes in the whole thing. The guy that hid under the sink in the print firm and gave tactical information. Ahmed the policeman that died defending his city and the Worker in the Kosher supermarket that rescued all those people.

      2 of those 3 were Muslims and very decent Muslims too and as the guy in the supermarket said...

      "We're all brothers. Jews, Christians, Muslims. We're all in this together".
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805227].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        You can talk of the right to publish them or not but these people are as offended by these cartoons as I am about the Taliban walking into a school to massacre children while screaming God is great.

        That's what we're dealing with. I assure you there isn't a single member of ISIS or any group of Al Qaeda etc. that wouldn't have shot the magazine people if they had the chance.

        Really what we're saying is should we have the right to publish something that absolutely will cause some people to want and plan to actually murder you?
        No one disputes that any publication within the boundaries of their own country's laws has the right to publish. That doesn't mean that they should be bullied or badgered into publishing a bunch of racist, hateful cartoons in defense of freedom. Many publications would never publish that kind of material because it is offensive to people who do not deserve it, rather than just the terrorists, and they have loyal readers that they would not want to offend. Not only do they have Muslim readers that are not terrorists, they have Jewish and Christian readers that they would prefer not to offend.

        One cartoon that ran on the cover depicted the Holy Trinity in a three-way homosexual act, which is about as bad as it gets for a Christian.
        Charlie Hebdo's, as of 2012, weekly print run was about 60,000 copies, about a tenth of what the country’s most popular news weeklies sell, and there's a reason for that. Their material is garbage, some of it bordering on porn. Now some are calling publications that have too much social conscience and class to publish that swill, cowards. In my book, they're the ones with the courage to stand up for their own values and beliefs, rather than publishing material that would never make the cut in their own publications.

        Many European publications reproduced the cartoons, and the images are easily found online on Slate, BuzzFeed and other sites. But most major U.S. news outlets declined to show them, and no U.S. newspaper I've seen published them, with the exception of a single, relatively tame Charlie Hebdo magazine cover in the editorial pages of the Washington Post.

        AsGlenn Greenwald said:

        I found it interesting that at least one outspoken champion of free expression, Glenn Greenwald, questioned the solidarity angle, tweeting: “When did it become true that to defend someone’s free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?
        Much as readers are horrified at the French attacks — which I doubt have ended — those cartoons aren’t being reprinted here out of simple human decency.
        NPR: Photos showing just a few of the magazine's covers could lead viewers to mistakenly conclude that Charlie Hebdo is only a bit edgier than other satirical publications. But a comprehensive display of Charlie Hebdo's work would require posting images that go well beyond most news organizations' standards regarding offensive material. At NPR, the policy on "potentially offensive language" applies to the images posted online as well. It begins by stating that "as a responsible broadcaster, NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience."

        At this time, NPR is not posting images of Charlie Hebdo's most controversial cartoons – just as it did not post such images during earlier controversies involving the magazine and a Danish cartoonist's caricatures of the prophet. The New York Times has taken the same position. The Washington Post's editorial board has put one of Charlie Hebdo's Prophet Muhammad covers on the print version of its op-ed pages, but not online. News editors at NPR and other organizations continually review their judgments on these types of issues when the materials are potentially offensive because of their religious, racial or sexual content. That review process will continue.

        News organizations have also this week debated whether to post or publish some of the shocking images and videos that surfaced after the Charlie Hebdo attack. One video in particular sparked discussion in newsrooms. It shows a gunman shooting and killing a Paris policeman as the wounded officer lay helpless on a sidewalk. Out of respect for the officer and for those in the audience who would find the video disturbing, NPR has chosen to describe what happened rather than to post the video.
        I talked to the executive editor, Dean Baquet, on Thursday morning about his decision not to show the images of the prophet Muhammad – a position that was taken by The Washington Post (on its news pages), The Associated Press, CNN and many other American news organizations. BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post were among those that did publish the cartoons.

        The Washington Post’s editorial page published a single image of a Charlie Hebdo cover on its printed Op-Ed page with Charles Lane’s column; that decision was made by the editorial page editor, not the executive editor of the paper, who presides over the news content. The executive editor, Martin Baron, told the Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi that the paper doesn’t publish material “that is pointedly, deliberately, or needlessly offensive to members of religious groups.”

        NYTimes: Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so.[b] “We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult.

        “At what point does news value override our standards?” Mr. Baquet asked. “You would have to show the most incendiary images” from the newspaper; and that was something he deemed unacceptable.
        Thom Fladung, managing editor of The Plain Dealer, and Chris Quinn, vice president of content for the Northeast Ohio Media Group, both said their operations have no plans to reproduce the cartoons.

        "Describing them is enough," said Fladung. "They don't add to my understanding of the story."

        Quinn said it was a matter of picking your spots: "We don't go out of our way to inflame people needlessly," he said.

        "There are times when dramatic images make an important statement," Quinn said. "I wouldn't hesitate to offend people if I thought it was important political speech, and it was our speech. But this isn't our speech, and while I totally agree with that publication's right to make whatever statement they wish, we wouldn't run these cartoons under any circumstances."
        The Guardian: There was another balancing act, however, which gets to the heart of this dilemma. Should British editors ever carry material, whatever the circumstances, that they would not normally publish? At a “Je suis Charlie” seminar staged by the Guardian last Thursday, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, explained there were “offensive” Charlie Hebdo cartoons “that the Guardian would never in the normal run of events publish”. It was all very well to defend the magazine’s right to exercise its freedom and right to offend – including what Rusbridger called its “ethos and values” – but that could not be the defining issue for another publication.

        To borrow and paraphrase the maxim erroneously attributed to Voltaire, it was a case of disapproving of what Charlie Hebdo had published, but expressing a willingness to defend its right to do so. Rusbridger said: “It felt to me there was some tokenism in demanding that the Guardian should change [its editorial values].” Clearly, other editors felt the same way: their natural support for the cartoonists’ rights was offset by the fact that they would not have normally published such images themselves.

        Their refusal to publish such cartoons cannot be adduced as proof of cowardice, nor as a sign that they capitulated to intimidation. It should be seen instead as editors, as they do daily, taking account of the effects of what they publish. In essence, they had to ask themselves if they should gratuitously insult a religion and its adherents, because a very small group of fanatics had misused its teachings in order to justify murder.
        The Atlantic: The impulse to consecrate Charlie Hebdo in a moment of horror and anger—an impulse felt far beyond France—is eminently comprehensible. But one may mourn the dead and condemn their senseless slaughter, and hail their courage in carrying out a mission in which they deeply believed, without celebrating the magazine for virtues it did not espouse.

        Until the killings, Charlie Hebdo was not much celebrated or even particularly valued—publicly, at any rate—by the French, though the many slander cases brought against it came with a certain amount of publicity; as of 2012, its weekly print run was about 60,000 copies, about a tenth of what the country’s most popular news weeklies sell. It is a publication that champions its speech rights with all the crude prurience and vitriol and rhetorical excess the law permits.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805450].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cam Connor
          Suzanne, if you're so against Freedom of Speech, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and move to North Korea? There's plenty of laws against Freedom of Speech which you can enjoy there.

          Talk down to Freedom of Speech all you want, call it "garbage", or "swill", it doesn't matter... that's where the lack of it leads to. You don't have to buy anything that you consider garbage ... you don't have to support it with your money. But the moment you say it's OK for a Government (or any group) to tell other people what they can or can't say, FOR ANY REASON, you're heading in a very BAD direction, and it is a VERY slippery slope.

          Like Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805480].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Cam Connor View Post

            Suzanne, if you're so against Freedom of Speech, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and move to North Korea? There's plenty of laws against Freedom of Speech which you can enjoy there.

            Talk down to Freedom of Speech all you want, call it "garbage", or "swill", it doesn't matter... that's where the lack of it leads to. You don't have to buy anything that you consider garbage ... you don't have to support it with your money. But the moment you say it's OK for a Government (or any group) to tell other people what they can or can't say, FOR ANY REASON, you're heading in a very BAD direction, and it is a VERY slippery slope.

            Like Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
            Apparently, it is you who is against freedom of speech if you think anything that I have posted is anti freedom. None of your post can be attributed to anything I have posted. Are you implying that I don't have the right to voice my opinions here... that I should move to N. Korea if I don't agree with you? lol. Get over it. I'll live where I want to live.

            I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in my right to call something garbage if I feel it's garbage and I believe in the right for news publications not to publish anything that violates their own core values and offends their own readers. I believe that you can embrace freedom of speech without embracing hateful, intolerant cartoons that are somebody else's speech and not your own.

            If you happen to read more than a line or two, you will see that I cited major publications who agree with me or I with them that gratuitous insult is not speech that they want in their publications, never has been and never will be. They don't have to embrace Hebdo's values to embrace freedom of speech.

            In fact, I am not affiliated with any religion whatsoever and blasphemy does not offend me. Intolerance does. If you respect my right to be not religious, I respect your right to be anything you want and I wouldn't dream of offending you or anyone because of their culture, race or religion.

            As for as the legality of Hebdo's publication, since they were already banned by France once for their "speech" ... it is France's laws that I was pointing out ... not my own beliefs.

            But read what I've posted with whatever blinders on that you choose.

            Voltaire can die for whatever he wants (if he were alive, which he is not since he died of old age at 83). He mainly argued for religious toleration and freedom of thought. "Having learned from his previous brushes with the authorities, Voltaire began his habit of keeping out of personal harm's way, and denying any awkward responsibility."
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

            Freedom of speech also involves the right NOT to publish something if you don't want to.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805500].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by Cam Connor View Post

            Suzanne, if you're so against Freedom of Speech, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and move to North Korea? There's plenty of laws against Freedom of Speech which you can enjoy there.

            Talk down to Freedom of Speech all you want, call it "garbage", or "swill", it doesn't matter... ."
            Thats an over the top accusation of what she was saying. being responsible about free speech is not the same as talking it down. People claiming you should just popularize and publish any and everything terrorist object to in every publication aren't using their noggin

            A) they 've just created a new advertising model - fake terrorist threats
            B) they are creating propaganda material - see this is how the infidels all over the world hate your beliefs. It is you and God against the world
            C) they are taking no practical thought to the people who are not terrorists that would strategically be of assistance in fighting terror. Why post pictures that would be offensive to even non terrorists and anti terrorist in the same religion??

            If there is a reason to publish them then fine but to say publish them without any thought to offending just because the terrorists won;t like it just isn't a responsible use of free speech.

            Showing a prophet's genitalia is funny to ten year olds to grown up its just crass. making that observation does not put you in condolence with terrorists, murder or against free speech. You can still do it and we can still call it crass and irresponsible.

            I hardly think anyone here would be on a crusade to publish crude art about their favorite movie stars and celebs so meh why publish stuff just because some murders objected to it. again if it serves a journalistic intent then fine otherwise why bother?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805932].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          No one disputes that any publication within the boundaries of their own country's laws has the right to publish.
          I didn't say they didn't. I just said if they publish images of Mohammed, in pretty much any way, the Salafist sect of Islam, specifically terror groups, will see it their duty to attack.

          That doesn't mean that they should be bullied or badgered into publishing a bunch of racist, hateful cartoons in defense of freedom.
          Sorry I wasn't aware of any bullying going on to publish these cartoons. That didn't have anything to do with what I said. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them either.

          Many publications would never publish that kind of material because it is offensive to people who do not deserve it, rather than just the terrorists, and they have loyal readers that they would not want to offend.
          Yup. I'm aware of this.

          Not only do they have Muslim readers that are not terrorists, they have Jewish and Christian readers that they would prefer not to offend.
          I only referred to Salafist Islam which these people were as are all ISIS and Al Qaeda groups. They take the Salafi thoughts to an even higher level. It is punishable by death according to Sharia law to insult the prophet.

          All I'm saying is, as a fact that has been proved, if you insult the prophet, there will be some Muslims, somewhere, who will want to and quite possibly plan, to kill you.

          That is literally all I'm saying. Whether we have the right or not isn't my point and I'm not arguing about it. Print offensive images of the prophet and people like these people will take action. That's a fact and we know that.

          My other point was that these images may push some Muslims to join the extremists.

          If printing a cartoon will lead to murder or a rise in Islamic extremism, Id rather they were not shown at all.

          Regarding Charlie Hebdo and the holy Trinity, I'm aware of that, that's why I said this to back up my above point.

          Charlie Hebdo printed endless cartoons about Jesus, Jews and just about everyone, Including Muslims but it's only ever been the extremist element of Islam that has decided to take physical action against it.
          It's a sad world we live in when an offensive cartoon causes death, but it does. You only have to look at the world wide reaction to 'Innocence of Islam' to see how important to them Mohammed is. Indeed unreported was the 1000 lashes our dear friend Saudi Arabia gave a man the other day for none other than 'Insulting the prophet' and that was ironically last Friday.

          http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...120952108.html

          I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone else here, just saying the world we live in today consists of one where if you insult the prophet or even the religion, they will get very, very upset. More than anyone else will about anything else.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805489].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            I didn't say they didn't. I just said if they publish images of Mohammed, in pretty much any way, the Salafist sect of Islam, specifically terror groups, will see it their duty to attack.

            Sorry I wasn't aware of any bullying going on to publish these cartoons. That didn't have anything to do with what I said. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them either.

            Yup. I'm aware of this.

            I only referred to Salafist Islam which these people were as are all ISIS and Al Qaeda groups. They take the Salafi thoughts to an even higher level. It is punishable by death according to Sharia law to insult the prophet.

            All I'm saying is, as a fact that has been proved, if you insult the prophet, there will be some Muslims, somewhere, who will want to and quite possibly plan, to kill you.

            That is literally all I'm saying. Whether we have the right or not isn't my point and I'm not arguing about it. Print offensive images of the prophet and people like these people will take action. That's a fact and we know that.

            My other point was that these images may push some Muslims to join the extremists.

            If printing a cartoon will lead to murder or a rise in Islamic extremism, Id rather they were not shown at all.

            Regarding Charlie Hebdo and the holy Trinity, I'm aware of that, that's why I said this to back up my above point.



            It's a sad world we live in when an offensive cartoon causes death, but it does. You only have to look at the world wide reaction to 'Innocence of Islam' to see how important to them Mohammed is. Indeed unreported was the 1000 Lashes our dear Friend Saudi Arabia gave a man the other day for none other than 'Insulting the prophet' and that was ironically last Friday.

            Saudi blogger flogged for 'insulting Islam' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

            I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone else here, just saying the world we live in today consists of one where if you insult the prophet or even the religion, they will get very, very upset.
            I wasn't disagreeing with you either Richard. I don't see where you thought that I was. Discussions are normally at least a two-way street.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805506].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              I wasn't disagreeing with you either Richard. I don't see where you thought that I was. Discussions are normally at least a two-way street.
              My apologies Suzanne.

              No one disputes that any publication within the boundaries of their own country's laws has the right to publish. That doesn't mean that they should be bullied or badgered into publishing a bunch of racist, hateful cartoons in defense of freedom. Many publications would never publish that kind of material because it is offensive to people who do not deserve it, rather than just the terrorists, and they have loyal readers that they would not want to offend. Not only do they have Muslim readers that are not terrorists, they have Jewish and Christian readers that they would prefer not to offend.
              I think I mistakenly read the above bit and took it slightly differently. My error.
              Signature

              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805526].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                My apologies Suzanne.

                I think I mistakenly read the above bit and took it slightly differently. My error.
                No problem Richard. I actually chose your post to quote because I mostly agreed with you. Mostly. lol.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alistair
    People have been slaughtering each other over religion and politics for centuries and more. Saying these people were psychopths etc for doing what they did aren't living in the real world in my opinion. You keep goading a dog, don't be surprised if you end up getting bit.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805694].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author discrat
      Originally Posted by alistair View Post

      People have been slaughtering each other over religion and politics for centuries and more. Saying these people were psychopths etc for doing what they did aren't living in the real world in my opinion. You keep goading a dog, don't be surprised if you end up getting bit.
      Do you even know what the medical terminology and definition for a psychopath is ??

      Just curious ?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806224].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

        Do you even know what the medical terminology and definition for a psychopath is ??

        Just curious ?
        Discrat .. most people haven't delved into it as deeply as you and Claude. I know what the medical definition is, but many people use that term for casually for anyone who is capable of brutal attacks on others.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kentah
    Just saw this news article from the Telegraph that would raise questions of double standards.
    French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe - Telegraph

    Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
    ...
    A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Re: Double Standards

    Even if some double standards can be shown --> any error should be made on the side of free speech and freedom of expression. Many people say France needs some work in this area, but don't condemn France and the free speech and freedom of expressions advocates for standing with Charlie Hedbo.

    Instead encourage them in whatever way you can to allow more speech.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9806449].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Wow!

    Maybe world leaders didn't actually lead that huge march in Paris but instead conducted a photo op on an empty guarded street.


    What the world saw...




    I hear this is another pic from the scene.

    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808177].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      TL,

      Thankfully I'm not a terrorist but imagine if they did the Hebdo attack by a first cell then kept just 2 or 3 cells back who could then attack the massive amount of people that paraded through Paris as a big spectacular?

      I know everyone's going to scream 'what about security?' but that's what I said when Paris was on lock down during a major terrorist incident and the other guy strolled down the street with 2 AK's and wandered straight into a Jewish supermarket to kill people.

      Bearing in mind the Supermarket killer was with someone when he shot a copper the day before. We now know it's not his wife - Who was it then? There was also a 3rd attacker apparently in the Hebdo attack that handed himself in. He apparently had an alibi, so who and where is that person?

      Perhaps that security around the parade was better than I thought after all.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808185].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        In Pictures: France Unity March

        The Administration says it should have sent someone of a higher rank. It was what it was - we weren't there by choice. A US absence doesn't mean nothing happened or that a gathering wasn't important. Just means it wasn't important to the U.S.

        Would anyone truly expect 44 world leaders to march without a huge contingent of security imposing a space around those world leaders? The story wasn't those following the leaders - it was the variety of countries represented.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I'm going to work on being less condescending
        (Condescending means to talk down to people)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808285].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          The Administration says it should have sent someone of a higher rank. It was what it was - we weren't there by choice. A US absence doesn't mean nothing happened or that a gathering wasn't important. Just means it wasn't important to the U.S.
          Correct. A phony photo op was not important to the US. But I'm sure that if Obama had attended himself, certain elements of our government would ridicule him for attending a phony photo op.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808312].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
            Banned
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            But I'm sure that if Obama had attended himself, certain elements of our government would ridicule him for attending a phony photo op.
            You could bet your life on that! lol The phony outrage that I have witnessed on Faux News could only be topped by the phony outrage they would muster if he had gone. People would find them a bit more believable, if once - just once in 6 years they could say he did SOMETHING right. Anything. Just once.

            Cheers. - Frank
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808334].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    The world leaders showing solidarity for freedom of speech should probably have stayed home and worked on their own records of freedom of speech

    Among them, Scahill noted, was UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who ordered The Guardian to destroy the hard drives that held the files leaked in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. And Cameron was joined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu, whose regime has "kidnapped, abducted, jailed journalists" reporting on Palestine, Scahill said.

    "[T]hen you have... General [Abdel Fattal al] Sisi, the dictator of Egypt, who apparently is showing his solidarity for press freedom by continuing to preside over the imprisonment of multiple Al Jazeera journalists whose only crime was doing actual journalism and scores of other Egyptian journalists that never get mentioned in the news media," Scahill continued.

    Scahill's criticisms followed similar remarks made Sunday by Daniel Wickham, a British journalist and activist. In a series of messages posted to Twitter on Sunday, Wickham laid out those leaders' own poor records against journalists in their home countries, even as other news sources praised them as "staunch defenders" of free press.

    So here are some of the staunch defenders of the free press attending the solidarity rally in Paris today...

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour Jordanian Palestinian who writes for

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world 211 journalists in world's jails in 2013 - with three countries holding most | Media | The Guardian

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 7 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria) PRESS FREEDOM BAROMETER 2014 - Reporters Without Borders

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days Photojournalist Shawkan describes 'endless nightmare' from behind bars - Daily News Egypt

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" Journalist arrested after interviewing Siberian autonomy advocate - Reporters Without Borders

    — Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) January 11, 2015

    The Independent also noted that the image of those 40-odd heads of state linking arms and marching through the streets of Paris in what the New York Times called a show of "unity in outrage" was actually a coordinated photo op, taken on an empty street away from the million-strong crowd.

    "[T]he front line of leaders was followed by just over a dozen rows other dignitaries and officials – after which there was a large security presence maintaining a significant gap with the throngs of other marchers," the Independent reported. "The measure was presumably taken for security reasons – but political commentators have suggested that it raises doubts as to whether the leaders were really part of the march at all."

    Reporters Without Borders also condemned the presence of those leaders at the march.

    "On what grounds are representatives of regimes that are predators of press freedom coming to Paris to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo, a publication that has always defended the most radical concept of freedom of expression?" the organization said in a statement on Sunday.

    RWB added, "Reporters Without Borders is appalled by the presence of leaders from countries where journalists and bloggers are systematically persecuted such as Egypt (which is ranked 159th out of 180 countries in RWB’s press freedom index), Russia (148th), Turkey (154th) and United Arab Emirates (118th)."

    Critics Decry 'Hypocrisy,' Photo Ops of World Leaders in Paris | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9808351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    IMHO there are two reasons the admin so-called apologized for not showing up in France.

    #1: It was the diplomatic and polite thing to do verses what another recent admin would have probably done in this situation - which would be to probably say a loud F.U. and kiss my bumper to everyone that disagrees with them.

    #2: To shut up the petty, scandal-mongering-jackals in the WH press corps who would probably never leave it alone - so they were thrown a bone.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Getting a bit partisan, eh? LoL

    #1) IMO, the previous admin would have probably sent a few high level people to France considering their anti-terror stance and posture.

    #2) This administration is less transparent than the previous administration according to most sources, which includes the press.

    #3) Loud F.U.'s eh? That's a laugh since the leader of this admin says "I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone" so F.U... Below is quote that I will never forget! I guess we were kissing someone's bumper!!!

    "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
    #4) I can't recall a time that you have have referred to your favorite liberal outlets as "scandal-mongering-jackal" dens.

    #5) I think the administration apologized because they realized they made a mistake and wanted to do some damage control.

    “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile,” Mr. Earnest said Monday. “I think the president himself would have liked to have the opportunity to be there.”
    Even some White House allies were critical of the "not sending a higher level official" blunder..

    Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said there was no excuse for the absence of a top representative. (WSJ)
    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809149].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Well, FWIW, this type terrorism started long before 2001 and I think Christianity is probably one of the most widely parodied and lampooned religions. It has been suggested that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was basically the only religious figure being lampooned on a regular basis which is absolute nonsense. I think we all know tons of people poke-fun, lampoon and/or otherwise disparage Christians on a regular basis --> again, can anyone say "Bill Maher"!?!

    Dude is famous for attacking Christians, Christian symbols, and Christian beliefs and he has plenty of company! For anyone that does not know who Bill Maher is go to Youtube and type "Bill Maher religion" into the search box or turn on HBO. Maher was formerly on Comedy Central and ABC and he is also a stand-up comic and political commentator. In-fact he even made a movie called Religulous that mocks Jews for Jesus, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hasidic Jews and Scientology. The film was distributed by Lionsgate, and Maher both wrote it and he starred in it.

    I remember back in the day it was PLO, PLO, PLO all day every day! Below are just a few of the Islamic extremest terrorist groups that I can remember in my lifetime that were operating prior to 2001.

    PLO - 1964
    PFLP - 1968
    ANO - 1970's
    Hezbollah - 1982
    Islamic Jihad - 1970's
    Abu Sayyaf - 1991
    Taliban - 1994 (militia)
    Al-Qaeda - 1990
    HAMAS - 1987
    IG - 1970's
    GIA - 1992
    AAIA - 1999
    HUM - 1990's
    LT - 1989
    PIJ - 1970's

    Back in the 1980's I was supposed to port in Pakistan for a few days but unfortunately we could get no closer than 1 mile from the coast of Pakistan because Islamic extremists were killing Christians in the streets on a nightly basis. In-fact we could not even pull all the way into port for fear of a small raft with suicide bombers possibly pulling alongside the ship at night and detonating to try to sink us. We had to add tons of extra watches and lookouts to look for small watercraft approaching the ship 24/7 while we were there.

    Bummer! I sat there for days looking at the coastline of Pakistan and never got to step foot on land. Talk about a tease!

    Anyway, Charlie Hedbo has operated through 5 decades and they often pilloried religion, but they sorta put a bit more focus on radical Islam in 2006 when they reprinted those controversial cartoons originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9809777].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Well, FWIW, this type terrorism started long before 2001 and I think Christianity is probably one of the most widely parodied and lampooned religions. It has been suggested that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was basically the only religious figure being lampooned on a regular basis which is absolute nonsense. I think we all know tons of people poke-fun, lampoon and/or otherwise disparage Christians on a regular basis --> again, can anyone say "Bill Maher"!?!

      Dude is famous for attacking Christians, Christian symbols, and Christian beliefs and he has plenty of company! For anyone that does not know who Bill Maher is go to Youtube and type "Bill Maher religion" into the search box or turn on HBO. Maher was formerly on Comedy Central and ABC and he is also a stand-up comic and political commentator. In-fact he even made a movie called Religulous that mocks Jews for Jesus, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hasidic Jews and Scientology. The film was distributed by Lionsgate, and Maher both wrote it and he starred in it.
      YEAH, you have THAT right! People will even say christianity does things it never did, or associate it with some belief they never had, etc... I think it is ALWAYS the FIRST lampooned. Look at southpark, They lampoon christianity, judaism, Hindu, mormon, budist , and satanism. I may have missed some, but I heard they NEVER aired any ones against islam,

      Anyway, Charlie Hedbo has operated through 5 decades and they often pilloried religion, but they sorta put a bit more focus on radical Islam in 2006 when they reprinted those controversial cartoons originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

      Cheers

      -don
      Yeah, people seem to forget about Jyllands-Posten. I think THAT is what got southpark to stop their plans to parody islam. And to attack DENMARK? WOW! A relatively tiny country that isn't trying to hurt anyone.

      BTW about Charlie Hedbo They apparently usually print about 60,000 copies, but the current issue, that is being advertised so much, and that you showed the cover of, now has 3 MILLION copies, and they have to limit distribution! Many newstands sold out in minutes!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810375].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        BTW about Charlie Hedbo They apparently usually print about 60,000 copies, but the current issue, that is being advertised so much, and that you showed the cover of, now has 3 MILLION copies, and they have to limit distribution! Many newstands sold out in minutes!

        Steve
        Yeah, apparently promoting anti-Muslim hate in France is good for business. This little garbage rag had 1/10 of the circulation of the most popular newspapers in France. Now Google is donating $300K and the French govt $1M and others untold sums so they can continue their campaign against Muslims.

        Maybe they'll use that as an ongoing business model. When things get slow there again, publish the most offensive anti-Muslim material they can muster up, get a few innocents killed and maybe some of their own and boooom ... back in business.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810489].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Yeah, apparently promoting anti-Muslim hate in France is good for business. This little garbage rag had 1/10 of the circulation of the most popular newspapers in France. Now Google is donating $300K and the French govt $1M and others untold sums so they can continue their campaign against Muslims.

          Maybe they'll use that as an ongoing business model. When things get slow there again, publish the most offensive anti-Muslim material they can muster up, get a few innocents killed and maybe some of their own and boooom ... back in business.

          The French gov also gave them money?


          Perhaps they're rethinking their decision to allow Muslims to move there and are sending a message.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810652].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Yeah, apparently promoting anti-Muslim hate in France is good for business. This little garbage rag had 1/10 of the circulation of the most popular newspapers in France. Now Google is donating $300K and the French govt $1M and others untold sums so they can continue their campaign against Muslims.

          Maybe they'll use that as an ongoing business model. When things get slow there again, publish the most offensive anti-Muslim material they can muster up, get a few innocents killed and maybe some of their own and boooom ... back in business.
          I wasn't condoning it. I was just saying...

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811477].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            I wasn't condoning it. I was just saying...

            Steve
            I know Steve. I wasn't accusing you of condoning it. Even if you were, that's up to you to condone or not to condone.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811516].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              I know Steve. I wasn't accusing you of condoning it. Even if you were, that's up to you to condone or not to condone.
              Yeah, it is funny how opinions changed......

              Me BEFORE(circa 1999)?

              I didn't like the idea of supporting israel, or any of the others, but it included israel. Israel would likely not have existed without the US, EVEN if WWII somehow were won in the same way.

              I disliked the stupid business of denigrating religions.

              ME NOW(circa 2002+)?

              I am ALL FOR supporting israel! HECK, let's give them an extra $100K for counter propaganda!!!!!

              I REALLY dislike the idea that denigrating religions is totally FINE, UNLESS it is ISLAMIC. Give me a brake. If it is SO important that we not do this, why doesn't ALLAH defend it HIMSELF! Do you realize that the technology that they are using to monitor this and hurt us is WESTERN!?!?!?!?!? If western europe and the US didn't exist, they wouldn't have ANY of it!

              But I STILL hate companies like Charlie Hebdo that denigrate religions so.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811553].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                I REALLY dislike the idea that denigrating religions is totally FINE, UNLESS it is ISLAMIC. Give me a brake. If it is SO important that we not do this, why doesn't ALLAH defend it HIMSELF! Do you realize that the technology that they are using to monitor this and hurt us is WESTERN!?!?!?!?!? If western europe and the US didn't exist, they wouldn't have ANY of it!

                But I STILL hate companies like Charlie Hebdo that denigrate religions so.

                Steve
                People died at the hands of other religions including Christianity, so while now it is Islam, it wasn't always so.

                The thing is that religious intolerance and insulting people based on religion and culture and race is just mean spirited and hateful and deliberately so. It is their intention to insult as much as they possibly can. In the case of those little darlings at Charlie Hebdo, from their own history, they know that their cartoons will incite this response. They were, after all, firebombed some time back for the same cartoons. So they are aware and apparently they think their hatred and mockery and insults are worth the cost of human life and are willing to risk other people's lives in the process of endangering their own.

                I would have zero problem with it if the terrorists only killed all of them and no one else, but I think that the loss of innocent life due to those disgusting and hateful cartoons is not worth it. The cartoons and the magazine was just a crap magazine with a small circulation until the attack and would never have received any notice or fame otherwise. They aren't going down in history as priceless works of art worth defending at all costs.

                If Charlie Hebdo had any conscience at all, they would not risk other people's lives to promote their swill.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811680].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  People died at the hands of other religions including Christianity, so while now it is Islam, it wasn't always so.
                  Well, not REALLY at the hands of christianity, and it never said to do that, but that was LONG ago.

                  The thing is that religious intolerance and insulting people based on religion and culture and race is just mean spirited and hateful and deliberately so. It is their intention to insult as much as they possibly can. In the case of those little darlings at Charlie Hebdo, from their own history, they know that their cartoons will incite this response. They were, after all, firebombed some time back for the same cartoons. So they are aware and apparently they think their hatred and mockery and insults are worth the cost of human life and are willing to risk other people's lives in the process of endangering their own.
                  EXACTLY!

                  I would have zero problem with it if the terrorists only killed all of them and no one else, but I think that the loss of innocent life due to those disgusting and hateful cartoons is not worth it. The cartoons and the magazine was just a crap magazine with a small circulation until the attack and would never have received any notice or fame otherwise. They aren't going down in history as priceless works of art worth defending at all costs.

                  If Charlie Hebdo had any conscience at all, they would not risk other people's lives to promote their swill.
                  Well, I would LOVE it if they were hurt, bankrupted, etc... NOT for islam, but for ALL. But KILLED?

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811803].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Well, FWIW, this type terrorism started long before 2001 and I think Christianity is probably one of the most widely parodied and lampooned religions. It has been suggested that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was basically the only religious figure being lampooned on a regular basis which is absolute nonsense. I think we all know tons of people poke-fun, lampoon and/or otherwise disparage Christians on a regular basis --> again, can anyone say "Bill Maher"!?!
      Again can we say Bill Maher = US, Charlie Hebdo = France. France has laws that it selectively enforces against insults and speech that incites violence. Those laws were used against Charlie Hebdo to shut them down at one time and those laws are routinely used against people who insult Jews. Ask Galliano about insulting Jews.

      Further, I cited the US Supreme Court decision that the US speech does not include the "right to yell fire" in a theater or other speech that would inevitably put people in harm's way .... Here it is.

      Most Americans think that their free speech is absolute. But would they think it so absolute if someone were to verbally and openly support a known terror network, publicly announce plans to assassinate the president, or simply scream "fire" in a crowded theater?

      The 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck vs. United States set forth what today has been the ultimate test for free speech. Justice Oliver Holmes wrote in the courts final unanimous decision: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He went on further to state: "The words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
      If France wants to allow their innocent citizens to be put in harm's way so that Charlie Hebdo can promote anti-Muslim hate, then they're going to have a lot of "parades." If you want to allow groups to promote racism and hatred and religious intolerance, call it what it is rather than hiding behind the right to free speech.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810419].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Again can we say Bill Maher = US, Charlie Hebdo = France. France has laws that it selectively enforces against insults and speech that incites violence. Those laws were used against Charlie Hebdo to shut them down at one time and those laws are routinely used against people who insult Jews. Ask Galliano about insulting Jews.

        Further, I cited the US Supreme Court decision that the US speech does not include the "right to yell fire" in a theater or other speech that would inevitably put people in harm's way .... Here it is.



        If France wants to allow their innocent citizens to be put in harm's way so that Charlie Hebdo can promote anti-Muslim hate, then they're going to have a lot of "parades."
        The supreme court *****ALSO***** ruled that all should be treated the same, facts to the contrary be DAMNED! They *****ALSO***** ruled that it is ok to denigrate every facet of Christianity!

        ERGO.... They have ruled that it is ok to denigrate every facet of ISLAM!

        BTW the 1st amendment SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS preference to any religion! It is actually the VERY FIRST CLAUSE!

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810476].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          The supreme court *****ALSO***** ruled that all should be treated the same, facts to the contrary be DAMNED! They *****ALSO***** ruled that it is ok to denigrate every facet of Christianity!

          ERGO.... They have ruled that it is ok to denigrate every facet of ISLAM!

          Steve
          But Charlie Hebdo isn't under the rule of law in the US or the Supreme Court. It's France ... remember?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810479].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            But Charlie Hebdo isn't under the rule of law in the US or the Supreme Court. It's France ... remember?
            YOU started citing US law, so I just added my bit.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811475].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Again can we say Bill Maher = US, Charlie Hebdo = France. France has laws that it selectively enforces against insults and speech that incites violence. Those laws were used against Charlie Hebdo to shut them down at one time and those laws are routinely used against people who insult Jews. Ask Galliano about insulting Jews.
        ○ Your interpretation of French law and your definition of routinely is a bit off when speaking of satire and comedy. If the French make a few errors in enforcement then that's a different issue. Any errors that are made *should* be made on the side of allowing free speech and freedom of expression.

        ○ Charlie Hebdo has been operating within French law for almost 5 decades. Charlie Hedbo's predecessor, Hara-Kiri Hebdo, was banned in 1970 for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle. The title they published that got them shut down referenced the tragic fire at a disco that killed 146 people and the former French president's death. The headline they published was "Bal tragique à Colombey : 1 mort" and the offence they committed was Lèse-majesté against the deceased president. Charlie Hedbo was up and running immediately after the Hara-Kiri Hebdo closure.

        ○ Jewish satire is allowed in France and Charlie Hebo has published it in the past.

        Further, I cited the US Supreme Court decision that the US speech does not include the "right to yell fire" in a theater or other speech that would inevitably put people in harm's way .... Here it is.
        Yelling fire in a theater is an apple, publishing satirical cartoons is an orange.

        If France wants to allow their innocent citizens to be put in harm's way so that Charlie Hebdo can promote anti-Muslim hate, then they're going to have a lot of "parades."
        Cartoons do not put people in harm's way, what puts people in harm's way is the psychopathic mindset and ideologies of the killers.

        If you want to allow groups to promote racism and hatred and religious intolerance, call it what it is rather than hiding behind the right to free speech.
        France is not allowing groups to promote "racism and hatred and religious intolerance", and many of us fully understand why most of the free world allows the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Just because you think something is hate speech or racist does mean it is. Obviously the French government, millions of French people, most of the world's press, and most of 40+ foreign leaders that showed up in France stand with Carlie Hedbo and their right to publish the satire without being murdered for it. I second what President Obama has said on the subject as he hit the nail on the head.

        Just because you disapprove of, or are offended by, some of what Charlie Hedbo publishes does not mean they do not have the right to publish...which obviously they do. That's the beauty of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech...even though some may approve and others may not, you still have the right to it, and the thought police do not rule the day.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811273].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          ○ Your interpretation of French law and your definition of routinely is a bit off when speaking of satire and comedy. If the French make a few errors in enforcement then that's a different issue. Any errors that are made *should* be made on the side of allowing free speech and freedom of expression.

          ○ Charlie Hebdo has been operating within French law for almost 5 decades. Charlie Hedbo's predecessor, Hara-Kiri Hebdo, was banned in 1970 for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle. The title they published that got them shut down referenced the tragic fire at a disco that killed 146 people and the former French president's death. The headline they published was "Bal tragique à Colombey : 1 mort" and the offence they committed was Lèse-majesté against the deceased president. Charlie Hedbo was up and running immediately after the Hara-Kiri Hebdo closure.

          ○ Jewish satire is allowed in France and Charlie Hebo has published it in the past.
          Yeah yeah ... we get Tu es Charlie and you know french law comprehensively. yawn.

          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          France is not allowing groups to promote "racism and hatred and religious intolerance"

          Just because you disapprove of, or are offended by, some of what Charlie Hedbo publishes does not mean they do not have the right to publish...which obviously they do. That's the beauty of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech...even though some may approve and others may not, you still have the right to it, and the thought police do not rule the day.
          I don't expect you to have the same value that I do. It's racism, hatred, religious and cultural intolerance to me.

          But go ahead and support them all you want to. They will most likely vomit on you when they find out. lol.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811458].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    PARIS — Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen formally claimed responsibility on Wednesday for the deadly assault a week ago at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 people, saying that the target was chosen by the Qaeda leadership and referring to attackers as “two heroes of Islam.”

    The newspaper attack began three days of bloodshed that killed five more people and were immediately labeled France’s equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/wo...lie-hebdo.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810528].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Glad to see that India doesn't profess to "be Charlie". It appears that they are deeply offended by this new beer.

    The very first image on the New England Brewing Company's Facebook page is one some might consider odd, and others offensive, particularly for marketing beer -- a cartoon, robotic depiction of Mahatma Gandhi.

    But despite a company-issued apology on Jan. 3 in response to criticism, (the apology has since been taken down) the controversy over the sale of a beer called "Gandhi-Bot" is not yet over.

    Connecticut legislator Prasad Srinivasan doesn't think the apology is enough, and meets with brewing company owners on Wednesday.

    "I think they must take it one more level—to reconsider and rename that brand of beer," Srinivasan, a three-term legislator and the first Indian American elected to the Connecticut State House, told NBC News. "I find it despicable that they should use the name of Mahatma Gandhi."
    Connecticut Brewery Stirs Controversy With 'Gandhi-Bot' Beer




    I was checking out the list of names of world leaders who were at the photo op and noticed that India, Italy, and Australia were not mentioned. I'm sure there's lots more that declined the photo op since there's hundreds of countries, just noticed those off the top of my head.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810885].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
      Bernard Holtrop, one of the surviving cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, told Dutch newspaper Volkskrant:

      'We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,' and added that most of the support has come from people who have 'never seen Charlie Hebdo.'

      Charlie Hebdo cartoonist scoffs at surge in support after Paris attack | Daily Mail Online
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810911].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Midnight Oil View Post

        Bernard Holtrop, one of the surviving cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, told Dutch newspaper Volkskrant:

        'We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,' and added that most of the support has come from people who have 'never seen Charlie Hebdo.'

        Charlie Hebdo cartoonist scoffs at surge in support after Paris attack | Daily Mail Online
        Nice chap, huh? Well, Charlie Hebdo ... here's vomit back atcha .. but I'll bet they don't give the money back.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810914].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          but I'll bet they don't give the money back.
          Vomit on the people. Keep the cash clean.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810924].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Midnight Oil View Post

        Bernard Holtrop, one of the surviving cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, told Dutch newspaper Volkskrant:

        'We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,' and added that most of the support has come from people who have 'never seen Charlie Hebdo.'

        Charlie Hebdo cartoonist scoffs at surge in support after Paris attack | Daily Mail Online
        What's with the belligerence?

        Why piss or vomit on the people who have never seen or heard of your publication but now support you and your right to free speech and even your right to offend?

        I don't get it and think a retraction/clarification will be offered soon unless this goes hand and hand with Charlie's right to offend.

        Wow.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9810983].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author discrat
          I just hope after selling 5 million copies they give the extra bump in Revenue back to the famliies of the deceased. Or set up some Fund to help people who have gone thru similair events.

          An I just do not understand why they keep degrading the Prophet Mohammed ?

          Not because of infuriating the Terrorists but just because it is plain mean spirited towards
          the good Muslims

          I guess thats Freedom of Speech for you. This is getting really ugly
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811001].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by discrat View Post

            I just hope after selling 5 million copies they give the extra bump in Revenue back to the famliies of the deceased.
            Yeah ... that'll be happening I'm certain.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811010].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by discrat View Post

            I just hope after selling 5 million copies they give the extra bump in Revenue back to the famliies of the deceased. Or set up some Fund to help people who have gone thru similair events.

            An I just do not understand why they keep degrading the Prophet Mohammed ?

            Not because of infuriating the Terrorists but just because it is plain mean spirited towards
            the good Muslims

            I guess thats Freedom of Speech for you. This is getting really ugly
            So why don't you say that about the OTHER religions? People have denigrated ALL of them!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811470].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Originally Posted by Midnight Oil View Post

        Bernard Holtrop, one of the surviving cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, told Dutch newspaper Volkskrant:

        'We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,' and added that most of the support has come from people who have 'never seen Charlie Hebdo.'

        Charlie Hebdo cartoonist scoffs at surge in support after Paris attack | Daily Mail Online
        What ?? With 60K a week publication nobody outside of Paris even hardly knew who you were.
        Maybe this guy had the delusions that people like here in US actually knew about them before. And somehow in his convoluted mind he is thinking we didn't support him in past because we disagreed with their philosophy.

        I don't know. This is too weird and bizarre !!

        EDIT : Oh okay. Read the article. This older guy seems ( and looks) a little eccentric.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811014].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9811040].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    France is not playing around with terrorist sympathizers. Dieudonne has been arrested and detained...

    France ordered prosecutors around the country Wednesday to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism, announcing that 54 people had been arrested for those offenses since the Paris terror attacks.

    The order came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical newspaper fronting the Prophet Muhammad.

    Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech and especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust. In a message distributed to all French prosecutors and judges, the Justice Ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defend the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts.

    Among those detained was Dieudonne, a controversial, popular comic with repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism.
    http://hosted2.ap.org/AKJUN/2e515285...9b02d64d1a32c6

    Prosecutors had opened the case against him on Monday after he wrote “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – mixing the slogan “Je suis Charlie”, used in tribute to the journalists killed at magazine Charlie Hebdo, with a reference to gunman Amédy Coulibaly. Dieudonné was arrested on Wednesday.

    Coulibaly killed four people at a Jewish supermarket on Friday and a police officer the day before.
    Dieudonné arrested over Facebook post on Paris gunman | World news | The Guardian

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812052].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, I would LOVE it if they were hurt, bankrupted, etc... NOT for islam, but for ALL. But KILLED?

      Steve
      Well, terrorists don't just hurt or bandrupt .... they kill. The point is that Charlie Hebdo should bear all the risk and responsibility if they think their brand of speech is worth dying for.

      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      France is not playing around with terrorist sympathizers. Dieudonne has been arrested and detained...

      Cheers

      -don
      But of course ... they really don't like his humor and satire very much

      Forty-eight hours after hosting a massive march under the banner of free expression, France opened a criminal investigation of a controversial French comedian for a Facebook post he wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attack, and then this morning, arrested him for that post on charges of "defending terrorism." The comedian, Dieudonné (above), previously sought elective office in France on what he called an "anti-Zionist" platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country.

      The apparently criminal viewpoint he posted on Facebook declared: "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." Investigators concluded that this was intended to mock the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan and express support for the perpetrator of the Paris supermarket killings (whose last name was "Coulibaly"). Expressing that opinion is evidently a crime in the Republic of Liberté, which prides itself on a line of 20th Century intellectuals - from Sartre and Genet to Foucault and Derrida - whose hallmark was leaving no orthodoxy or convention unmolested, no matter how sacred.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    One brand mocks radicals and the other supports terrorists --> big difference.

    Dieudonné’s comments generated a wave of fury on the internet – including many angry reactions from his own fans on his Facebook page. His statement was withdrawn after less than an hour.

    The French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, called the comment "abject" and asked his officials to investigate whether the comedian should be prosecuted for breaching a French law which forbids "apology for" or encouragement of terrorism.

    The Prime Minister Manuel Valls made an impassioned attack on the comedian in the National Assembly on Tuesday. He called him a "peddler of hate and said there should be no confusion between the 'impertinent' satire of Charlie Hebdo and 'anti-semitism, racism and negationism'."
    His Facebook post:

    “After this historic, no legendary, march, a magic moment equal to the Big Bang which created the Universe, or in a smaller (more local) way comparable to the crowning of the (ancient Gaullish king) Vercingétorix, I am going home. Let me say that this evening, as far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-9976667.html

    Who is Coulibaly?



    The man who last week murdered four Jewish hostages in a kosher grocery and shot down a police officer nursed deep resentment against French law enforcement, according to his friends and court documents.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-at...ror-1421204761

    Staring straight into the camera with a murderous smirk, wicked Amedy Coulibaly talks with ruthless calm as he prepares to slaughter innocent civilians in the name of the Islamic State.

    The seven-and-a-half minute video emerged online and saw the gunman attempt to justify his bloody rampage by claiming it was revenge for the West’s military actions against the terror network.
    In his suicide tape, edited together by accomplices, Coulibaly – who calls himself Abou Bassir Abdallah al-Ifriqi – reveals he was in a “team” with the Kouachi brothers.

    It was filmed on Thursday, after he killed policewoman Clarissa Jean-Philippe, 27, in Montrouge, to the south of Paris.

    The footage begins with clips of the 32-year-old doing press-ups along with a verse from the Koran which includes the phrase “terrify the enemy of Allah”.

    The bearded maniac is then seen in a white djellaba robe sitting underneath a poster of the Islamic State flag. It is at this point when Coulibaly devotes himself to the terror network.

    “I am pledging my allegiance to the Caliph of the Muslims, Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi,” he says. “I have made a declaration of allegiance to the Caliph and the declaration of a Caliphate.”
    In the next clip, he casually leans on a wall wearing a black leather jacket, hat and gloves. Propped up next to him is a black AK47 assault rifle.

    In the comments that follow, he tries to “legitimise” his murderous actions.

    Coulibaly proclaims: “What we are in the process of doing is completely legitimate. It has been completely deserved for a long time.

    “For what you have done to the Islamic State, we are attacking you. You cannot attack us and expect nothing back in return.”

    Appearing to refer to French President Francois Hollande, he adds: “This is for you and your coalition, with you at its head.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...libaly-4961806

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      One brand mocks radicals and the other supports terrorists --> big difference

      -don
      Right. Of course. Actually, one brand mocks and ridicules and insults all Muslims, however, all Muslims are not murderous terrorists and suffer it silently.

      The other is nothing but speech. Was he building an arsenal? Did he communicate with terrorists? Have bomb making material in his house? Provide money or material support to terrorists? Did he shout out a call for bloodshed or revolt? Doubt it. He simply typed a sentence on Facebook that the free speech loving French did not like.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812101].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    It's French law... Inciting terrorism can get you a five-year prison term in France and inciting terrorism online can get you up to seven years in prison. France ordered prosecutors around the country to crackdown on people that are glorifying or defending terrorism and it looks like that is what they are doing. The law was passed 2012 following a series of shootings in France by Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah. It's seems now is as good as time as any to start enforcing it.

    If you stand with terrorists on your Facebook page then be prepared to pay the price if convicted for it.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812144].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      It's French law..
      There you have it. The French lawyer speaks.

      Funny .... one group actually did in fact incite a terrorist attack ... the other comedian ... not so much.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812171].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Funny how you ignore the French laws you don't like... Radical Islam incited the attacks and you know it.

    France's prime minister says his country "is at war with terrorism, jihadism and radical Islamism" but not with ordinary Muslims and their religion.
    Valls' remarks came ahead of a 488-to-1 vote to re-authorize French airstrikes against militants of the Islamic State in Iraq. French law requires a vote every four months to extend such operations.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-minister-says

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Funny how you ignore the French laws you don't like...radical Islam incited the attack and you know it.

      Cheers

      -don
      Yeah ... kind of like the French do.

      in·cite
      verb in-ˈsīt

      : to cause (someone) to act in an angry, harmful, or violent way

      : to cause (an angry, harmful, or violent action or feeling)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812201].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    That definition fits radical Islam and especially the radical Islamic leaders to a T. People in their right mind do not take up arms and commit violence against comics and satirists when they see or hear something they do not like. Radicals and Jihadists do...

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812206].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      You have just described radical Islamic leaders to a T. People in their right mind do not take up arms and commit violence against comics and satirists when they see or hear something they do not like. Radicals and Jihadists do...

      Cheers

      -don
      I think we're all well aware of what radicals do and don't do. Gee, I know I was aware. But calling a bunch of racist, hateful people cartoonists is where we disagree completely, and if you consistently something with the full knowledge that it will bring the wrath of terrorists down on you, that is the very definition of incite. And they knew it would since it happened to them previously. Like I said. I don't have a problem with it if it's their blood being shed and not innocent victims.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812210].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author positivenegative
        Well the shit has hit the fan now. This article, today, makes for interesting reading about the deliberate provocation by the pathetic French rag that tries to pass itself off as adult cartoon humour, as it's sure to have massive ramifications.

        Lampooning the biggest religion in the world is one thing, but then deliberately doing it again after so many lives have just been lost because of it is not only stupidity at it's worst but also an insult to the memory of those who died. It's a certainty that it will fuel and incite more hatred . . . which in turn will lead to more deaths.

        Charlie Hebdo: Muslim media anger at new cartoon


        But then again they know this. And do they care as long as the money keeps rolling in. Blood money of course. Millions of copies of the latest edition printed and more on order. Oh, and it seems the lunacy season has started in earnest . . .

        Charlie Hebdo 'survivor issue' on sale on eBay for more than £1,500
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812245].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Good thing you don't live in France as you might be one of those that are rounded up for your posts to this thread. And before you say it, we know it will be cold day in hel* before you live in France. We got it....you don't like French law.

    The only people that are "incited" to commit violence by satire and comedy are psychopaths and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists. You may have noticed much of the world is at war with the extremists and here you are on the thread talking about you have no problem with Islamic extremists killing the cartoonists. Talk about killing innocents...

    Simpy unbelievable.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812222].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Good thing you don't live in France as you might be one of those that are rounded up for your posts to this thread. And before you say it, we know it would be cold day in hel* before you lived in France. We got it....you don't like French law.

      The only people that are "incited" to commit violence by satire and comedy are psychopaths and those that have bought into mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists. You may have noticed much of the world is at war with the extremists and here you are on the thread talking about you have no problem with Islamic extremists killing the cartoonists. Talk about killing innocents....

      Simpy unbelievable.

      Cheers

      -don
      So you're saying that Muslim cops (who are insulted and mocked by Hebdo) and Jewish people should die because they (Hebdo) chose to poke a stick at terrorists?

      There is nothing innocent about the hideous brand of racism Hebdo promotes. If they believe in it, they should bear the risk rather than people who don't spend their lives mocking other people for their culture, religion or race.

      Simply unbelievable that you think others should die defending speech they would never say, cartoons they would never draw.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    I never said anything like that, and please stop pretending that you know what I think.

    What I will say is the terrorists should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression, and all places where blasphemy is legal because they have a hard time coexisting without murdering innocents --> and the cartoonists were innocents. It's unfortunate and tragic that any innocent is killed by terrorists.

    Again, you call it racism but the French and most of the rest of the world clearly understand it is not racism.

    Furthermore, the Quran does say kill those who mock the religion ---> far from it.

    “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
    Do not sit with them does NOT mean kill them!

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      What I will say is the terrorists should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of expression because they have a hard time coexisting without murdering innocents --> and the cartoonists were innocents. It's unfortunate and tragic that any innocent is killed by terrorists.

      Again, you call it racism but the French and most of the rest of the world clearly understand it is not racism. Furthermore, the Quran does say kill those who mock the religion ---> far from it.

      Do not sit with them does NOT mean kill them!

      Cheers

      -don
      Who hasn't said that terrorists should be hunted down and killed? Hmmm? You think that's a new concept? Oh, and we know that the Quran doesn't promote violence. We also know that most Muslims are not terrorists. Got anything new? Maybe some charts and graphs?

      The rest of the world ... well, not exactly. I've read many articles that describe Hebdo as racists. Many people don't think they're in the least bit funny or cool. They think they're racists spreading hate and intolerance.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812254].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Furthermore, the Quran does say kill those who mock the religion ---> far from it.
      Depends on where you look.

      Fight against those who

      (1) believe not in Allah,
      (2) nor in the Last Day,
      (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
      (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29]

      And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]"
      —Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:29-30

      Islam and violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Make no mistake. We are all pretty much condemned by the extremists at this point.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812325].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      The only people that are "incited" to commit violence by satire and comedy are psychopaths and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists.
      Actually, this isn't necessarily true. A lot of people assume terrorists and religious extremists who commit these horrific acts of violence are psychopaths. While a small percentage might be, most of these individuals don't fit the clinical profile of a psychopath.

      You have to remember that psychopaths have no conscience. They have no genuine regard for anyone. People are merely objects to them. They don't have meaningful connections with others (they may appear to, but those are superficial and always self-serving). They aren't motivated by a "cause" that they believe in very strongly.

      These extremists often don't fit that profile at all. From our perspective they are evil, cold-blooded murderers who go around slaughtering innocent people. From their perspective, they are justified in taking extreme measures for a cause (usually political or religious). They don't believe they are killing "innocent" people - quite the opposite, actually.

      The motivation for killing that drives most terrorists and extremists is usually not the same as that which drives a violent psychopath.

      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      What I will say is the terrorists should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech...
      You (and probably the vast majority of people) believe terrorists should be "wiped out" - put to death for their actions (or at least put behind bars for the rest of their lives). I, too, believe they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. But is believing they deserve to be "wiped out" really that different than what these extremists believe should happen to those who so flagrantly ridicule their faith?

      Please don't get me wrong; I understand where you are coming from.

      My point, however, is that the heart of the issue is essentially the same on both sides: reprehensible behavior deserves severe punishment. But we (most people in general vs terrorists) have very different ideas regarding what qualifies as reprehensible and deserving of death. Their viewpoint and behavior - no matter how extreme or unjustified we believe it to be - doesn't automatically make them psychopaths.

      (Here's an article that may help shed more light on this: Are Terrorists Psychotic or Psychopaths)
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812362].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

        Actually, this isn't necessarily true. A lot of people assume terrorists and religious extremists who commit these horrific acts of violence are psychopaths. While a small percentage might be, most of these individuals don't fit the clinical profile of a psychopath.
        Hi Cali,

        Actually, what I said is true, and it appears as if you misread my statement(s). I said "psychopaths AND those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists."

        Of course other extremists, terrorists, and separatists (like the Tamil Tigers) murder because of *other* beliefs and ideologies, but on this thread we are talking about Islamic extremists killing cartoonists, cops, maintenance staff, folks at a Jewish grocery store, and a jogger.

        Again, please note the latter part of the sentence where I make the distinction: and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists.

        You have to remember that psychopaths have no conscience. They have no genuine regard for anyone. People are merely objects to them. They don't have meaningful connections with others (they may appear to, but those are superficial and always self-serving). They aren't motivated by a "cause" that they believe in very strongly.
        Yes, I know this, and that's exactly why I said: "psychopaths AND those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists."

        These extremists often don't fit that profile at all. From our perspective they are evil, cold-blooded murderers who go around slaughtering innocent people. From their perspective, they are justified in taking extreme measures for a cause (usually political or religious). They don't believe they are killing "innocent" people - quite the opposite, actually.
        They are not allowed to take "extreme measures for a cause" (COMMIT MASS MURDER etc.) in France or other countries in the Western (and many other parts of the) world. In-fact Its illegal to commit murder in most parts of the world. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

        The motivation for killing that drives most terrorists and extremists is usually not the same as that which drives a violent psychopath.
        Obviously, and that's why I said: "and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists." The motivation for these attacks appear to be the ideology and the mindset of the Islamic extremists, and that's exactly why I said what I said.

        You (and probably the vast majority of people) believe terrorists should be "wiped out" - put to death for their actions (or at least put behind bars for the rest of their lives).
        I, too, believe they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. But is believing they deserve to be "wiped out" really that different than what these extremists believe should happen to those who so flagrantly ridicule their faith?
        That is not what I believe and it is not what I said. You must have missed the part where I said "or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech."

        My full statement was: "What I will say is the terrorists should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech."

        To expound a little further, the known terrorists that insist on murdering innocent people should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. If they continue to murder folks for expressing their right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, then of course they need to be driven out. If they act out and try to kill us, and we know someone is directing them from afar, then they probably deserve a drone strike. We all know President Obama has made A LOT of drone strikes on the extremists so obviously he believes the same. If they attempt another attack, then the attackers should be killed if they can't be arrested and it is the only way to stop them.

        Please don't get me wrong; I understand where you are coming from.
        But it seems as it you may have been doing a bit of selective reading.

        My point, however, is that the heart of the issue is essentially the same on both sides: reprehensible behavior deserves severe punishment.
        Satire is legal, murder is not. It's not even close to being the same...

        But we (terrorists versus the rest of us in general) have very different ideas regarding what qualifies as reprehensible and deserving of death.
        The laws in France govern this matter and satire is legal, murder is not.

        Their viewpoint and behavior - no matter how extreme or unjustified we believe it to be - doesn't automatically make them psychopaths. (Here's an article that may help shed more light on this.)
        Again, you may have been doing a little selective reading because it appears you missed this: "and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists". I understand exactly what you are saying and that's exactly why I wrote:

        "The only people that are "incited" to commit violence by satire and comedy are psychopaths AND those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists."

        Keyphrase ---> "and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists". I did not say all terrorists are psychopaths, nor did I infer it.

        I hope that clears it up for you.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

    Who hasn't said that terrorists should be hunted down and killed? Hmmm? You think that's a new concept?
    It sounds like it might be for you... You did say this:

    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

    I would have zero problem with it if the terrorists only killed all of them and no one else
    No need for charts and graphs on this one. Most of the free world supports Charlie Hedbo's right to publish satirical cartoons without being murdered for it.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812264].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      It sounds like it might be for you... You did say this:

      No need for charts and graphs on this one. Most of the free world supports Charlie Hedbo's right to publish satirical cartoons without being murdered for it.

      Cheers

      -don
      They may have the right to incite violence, spread hate, insult, mock and ridicule people based on their beliefs without being murdered for it (hiding behind the guise of satire), but it's apparent that isn't reality, and anyone who reads news knows that terrorists will retaliate if you mock their prophet. So while they have the right to do that, they run the risk of retaliation, whether anyone likes it or not.

      I would have zero problem with it if the terrorists only killed all of them and no one else
      Yes, I most certainly did say that and firmly believe that if they feel their hateful anti-Muslim cartoons are worth dying for, let it be them that die for them, and not someone who is not guilty of spreading anti-Muslim cartoons and insulting people based on their religious beliefs.

      Personally, I don't expect others to die for my beliefs, nor would I deliberately put them in harm's way and say ... well, thems the breaks kiddos ... I have rights.

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Racism is a PC word that is used as a blanket cover for anything anyone says that someone else want's to bitch about. Liberals use it to intimidate people into not talking about inconvenient or uncomfortable truths.

      Islam isn't a race - on the moderate ends it's a religion - at the extremist end, it's Political tyranny. Purely philosophical, not one damned drop physical.
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Simply put - here's exactly what France thinks of US opinions about Charlie, his humor and US attitudes and air-raid siren like screaming "racist".

      Maybe you might want to consider looking at it from their point of view instead of ours.

      dear US followers

      And here's what a Muslim thinks about Islamaphobia not being racist

      From the perspective of a *gasp* Muslim
      Does this make me immune to discrimination that Muslims face? Certainly not, given the long hours I have spent in immigration queues, undergoing extended background checks and visa processing times. So clearly, in that sense, Islam is not a race, but Muslims are. It's entirely legitimate to question and interrogate Islam as a religion. It is not fair to do so against Muslims based on their religious or cultural identity.

      Equally, it is disingenuous to claim that Islam has no colour. There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia. Muslims in the UK are predominantly brown, Asian or Arab, and there have been instances where non-Muslims from Asian communities have been lumped together with Muslims and discriminated against.

      After the 9/11 attacks, some bearded and turbaned Sikh men found themselves coming under hostile scrutiny. Following the more recent Boston bombings, some media outlets described suspects as being of "Muslim appearance" - whatever that is. In the wake of Theo Van Gogh murder, racist targeting of Muslim immigrants increased.

      When discrimination against some eastern Europeans in the UK is called racism, you don't hear cries of "Polish is not a race" to justify plain prejudice. The fixation on terminology and not the reality suggests a society that does not want to come to terms with the creeping ugliness of hatred. The likes of the BNP and EDL lack even a basic grasp of the rudiments of Islam, let alone an ability to parse religion and race.

      Racism is behaviour, not an informed academic position. I doubt that anyone abusing Muslims in the street, or defacing a mosque, or snatching a veil off a woman's face, has paused to examine their premise beforehand. The argument that Islam is not a race is a cop out. It's time that we dispensed with it once and for all, because it prevents us from identifying acts motivated by hatred for what they really are. Islam might not be a race, but using that as a fig leaf for your unthinking prejudice is almost certainly racist.
      Another Muslim perspective

      https://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/...race-argument/

      Another point of view

      Islam Is Not A Race–But Anti-Muslim Bigotry Is Still Very Often Racist
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812760].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Out of interest Suzanne,

        How much real life experience have you had with Islamic extremism? I used to work in Luton, that's where the 7/7 bombers set off from to blow up their bombs in London. Do you live in an area that has regular marches demanding Sharia law in your town? I'm not being rude, I'm genuinely asking because I do.

        Luton is a town filled with lots of moderate Muslims that don't kill people over cartoons. In fact all the people in the video below are law abiding citizens.

        You may may or may not be in agreement with them but don't you think non Muslims may find this a bit annoying? This was 3 years ago, it's significantly worse now.


        One thing I would say regarding the Muslims point of view in your quote. The BNP has been around for years and is vanishing fast mainly due to government and continual media onslaughts and internal fighting. The EDL was a direct response to the rise of Islamic extremism in Britain and it's former leader who began it was from...wait for it....Luton.

        This bit really tickled me too.

        After the 9/11 attacks, some bearded and turbaned Sikh men found themselves coming under hostile scrutiny. Following the more recent Boston bombings, some media outlets described suspects as being of "Muslim appearance" – whatever that is. In the wake of Theo Van Gogh murder, racist targeting of Muslim immigrants increased.
        Lets read that again.

        After over 2000 people were murdered by Islamic extremists in New York, there were attacks on Sikhs who were mistaken for Muslims (God only knows what sort ignorant nob can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim). After two Chechen Muslims tried to kill as many people as possible the news suggested they were of Islamic appearance (I agree that's silly) and after Theo was killed, there were revenge attacks.

        With respect, if Hebdo should expect revenge for insulting the prophet, I should think Muslims should expect some of the more unhinged members of the societies in which they decided to live, to exact some form of revenge on them when the fringe elements of their religion indiscriminately murder as many random people they've never met before, as possible.

        I agree racism is just a blanket term though. Attacking Muslims is called racism no matter how you look at it. Islamophobia isn't a nice thing and it only serves the extremists even more.

        Either way this is going to get worse. Much worse and I'm starting to think, give it another x amount of years, they'll win too.

        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        God forbid, anyone else gets killed because of Charlie.

        If it happens I also hope its only those who do the cartoons and work there etc. and not someone who has nothing to do with the publication.
        Yes, like the 4 gunned down in cold blood in the supermarket.

        Sadly I fear this is just the start.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812817].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          Out of interest Suzanne,

          How much real life experience have you had with Islamic extremism? I used to work in Luton, that's where the 7/7 bombers set off from to blow up their bombs in London. Do you live in an area that has regular marches demanding Sharia law in your town? I'm not being rude, I'm genuinely asking because I do.

          Luton is a town filled with lots of moderate Muslims that don't kill people over cartoons. In fact all the people in the video below are law abiding citizens.

          You may may be in agreement with them but don't you think non Muslims may find this a bit annoying? This was 3 years ago, it's significantly worse now.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psZBaJU_Cvo

          One thing I would say regarding the Muslims point of view above. The BNP has been around for years and is vanishing fast mainly due to government and continual media onslaughts and internal fighting. The EDL was a direct response to the rise of Islamic extremism in Britain and it's former leader who began it was from...wait for it....Luton.

          This bit really tickled me too.



          Lets read that again.

          After over 2000 people were murdered by Islamic extremists in New York, there were attacks on Sikhs who were mistaken for Muslims (God only knows what sort ignorant nob can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim). After two Chechen Muslims tried to kill as many people as possible the news suggested they were of Islamic appearance (I agree that's silly) and after Theo was , there were revenge attacks.

          With respect, if Hebdo should expect revenge for insulting the prophet, I should think Muslims should expect some of the more unhinged members of the societies in which they decided to live, to exact some form of revenge on them when the fringe elements of their religion indiscriminately murder as many random people they've never met before, as possible.

          I agree racism is just a blanket term though. Attacking Muslims is called racism no matter how you look at it. Islamophobia isn't a nice thing and it only serves the extremists even more.

          Either way this is going to get worse. Much worse and I'm starting to think, give it another x amount of years, they'll win too.
          You said...


          Do you live in an area that has regular marches demanding Sharia law in your town?


          I say...


          You've got to be kidding - but I guess you're not.

          IMHO, it takes a whole lot of nerve and ignorance to march for Sharia law in any country that is not seriously dominated by Muslims - like all of the western countries.

          Wow!

          Once again, are you serious?
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812823].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You said...


            Do you live in an area that has regular marches demanding Sharia law in your town?


            I say...


            You've got to be kidding - but I guess you're not.
            No I'm not. I go to Luton regularly on Business. I worked there for 3 years. This isn't something new.

            The black flag of ISIS is flying in London » Spectator Blogs

            I think it takes a whole lot of nerve and ignorance to march for Sharia law in any country that is not dominated by Muslims - like all of the western countries.
            Not really. They nearly always get a police escort. I don't think perhaps you understand the demographics.. Every city has large Islamic populations here. Almost every town has a mosque and Islamic presence. They always come out in large groups, very large.

            I think it takes someone very brave like the girl in the video to do what she did with that many around her.

            Once again, are you serious?
            100%

            Video: UK Muslims demand Sharia Law in Britain. | European Daily News.org
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812839].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

              No I'm not. I go to Luton regularly on Business. I worked there for 3 years. This isn't something new.

              The black flag of ISIS is flying in London » Spectator Blogs



              Not really. They nearly always get a police escort. I don't think perhaps you understand the demographics.. Every city has large Islamic populations here. Almost every town has a mosque and Islamic presence. They always come out in large groups, very large.

              I think it takes someone very brave like the girl in the video to do what she did with that many around her.



              100%

              Video: UK Muslims demand Sharia Law in Britain. | European Daily News.org
              Even if they dominate in certain cities/areas of a western country, I still think it takes a whole lot of nerve to demand sharia law in any part of a country and/or the whole country that is not dominated by Muslims.

              If the country had a majority of Muslims then I can see it, but not if that's not the case.

              I think Muslims in America know better than even trying that crap here but who knows what the future holds.

              IMHO, Its ridiculous.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812858].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Even if they dominate in certain cities/areas of a western country, I still think it takes a whole lot of nerve to demand sharia law in any part of a country and/or the whole country that is not dominated by Muslims.

                If the country had a majority of Muslims than I can see it, but not if that's not the case.

                I think Muslims in America know better than even trying that crap here but who knows what the future holds.

                IMHO, Its ridiculous.
                They've ALREADY STARTED! The terrorists, calls for sharia and facilitation in requirements, building up the population, "evangelizing", some unofficial sharia courts, acting on their behalf, etc... Apparently they have done the same thing in germany. And it is apparently REALLY bad in the UK! And Paris has them!

                Did You Know There Are Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones In The USA | Truth Uncensored

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812995].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Claim: Dearborn, Michigan, has become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law.

                  FALSE

                  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

                  "City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law" -- Is there any validity to this story?

                  Origins: On 28 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing Dearborn, Michigan (a city with a historically large Muslim population), had become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law:

                  In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

                  The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.

                  By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."

                  The National Report's disclaimer page notes:
                  National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813024].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.
                    Because people who spend their lives on FB and Twitter may not be the brightest bulbs in the hall....so anxious to "pass it on" they don't understand what it is they pass on....and the info goes our to other social media people who believe anything they read online....

                    And some posting this stuff have a slant and personal agenda - and will deliberately pass on anything that supports their personal viewpoint with no regard for truth....
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                    I'm going to work on being less condescending
                    (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813113].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      Because people who spend their lives on FB and Twitter may not be the brightest bulbs in the hall....so anxious to "pass it on" they don't understand what it is they pass on....and the info goes our to other social media people who believe anything they read online....

                      And some posting this stuff have a slant and personal agenda - and will deliberately pass on anything that supports their personal viewpoint with no regard for truth....
                      This was only one of MANY that came up on google when I looked up no go zones. I have ONE non accessed account on facebook, so I could thank some people, and NOTHING ELSE. I have NO twitter account. And I certainly didn't deliberately post something known to be false.

                      I'm not a "dim bulb", but know this is true enough that I took the first at face value.

                      With people getting stoned, and parents even killing their daughters for a relatively minor infraction, or doing genital mutilation, and like 75%(or is it 25%. Either way, it is a LOT) of moslems saying they agree with such things, WOW!

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813221].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        With people getting stoned, and parents even killing their daughters for a relatively minor infraction, or doing genital mutilation, and like 75% (or is it 25%. Either way, it is a LOT) of moslems saying they agree with such things, WOW!

                        Steve
                        Well Steve, people in the US are murdered every day for some stupid reason or another, but I can't recall seeing a news story of Muslims stoning someone in the streets here, but there have been a couple of cases of Muslims and others who killed their daughters for disobedience ... thing is ... they're in jail, because ultimately, they are subject to the laws of the US and stoning, murder, GM are not allowed here.

                        EDIT: Steve ... Google Sundown Town if you want to see no go zones in the US
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813261].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                          Well Steve, people in the US are murdered every day for some stupid reason or another, but I can't recall seeing a news story of Muslims stoning someone in the streets here, but there have been a couple of cases of Muslims and others who killed their daughters for disobedience ... thing is ... they're in jail, because ultimately, they are subject to the laws of the US and stoning, murder, GM are not allowed here.
                          Yep, just illustrating adherence, etc... And we certainly don't hear everything. HEY, I ercently heard about the mayor of rotterdam being the son of an imam and being AGAINST this garbage. He told those that might riot to simply LEAVE! I cleaned up how HE put it! I DID check THAT out, and I made a thread here about him, saying there should be more like him. I'm not against anyone simply because of that kind of stuff. When asked, I even translated a bit of what he said to the people of paris, and IT was a good sentiment, and in French. I don't know if he even knew french, but SOMEONE went to the trouble to get that into the dutch speech. So they wanted the french to know PRECISELY what they were saying.

                          So I am certainly NOT against speaking about the GOOD. I don't think he even mentioned any religion. He spoke about the IDEA of being so violent because of something as simple as an insult from a humorist. So he was speaking to EVERYONE, even though it currently pertained to those like those in France.

                          Steve
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813289].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    Claim: Dearborn, Michigan, has become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law.

                    FALSE

                    Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

                    "City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law" -- Is there any validity to this story?

                    Origins: On 28 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing Dearborn, Michigan (a city with a historically large Muslim population), had become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law:

                    In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

                    The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.

                    By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."

                    The National Report's disclaimer page notes:
                    National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.
                    OK, there are a LOT of statements of this sort for different countries. To discount the whole because some IDIOT wants to lampoon the idea is silly at best. Sorry to falling prey to this case. My point stands. I have heard german news speak of such things in germany, and "unofficially", it HAS happened in the US, and I heard from someone in Paris that it happened THERE, and there is THIS new video:


                    As for ME? I have no ax to grind. If all this were a farse, I would LOVE to have it proven to be so. But this IS getting bad, and that is the point of this THREAD!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813180].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    Claim: Dearborn, Michigan, has become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law.

                    FALSE

                    Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

                    "City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law" -- Is there any validity to this story?

                    Origins: On 28 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing Dearborn, Michigan (a city with a historically large Muslim population), had become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia law:

                    In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

                    The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.

                    By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."

                    The National Report's disclaimer page notes:
                    National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.

                    Seasoned lead the charge in here to ban that Muslim community center in NYC that was supposed to be overlooking ground zero - which is was not.

                    Remember the hysteria over that?
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813187].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

              No I'm not. I go to Luton regularly on Business. I worked there for 3 years. This isn't something new.

              Not really. They nearly always get a police escort. I don't think perhaps you understand the demographics.. Every city has large Islamic populations here. Almost every town has a mosque and Islamic presence. They always come out in large groups, very large.
              The US has it's share of Muslims. In Virginia alone, there are 96 mosques, with many more in the rest of the states according to this list
              List of mosques in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              I've lived in Northern VA for many years until the last few years when I moved to the country, which has always been an extremely multi-cultural, international part of the state, due to it's proximity to Wash DC.

              I can think of no instances where anyone marched for Sharia Law or any instances where we were concerned about the Muslim population in any way. I've had my share of Muslim friends.

              It is difficult to estimate accurately the total number of Muslims in the United States and the rest of North America. Research scientist Carol Stone states that “it is still unclear how many Muslims currently reside in America...because of a lack of reliable information about Muslims in this country.”

              There are several main reasons why this is so. First, for the past 50 years the United States government (unlike some countries) has not included questions about religious affiliation in its census. Dr. James Dretke, executive director of the Zwemer Institute, states that a second factor “is the fact that Muslims do not join mosques as Christians join churches, so it is impossible to count them from membership rolls.” Roland Miller gives a third reason: “Religious statistics are notoriously difficult to compile because of affiliation questions and reporting problems. Muslim statisticians routinely give higher figures.”

              Nevertheless, both Christian and Muslim sources assert that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2000 gives the figure of 3,950,000 Muslims in America today. Islamic Horizons states that there are eight to ten million Muslims in North America. The most common figure cited (the statistic the United States government regularly uses) is about six million. The largest concentrations of Muslims are in California, New York, and Illinois — with an estimated 400,000 in the Chicago area.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812859].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          Out of interest Suzanne,

          How much real life experience have you had with Islamic extremism? I used to work in Luton, that's where the 7/7 bombers set off from to blow up their bombs in London. Do you live in an area that has regular marches demanding Sharia law in your town? I'm not being rude, I'm genuinely asking because I do.

          Luton is a town filled with lots of moderate Muslims that don't kill people over cartoons. In fact all the people in the video below are law abiding citizens.

          You may may be in agreement with them but don't you think non Muslims may find this a bit annoying? This was 3 years ago, it's significantly worse now.
          I have the same experience as most .... I read the news avidly, I live on the East coast where one of the worst terrorist attacks occurred ... and I can't watch your video here in the boondocks due to bandwidth constraints.

          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          With respect, if Hebdo should expect revenge for insulting the prophet, I should think Muslims should expect some of the more unhinged members of the societies in which they decided to live, to exact some form of revenge on them when the fringe elements of their religion indiscriminately murder as many random people they've never met before, as possible.

          I agree racism is just a blanket term though. Attacking Muslims is called racism no matter how you look at it. Islamophobia isn't a nice thing and it only serves the extremists even more.

          Either way this is going to get worse. Much worse and I'm starting to think, give it another x amount of years, they'll win too.
          I thought this article was interesting today.

          France to protect all religions, vows Francois Hollande

          President Hollande: "Muslims are the first victims of fanaticism, fundamentalism and intolerance"

          French President Francois Hollande has vowed that his country will protect all religions, saying that Muslims are the main victims of fanaticism.

          Speaking at the Arab World Institute, he said Islam was compatible with democracy and thanked Arabs for their solidarity over terrorism in Paris.

          Attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine, a Jewish supermarket and a policewoman killed 17 people last week.

          Funeral ceremonies for several of the victims are being held.

          Among them are two of Charlie Hebdo's best known cartoonists, Bernard Verlhac - known as Tignous - and Georges Wolinski.

          There are also funerals taking place for Charlie Hebdo columnist Elsa Cayat and Franck Brinsolaro, a policeman assigned to guard Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier.
          'Obligation to protect'

          Speaking on Thursday morning, Mr Hollande said the French were united in the face of terror.

          "French Muslims have the same rights as all other French," he said. "We have the obligation to protect them.

          "Anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic acts have to be condemned and punished."

          Mr Hollande said that radical Islam had fed off contradictions, poverty, inequality and conflict, and that "it is Muslims who are the first victims of fanaticism, fundamentalism and intolerance".
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            I have the same experience as most .... I read the news avidly, I live on the East coast where one of the worst terrorist attacks occurred ... and I can't watch your video here in the boondocks due to bandwidth constraints.
            That's a shame.

            It's a girl who has gone to Luton and there's a pro Sharia and pro Islam march with lots of aggressive looking men and Bhurka wearing Muslims shouting things like "British police go to hell", "UK go to hell", carrying similar placards saying other things like "Sharia the solution for the UK", in the end she wound up being heckled by a number of people and told to put some clothes on as she was wearing a long dress in Summer. One of the men was very aggressively pointing in her face.

            The telling bit was when she says to one "Isn't it bad to say people should burn in hell" to which he replies he can say what he wants, he has freedom of speech. Then she said "Doesn't the Quran say you should respect the land you live in" to which he replied "No it doesn't".

            Finally it ends up with Anjem Choudary explaining how they don't listen to man made laws, just those in the Quran.

            Granted, they are extremists but there are a lot of them and they bully and coerce the moderate ones.

            Heck there's big thing at the moment about their attempts to take over schools here.

            Operation Trojan Horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Largest Crowd in French History Turns Out Against Terror, 3.7 Million Strong

    40 Presidents and Prime Ministers on the Streets of Paris

    Charlie Hebdo Prints 5 Million Copies










    French President Francois Hollande

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel

    British Prime Minister David Cameron

    Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi

    Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy

    Romanian President Klaus Iohannis

    European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker

    European Parliament president Martin Schulz

    European Union president Donald Tusk

    Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg

    Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz

    Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt

    Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel

    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras

    Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny

    Portuguese Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho

    Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka

    Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico

    Latvian Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma

    Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

    Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic

    Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel

    Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat

    Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar

    Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven

    Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko

    Swiss President Simonetta Sommaruga

    Kosovo President Atifete Jahjaga

    Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama

    Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

    Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg

    Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibachvili

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

    Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz

    Canadian public safety minister Steven Blaney

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman

    Jordanian King Abdullah II and Queen Rania

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas

    United Arab Emirates foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan

    Qatari Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani

    Bahrain Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled ben Ahmed Al Khalifa and Prince Abdullah Ben Hamad al-Khalifa

    Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita

    Gabonese President Ali Bongo

    Niger President Mahamadou Issoufou

    Benin President Thomas Boni Yayi

    Tunisian Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa

    Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812274].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu


      Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov


      The irony (or hypocrisy if you prefer), of these two showing up for a rally on "free speech" and particularly "press freedom" is staggering.

      List of Russian journalists killed under Putin/Medvedev/Putin

      Arrest of Turkish journalists widely condemned across the world.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812319].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        @ whateverpedia

        Agreed, and I have previously posted similar sentiments about some of those that attended. That said, the show of support from the 3.7 million French citizens, and the majority the world leaders that attended is both welcomed and unprecedented, and we can not discount that fact.

        Just because a few leaders seem hypocritical, it's possible that we may be able to garner more support from them in the war against radical Islam and the Jihadists, and that could be one of the takeaways from their attendance. In-fact standing up against the terrorists may be why they attended. Russia does not need Jihadists and Islamic extremists killing their citizens just like the other countries don't. Let us not forget the Beslan (Russia) school hostage crisis in which 385 hostages died, including 186 children. For those that don't remember the event, Islamic-nationalist guerrillas had taken 1,100 hostages including 777 children back in 2004.

        That said, as far as Islam goes, a great many of those that practice say it is a peaceful religion and they do not condone the murder of anyone. Only radicals support murder, and those that condone murder are not compatible with modern society as evidenced by the war on terror that has been going on for quite sometime now. Of course many argue that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Simply put - here's exactly what France thinks of US opinions about Charlie, his humor and US attitudes and air-raid siren like screaming "racist".

    Maybe you might want to consider looking at it from their point of view instead of ours.

    dear US followers
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812481].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Simply put - here's exactly what France thinks of US opinions about Charlie, his humor and US attitudes and air-raid siren like screaming "racist".

      Maybe you might want to consider looking at it from their point of view instead of ours.

      dear US followers
      That genuinely saddened me. Thanks to peoples reactions to Paris the terrorists have succeeded in murdering the cartoonists and sowing discord among their enemies. If I was the terrorists I'd be very happy with myself.

      Interestingly for people saying how 'Racist' Charlie Hebdo is.

      If I was a Muslim in Dagestan or Chechenya, I'd be white.

      If I was Muslim in Nigeria I'd be black.

      In Indonesia I'd be Javanese.

      If I was a Uighur Muslim I'd be Oriental.

      If I lived in the Middle East I'd be Asian (At least they're called that in the UK).


      If there is every race in Islam, how can Islam be a race?
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812540].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        That'd genuinely saddened me. Thanks to peoples reactions to Paris the terrorists have succeeded in murdering the cartoonists and sowing discord among their enemies. If I was the terrorists I'd be very happy with myself.

        Interestingly for people saying how 'Racist' Charlie Hebdo is.

        If I was a Muslim in Dagestan or Chechenya, I'd be white.

        If I was Muslim in Nigeria I'd be black.

        In Indonesia I'd be Javanese.

        If I was a Uighur Muslim I'd be Oriental.

        If I lived in the Middle East I'd be Asian (At least they're called that in the UK).


        If there is every race in Islam, how can Islam be a race?
        Racism is a PC word that is used as a blanket cover for anything anyone says that someone else want's to bitch about. Liberals use it to intimidate people into not talking about inconvenient or uncomfortable truths.

        Islam isn't a race - on the moderate ends it's a religion - at the extremist end, it's Political tyranny. Purely philosophical, not one damned drop physical.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812577].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Racism is a PC word that is used as a blanket cover for anything anyone says that someone else want's to bitch about. Liberals use it to intimidate people into not talking about inconvenient or uncomfortable truths.

          Islam isn't a race - on the moderate ends it's a religion - at the extremist end, it's Political tyranny. Purely philosophical, not one damned drop physical.
          You're quite right of course, I was just thinking it'd be amusing in a court of law if I was being done for racism after slagging off a Dagestani Muslim.

          It'd be quite interesting to see the response to "But your honour, the defendant is the same race as myself".
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    God forbid, anyone else gets killed because of Charlie's antics verses Muslims. But only the craziest of Muslims would carry out an attack.

    If it happens I also hope its only those who do the cartoons and work there etc. and not someone who has nothing to do with the publication.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9812816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I have a hard time with any group that starts moving into a country then demanding that country abide by their religion or law. If they don't like our laws - they need to stay the f*** home and not bother us. I don't care what their religion says - I don't believe in it and I am not going to be told I have to respect any group that is nothing but violent dogs. And no - I didn't just call all muslims dogs - I called the Jihad extremists dogs - and frankly, I feel bad for insulting dogs.

    Richard - I don't think most people in the US even know what Sikh is. It's a shame, too. These people are really non violent and you will never hear one in your face about why you should believe like they do. One of the most non-intrusive religions and people I know of.

    Suzanne - I know you have heard the quote from Franklin: Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety will have nor deserve neither.

    I do not think you understand the least word of that quote. When you have to be so afraid to speak your mind because someone might kill you for it - um..........that's called Tyranny. If you let it spread, you'll soon be bowing to the people who insist on your silence. Don't forget what your life means to these terrorists, whether you mock them or not. You do realize how they treat women wherever they're allowed to get away with it?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813589].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Suzanne - I know you have heard the quote from Franklin: Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety will have nor deserve neither.

      I do not think you understand the least word of that quote. When you have to be so afraid to speak your mind because someone might kill you for it - um..........that's called Tyranny. If you let it spread, you'll soon be bowing to the people who insist on your silence. Don't forget what your life means to these terrorists, whether you mock them or not.
      I'm afraid you don't understand my point in the least bit. I don't consider the freedom to mock and ridicule people based on their religious beliefs, culture or race to be "my freedom" and a freedom worth defending. I am not risking "my speech," as it's speech that I wouldn't speak and cartoons that I wouldn't draw. I see no good reason for being mean spirited and hateful to other people for the sake of being mean spirited and hateful. Those cartoons aren't aimed at terrorists solely. If they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them, as I've both said and shown in this thread with cartoons that do mock terrorism. Those cartoons, whether the intended target audience reacts with violence or just suffers the humiliation of religious mockery silently offends many Muslims ... most certainly not just terrorists. I'm not even Muslim and I find them deeply offensive. Not particularly the blasphemy, because I'm not in the least bit religious. They are simply disgusting and revolting actually. They are created to deliberately offend Muslims and I find that uncivil.

      Whether or not someone has a right to mock, insult, ridicule and spread hate against those of different colors, culture, religion is unimportant to me. I won't support it, and that's the great thing about these freedoms ... I do have the right to not support it and speak out against it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813672].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        I'm afraid you don't understand my point in the least bit. I don't consider the freedom to mock and ridicule people based on their religious beliefs, culture or race to be "my freedom" and a freedom worth defending.
        SO WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WHO CARES what YOU "consider". THAT is not the point. That "mock and ridicule" *****NOW***** extends even to pointing out problems like we are here, or mentioning pig or pork or sausage, etc.... HECK, for moslems it EVEN means Christ, Christian, Jew, etc.....

        In the US, HECK, in much of the WORLD now, things are like THIS.

        I am not risking "my speech," as it's speech that I wouldn't speak and cartoons that I wouldn't draw. I see no good reason for being mean spirited and hateful to other people for the sake of being mean spirited and hateful.
        You're a WOMAN! Just YOUR EXISTENCE, as you know it, offends them! They would force you to convert, change, and/or be KILLED! BE HAPPY they aren't in control!

        Those cartoons aren't aimed at terrorists solely. If they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them, as I've both said and shown in this thread with cartoons that do mock terrorism.
        The first cartoon, from Denmark so many years back, as I recall, DID mock terrorism! The author was threatened with DEATH!

        Those cartoons, whether the intended target audience reacts with violence or just suffers the humiliation of religious mockery silently offends many Muslims ... most certainly not just terrorists. I'm not even Muslim and I find them deeply offensive. Not particularly the blasphemy, because I'm not in the least bit religious. They are simply disgusting and revolting actually. They are created to deliberately offend Muslims and I find that uncivil.
        It is NO different than those places mocking OTHER religions!

        Whether or not someone has a right to mock, insult, ridicule and spread hate against those of different colors, culture, religion is unimportant to me. I won't support it, and that's the great thing about these freedoms ... I do have the right to not support it and speak out against it.
        Then speak out against the injustice while you can!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813780].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          SO WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WHO CARES what YOU "consider". THAT is not the point. That "mock and ridicule" *****NOW***** extends even to pointing out problems like we are here, or mentioning pig or pork or sausage, etc.... HECK, for moslems it EVEN means Christ, Christian, Jew, etc
          Gee. Are you saying that divergent opinions aren't welcome here? Must everyone jump on the same bandwagon and "be Charlie"? lol. Get over it.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          You're a WOMAN! Just YOUR EXISTENCE, as you know it, offends them! They would force you to convert, change, and/or be KILLED! BE HAPPY they aren't in control!
          Funny ... that wasn't how my Muslim friends felt at all. I think you may be mistaking radicalized Muslims with ordinary, every day Muslims.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813790].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Gee. Are you saying that divergent opinions aren't welcome here? Must everyone jump on the same bandwagon and "be Charlie"? lol. Get over it.



            Funny ... that wasn't how my Muslim friends felt at all. I think you may be mistaking radicalized Muslims with ordinary, every day Muslims.
            Let me tell you a little story about a country. This has happened in MANY countries, INCLUDING the US, but I will tell you a story about one that MOST people recognize to a degree!

            There was once a guy that was upset. He had nothing to do and had hatred of some. He ALSO wanted to be like a god. He found a little group, and decided to target their hatred and focus it like a laser. He had an uprising. People laughed it off, figured the guy could do nothing, and they threw him in jail for inciting a riot, public disturbance, etc... He wrote a book about the hassles. He planned everything out and tried to make a case. He determined that if things were timed JUST RIGHT, they could kill all those that would stop him, and be in control. ODD! In the US, a person named John Wilkes Booth had a similar idea over 100 years earlier, and FAILED! He was to be released from jail on about 1929!

            Anyway, regardless of how he finally got control, as I have heard differing details, the fact is that he got control in 1933, and those aligned with him brainwashed the youth, and lied and stretched the truth to others. THOSE then made it DANGEROUS to say anything to contradict the guy that would be god. Free speech to a fair degree was GONE! Some of course, couldn't go along, since they were the target. In 1935 all their businesses were trashed and many of them were killed.

            I probably don't need to tell you who THEY were. That guy recently got listed as the 2nd most evil person ever, and the #1 most evil in the past century.As for John Wilkes Booth? You might know, but his goal was NOT to kill Lincoln! That was only one of the people he wanted to kill to get to the goal. And I could tell you about the group HE was aligned with, but hopefully that is obvious. THAT group, like the other, is against all that would disagree with them, and wanted to control the country..

            BTW the moslem extremists have said the SAME! They WILL kill, and HAVE killed, those that are against them. ALSO, they have setup schools encouraging kids to follow them.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814192].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author positivenegative
              The Pope got it right, today . . .

              Speaking to journalists flying with him to the Philippines, Pope Francis said last week's attacks were an "aberration", and such horrific violence in God's name could not be justified.

              He staunchly defended freedom of expression, but then he said there were limits, especially when people mocked religion.

              "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."
              BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits


              @Don (ForumGuru)

              This is EXACTLY what Suzanne, myself and others have been trying to get through under your thick, biased skin.

              We all believe in free speech. What we DON'T believe in is pushing those boundaries to the extreme limits of DELIBERATE provocation of peoples religious beliefs, and moreso doing it in the full knowledge that there will be inevitable consequences of those actions.

              Before you get on your high horse once again and bombard us with your graphs, charts and statistics, let's just remind people viewing this thread that you've had run-ins with numerous members here recently (and over the years) simply because you can't stand to be proved wrong on ANYTHING. You twist, turn, and try to corrupt what others have said in a vain attempt to stand by your own misguided views.

              You don't stigmatise and deride a whole religion because of a small percentage of misguided followers. And you don't condone the killing of innocent people in the name of a distorted view of what free speech is.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814246].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              BTW the moslem extremists have said the SAME! They WILL kill, and HAVE killed, those that are against them. ALSO, they have setup schools encouraging kids to follow them.

              Steve
              Duh ... I guess me living here just a hop skip and a jump from New York City didn't know that extremists ...terrorists would kill, have killed those that are against them.

              So, have you actually read anything in this thread indicating that anyone here supports terrorism?

              I didn't think so.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815046].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                Duh ... I guess me living here just a hop skip and a jump from New York City didn't know that extremists ...terrorists would kill, have killed those that are against them.

                So, have you actually read anything in this thread indicating that anyone here supports terrorism?

                I didn't think so.
                I think you know what I mean! By against, I mean openly not for, as in even trying to STOP the carnage through a question or plea.

                NOPE, I didn't see anything on this thread that supports terrorism. Either way, it likely wouldn't mean anything anyway.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815501].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        I'm afraid you don't understand my point in the least bit. I don't consider the freedom to mock and ridicule people based on their religious beliefs, culture or race to be "my freedom" and a freedom worth defending. I am not risking "my speech," as it's speech that I wouldn't speak and cartoons that I wouldn't draw. I see no good reason for being mean spirited and hateful to other people for the sake of being mean spirited and hateful. Those cartoons aren't aimed at terrorists solely. If they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them, as I've both said and shown in this thread with cartoons that do mock terrorism. Those cartoons, whether the intended target audience reacts with violence or just suffers the humiliation of religious mockery silently offends many Muslims ... most certainly not just terrorists. I'm not even Muslim and I find them deeply offensive. Not particularly the blasphemy, because I'm not in the least bit religious. They are simply disgusting and revolting actually. They are created to deliberately offend Muslims and I find that uncivil.

        Whether or not someone has a right to mock, insult, ridicule and spread hate against those of different colors, culture, religion is unimportant to me. I won't support it, and that's the great thing about these freedoms ... I do have the right to not support it and speak out against it.
        Yeah I do understand your point.

        We don't really have to care what you don't consider freedom. If we had to care what you consider "appropriate" without deserving to be hacked to pieces for it, then it wouldn't be freedom, would it?

        I find your statement that Charlie deserved what he got for insulting someone extremely disturbed, yet I don't feel anyone has the right to come slaughter you for saying it.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813804].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          I find your statement that Charlie deserved what he got for insulting someone extremely disturbed, yet I don't feel anyone has the right to come slaughter you for saying it.
          Well, except that I didn't say anyone deserved what they got for insults. That's just what you're saying I said. I said that it wouldn't bother me if the terrorists took it out on the people who offended them rather than on those that did not. It's fairly obvious now with innocent people in their graves, that Charlie with his brand new prophet cartoon could care less who dies for their cartoons. I have a different view of fighting terrorism. Counter-intelligence, find them, destroy them, but inciting when you know the result is going to be other people's blood is a wreckless disregard for innocent victims.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813838].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Salmon Rushdie expresses it well. I don't necessarily like it - I'm sometimes uncomfortable with it or with defending it...yet I think he's right. Freedom of speech must be unfettered and unqualified or it means nothing.

            There is no "right to free speech, but..." or "right to free speech, except...". If "but" or "except" is a qualifier, there is no free speech.

            I've seen cartoons I find objectionable - I've read opinions I find in bad taste - but those are MY reactions to what is drawn or written or said. That's internal to me.

            I may not like what you say. I can walk away and refuse to listen - I can argue with your point of view - that's not the same as saying you don't have the right to express your view FREELY.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I'm going to work on being less condescending
            (Condescending means to talk down to people)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813900].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Salmon Rushdie expresses it well. I don't necessarily like it - I'm sometimes uncomfortable with it or with defending it...yet I think he's right. Freedom of speech must be unfettered and unqualified or it means nothing.

              There is no "right to free speech, but..." or "right to free speech, except...". If "but" or "except" is a qualifier, there is no free speech.

              I've seen cartoons I find objectionable - I've read opinions I find in bad taste - but those are MY reactions to what is drawn or written or said. That's internal to me.

              I may not like what you say. I can walk away and refuse to listen - I can argue with your point of view - that's not the same as saying you don't have the right to express your view FREELY.
              Two points. We're talking about France and a French company with numerous restrictions on free speech and selective enforcement of those restrictive laws. The people in the US are defending Charlie based on US law, rather than their own laws and their own case histories of prosecutions for "free speech."

              Second point. In the US, we have free speech, but or right of free speech, except. We have qualifiers. Anyone who thinks we don't, hasn't checked around for all the litigation for "free speech" going through the courts.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813906].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Salmon Rushdie expresses it well.
              For sure! I had referenced Salman Rushdie on "The Interview" thread and below are a few of his tweets regarding the terrorist attacks in France.







              Cheers

              -don
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813931].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author discrat
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


              Freedom of speech must be unfettered and unqualified or it means nothing.

              There is no "right to free speech, but..." or "right to free speech, except...". If "but" or "except" is a qualifier, there is no free speech.
              Free Speech ? There is no such thing as 'ABSOLUTE' Free speech. All you guys who think ALL Free Speech should be.... well FREE without any repercussions or without ANY kind of filter or qualifier aren't thinking this through carefully.

              Lets do this experiment...

              Lets see someone start a Thread here entitled, "I want to K@ll President Barack Obama and How I would do it "

              And expound talking about how you might do it. ( and you wouldn't even have to make a direct threat at all just insinuate with FICTIONAL details how you MIGHT do it in a theoretical situation)

              Come on ALL you Freedom Toters .

              Lets man up and see you do it. It doesn't even have to be Obama , lets do George W Bush.

              Go ahead. Put your Money where your mouth is

              My point ? There is no such thing as Free Speech without 'qualifying' it to some degree. That's ridiculous and being a silly Romantic !!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813969].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              There is no "right to free speech, but..." or "right to free speech, except...". If "but" or "except" is a qualifier, there is no free speech.
              So why are there laws against defamation, slander and libel?
              Signature
              Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
              So that blind people can hate them as well.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814263].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                So why are there laws against defamation, slander and libel?
                Sure those laws exist, but hey are not usually applicable with regards to comedy and satire here in the U.S and many other places.

                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814272].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                  Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                  They are not usually applicable with regards to comedy and satire here in the U.S and many other places.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  An excellent point, however the post I was responding to did not mention satire or comedy. It stated:
                  There is no "right to free speech, but..." or "right to free speech, except...". If "but" or "except" is a qualifier, there is no free speech.
                  My point was that there are indeed "qualifiers" that do put limits on what can be said or printed.
                  Signature
                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814286].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                    My point was that there are indeed "qualifiers".
                    Of course you are absolutely correct!

                    Cheers

                    -don
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814294].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I have a hard time with any group that starts moving into a country then demanding that country abide by their religion or law.
      You mean like white people did in America, Canada, Australia, etc..
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814257].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        You mean like white people did in America, Canada, Australia, etc..
        ^^^^^^^ YES !! Amen ,One of the best post in this Thread so far
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814349].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        You mean like white people did in America, Canada, Australia, etc..
        People make a big deal about this, but Asians, blacks, and Polynesians did the SAME thing! And why single out America, Canada, and Australia? How about places like GREECE!? You DO know why a marathon is called a marathon, right? You DO know what the Olympics was about, right? HECK, how about the BIBLE? And HECK, the british have gone EVERYWHERE! A popular saying when I was young was that "The sun never sets on the british empire". MAYBE that is true now about the US. MAYBE! BUT, if it is, it is a relatively new development and only because of some incidental lands that likely have the same culture they did before.

        And who is to say the Indians came here first? I mean at least most apparently were here BEFORE the whites, but the whole argument hinges on them simply coming to a virgin land. They THEMSELVES fought against one another.

        We always say "THE INDIANS", or "NATIVE AMERICANS". The fact is that either term refers to a GROUP of people that were pretty different from one another.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814470].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author discrat
          Steve,
          Your African American right ? Or am I getting you confused with someone else ?
          Maybe Iam as I get confused with so many people here, coming and going and trying to remember who said what etc..etc..

          But anyway not sure why you seem to always be on the defensive and be so mean spirited towards race and it be such on ongoing problematic topic for you.
          I know a lot of African Americans have very legitimate gripes with the crap going on here in US but you seem to take it way overboard on the point of being inflammatory.

          To be honest, Im not sure what kind of Role model you are trying to be for other Black People ( or for anyone for that matter) by attacking other Races.

          It just confounds me

          Just keeping it real
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814715].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
            Murdered Charlie Hebdo editor 'dragged the team' to their death: Founding member of controversial magazine says increasingly provocative cartoons led to shooting

            For 45 years, the Charlie Hebdo magazine has unashamedly poked fun at taboo topics the mainstream publications would not dare to.

            But one of its founders, Henri Roussel, believes it was the former editor Stephane Charbonnier's 'pig-headed' insistence on satirising Islam that lead to his, and seven of his colleagues' deaths.

            Writing in this week's Nouvel Obs magazine, Roussel accuses Charbonnier of 'dragging the team' to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons such as the images of the Prophet Muhammad.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814794].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sisibebe
              is a tragedy what happened to paris. I hope not to be surprised about other attacks in other major cities.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814896].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Yes, to me it is quite amusing to see such staunch defense of a group that so very deliberately inflames terrorists while the bodies of innocent victims aren't even cold yet. How they gleefully publish their new prophet cartoon, with their new found wealth in hand, spewing insults to those who support them, putting more innocent victims at risk.

              'I think we are thoughtless imbeciles who have taken a useless risk, that's all,' Roussel claims that Wolinski told him back in 2011.

              'We think we're invulnerable. For years, decades even, we stir things up and then one day all our stirring blows up in our face. We shouldn't have done it.' Source: Same link as Midnight Oil posted
              Of course, Richard Malka, the lawyer who has represented Charlie Hebdo the past 22 years, reacted furiously at Roussel's comments. <<<< Note the irony. He's "furious" over someone else's free speech.

              He said: 'Charb has not yet even been buried and Obs (the magazine which printed Roussel's column) finds nothing better to do that to publish a polemical and venomous piece on him.'

              Defending his decision to publish the piece, Nouvel Obs' editor Matthieu Croissandeau, said: 'We received this text and after a debate I decided to publish it in an edition on freedom of expression, it would have seemed to me worrisome to have censored his voice, even if it is discordant.

              'Particularly as this is the voice of one of the pioneers of the gang.'
              There are two heroes in this story ... and both of them are Muslim.

              For all of those staunch supporters, put your money where your mouth is. You said you'd die to defend the right to spew hate and religious intolerance disguised as satire. Do you have your tickets to France yet?

              Charlie Hebdo cartoonist: ‘We vomit’ on those who suddenly support us
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815051].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                Yes, to me it is quite amusing to see such staunch defense of a group that so very deliberately inflames terrorists while the bodies of innocent victims aren't even cold yet. How they gleefully publish their new prophet cartoon, with their new found wealth in hand, spewing insults to those who support them, putting more innocent victims at risk.
                I agree that these cartoons are just going to make things worse. I said earlier, those who want the cartoons find the murder of those that drew them disgusting. For many Muslims, those that shot the cartoonists are good and the cartoons are disgusting.

                Until we can figure that out, expect more of the same.

                There are two heroes in this story ... and both of them are Muslim.
                Actually there were three. The one you didn't mention was the non muslim who hid under the sink in the print shop where the two brothers had the guy hostage. He gave the police tactical information about the building.

                For all of those staunch supporters, put your money where your mouth is. You said you'd die to defend the right to spew hate and religious intolerance disguised as satire. Do you have your tickets to France yet?
                I'm sure that isn't directed at me and I didn't ever defend they're right to do it, rather it's a shame people want to kill people when provoked, unlike every other religion or group they poked fun at.

                That's a fact we have to accept. Produce images of the prophet and parts of the religion will want to murder people, quite often any people, to feel better in the thought that the prophet has been avenged.

                This whole situation is now a complete mess.
                Signature

                Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815086].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                  I'm sure that isn't directed at me and I didn't ever defend they're right to do it, rather it's a shame people want to kill people when provoked, unlike every other religion or group they poked fun at.
                  No Richard. At least your responses in this thread have been balanced, weighing both sides of the story equally. In their defense of "free speech, there are those in this thread who attempt to vilifi dissenting opinions and even insert words like > deserved to die < when quoting me to inflame and make their points ... words that I didn't say, when I discussed that Charlie Hebdo and they alone should take the risk if they think that spreading hate and intolerance are worthy causes to die for.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815106].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    No Richard. At least your responses in this thread have been balanced, weighing both sides of the story equally. In their defense of "free speech, there are those in this thread who attempt to vilifi dissenting opinions and even insert words like > deserved to die < when quoting me to inflame and make their points ... words that I didn't say, when I discussed that Charlie Hebdo and they alone should take the risk if they think that spreading hate and intolerance are worthy causes to die for.
                    Yes I do try and understand both sides to see where they're coming from. I'd also be interested to see (and we could never do this) what percentage of French people agreed with the cartoons before the attacks and now. I believe the circulation was something tiny like 45,000 before this?

                    I think for the French it's a kind of national pride thing. They understandably don't want to be dictated to and therefore even though this is offensive and will create a response, they feel they have the right to do that.

                    Then you have extremists who have a deep seated belief that God wants them to murder the people responsible. At least with the brothers they shot the people that drew the cartoons and Ahmed the policeman but they did make a point of not killing any civilians. The other chap in the supermarket was just a disgrace to humankind. Indiscriminately attacking a Jewish supermarket to shoot Jews who probably never read Charlie Hebdo and don't probably even like it at all, is just plain silly.

                    Regarding the free speech thing, I agree with Alexa's 'within the boundary of the law' comment. If it incites hatred and has an incendiary effect that may cause people to take drastic action, I'm not sure it should be published or said at all. Like Anjem Choudary here and the video you couldn't see yesterday, they take advantage of 'free speech' and I also think their comments have a similar effect on non Muslims to take matters into their own hands.

                    I just wish human beings would learn to be sensible but that's just taking things a bit too far.
                    Signature

                    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815149].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                Of course, Richard Malka, the lawyer who has represented Charlie Hebdo the past 22 years, reacted furiously at Roussel's comments. <<<< Note the irony. He's "furious" over someone else's free speech.



                There are two heroes in this story ... and both of them are Muslim.

                For all of those staunch supporters, put your money where your mouth is. You said you'd die to defend the right to spew hate and religious intolerance disguised as satire. Do you have your tickets to France yet?
                Well, the one problem with free speech is that EVERYONE supports speech that supports them. EVERYONE supports speech they like! So the idea of protecting free speech IS to protect speech that is not liked.

                And I can support someone's right, even if I vehemently disagree. Unless there is an immediate threat to something I personally hold dear, or I can make a real impact in something I like, I am not going to do something like fly over there. Of course I am NOT for the religious intolerance. And I made that vague NOT to be vague, or even copy you, but that I don't like ANY of it! If we are going to let the moslems get a free ride, let the jews, christians, catholics, hindus, etc... get one ALSO. Perhaps we should outlaw any satire used to counter the truth, or inflame a group, unless it is about a current leader. So most of the onion, for example, would be ******GONE******! All the symbolic imagery, except to symbolize the pope, or some imam, etc...(As the PERSON, NOT the office) would be GONE. And the idea that you say that a person, office, or religion is AGAINST what it is actually for simply shouldn't be allowed. BTW That ALSO happened in WWII germany!

                OH, and I LOVE it when you have such heroes. At least they aren't ALL bad.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815537].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  Perhaps we should outlaw any satire used to counter the truth, or inflame a group, unless it is about a current leader. So most of the onion, for example, would be ******GONE******! All the symbolic imagery, except to symbolize the pope, or some imam, etc...(As the PERSON, NOT the office) would be GONE. And the idea that you say that a person, office, or religion is AGAINST what it is actually for simply shouldn't be allowed. BTW That ALSO happened in WWII germany!

                  OH, and I LOVE it when you have such heroes. At least they aren't ALL bad.

                  Steve
                  I'm not for banning satire, but I don't support any speech that is hate speech intended to inflame, insult and ridicule based on their culture, religion and race. I've stated that quite a few times now. I don't support it personally, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a right to exist, although since we are actually discussing a situation in France, in spite of what the resident French lawyer will say, they do have restrictive speech laws that could use to shut CH down if they chose to.

                  Just look at the US laws on hate crime. This type of speech, if you combine it with violence, is called a hate crime. Take away the violence and it's just free speech, but the hate is still there. Under certain conditions, even in the US, hate speech can be prosecuted. Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.
                  The onion is actually mostly funny (until that recent really disgusting image they served up in support of being as disgusting and offensive as you possibly can ... they then published another satire piece: Area Man Willing To Give Up Any Of Muslims’ Rights Necessary To Feel Safe and then this piece on Racism LOL.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815611].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by discrat View Post

            Steve,
            Your African American right ? Or am I getting you confused with someone else ?
            Maybe Iam as I get confused with so many people here, coming and going and trying to remember who said what etc..etc..
            NOPE! I'm white. Although my family has a lot of cultures, and I have only really followed my fathers line, I didn't find any that say they were black.

            But anyway not sure why you seem to always be on the defensive and be so mean spirited towards race and it be such on ongoing problematic topic for you.
            I know a lot of African Americans have very legitimate gripes with the crap going on here in US but you seem to take it way overboard on the point of being inflammatory.
            HECK NO! I am AGAINST that garbage. Of course, if you are a straight white male not associated with a protected class, you see a LOT of racism, etc.... You simply aren't allowed to point it out, and I do. I think you have me confused with midnight oil, or TL though. In fact, I never really said anything along these lines until TL.

            To be honest, Im not sure what kind of Role model you are trying to be for other Black People ( or for anyone for that matter) by attacking other Races.
            When did I attack any races? HECK, I posted a post a couple days ago about a nice moslem. As I recall, he was even darker skinned. I wanted ben carson to run and things being equal, I would vote for him. I was attacked here because I was for George zimmerman. OK, he seems kind of white, but made NO secret of his mexican heritage.

            As for being a role model for other black people? You could say they are in two groups. One I am absolutely fine with! I am fine if they just go on with their lives etc.... The OTHERS would never give me the time of day. If I were black, they would assume I was white, and attack me for some bias. They are probably laughing at your post calling me black.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9815493].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Here are a couple of snippets of free speech spoken by Francois Hollande, the President of France.

    "Charlie Hebdo is alive and will live on"

    "You can murder men and women but you can never kill their ideas"

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9813979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Here is a couple of snippets of free speech spoken by Francois Hollande, the President of France.

      "Charlie Hebdo is alive and will live on"

      "You can murder men and women but you can never kill their ideas"

      Cheers

      -don
      And IMHO, Charlie is an ideal who's time has come to pass.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814032].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Secretary of State John Kerry:

    “The murderers dared proclaim, ‘Charlie Hebdo is dead.’ But, make no mistake. They are wrong… no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror."

    President Barack Obama:

    "The fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press,"

    But the one thing that I'm very confident about is that the values that we share with the French people, a belief — a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few."


    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814054].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Lets do this experiment...
      Let's not. In fact, let's stop quoting U.S. officials a week or more after the attack (after they've had time to re-evaluate where they stand or sit).

      It's not perfect - it's an ideal and you can't always reach ideals in a society because other societal rules limit freedoms WHEN YOUR FREEDOMS IMPINGE ON THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS WHO HAVE RIGHTS AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR OWN.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814072].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
        Banned
        You can profess to have all the free speech that you rightfully claim. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that all actions have consequences. You know what they say, "Mess with the bull and you get the horns."

        I'm a firm believer in the concept of free speech in our society. That said, I'm generally fairly prudent in how I choose exercise that right. That's how I got to be this old. :-)

        Now, if that makes ,e a coward in anyone's eyes, here's one more thing 'they' say. "I'd rather be a live chicken than a dead hero." That stems from not believing in an afterlife. I want mine now - and for as long as I can possibly have it.

        Cheers. - Frank
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814091].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Yeah ... but I wonder if Charlie Hebdo will be doing any more "satire" about the French government ... like they did when they were immediately banned for their de Gualle stunt. lol.

    This tweet from writer and activist Dyab Abou Jahjah set the hashtag #JeSuisAhmed on fire

    I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

    — Dyab Abou Jahjah (@Aboujahjah) January 8, 2015
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814063].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Charlie Hedbo has have been publishing in France since 1970 and they regularly lampoon political figures, including members of the French government. On New Year's Eve (2014) they published a caricature of a dog having sex with French President Francois Hollande's leg.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814085].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        Charlie Hedbo has have been publishing in France since 1970 and they regularly lampoon political figures, including members of the French government. On New Year's Eve they published a caricature of a dog having sex with French President Francois Hollande's leg.

        Cheers

        -don
        Well everybody has sex with Hollande's leg. lol. Like I said, French enforcement of free speech is selective.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9814115].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeKn1qu3z
    Freedom of press is something that only a few countries such as USA allow. In other countries the government censors a lot of media into and out of the country.